This is a case study of the interaction in the debate between the New Christian Right and its opponents. Because these groups argue from incompatible premises, they are unable to understand one another's position within a common moral framework. The result has been a reciprocated diatribe in which invective is typical. The case illustrates a common problem in contemporary communication that is characteristic of a number of ideological conflicts in which disputants' beliefs are bolstered by their interpretations of the responses of the other side.
Communication Quarterly
Volume 35, 1987 - Issue 2
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related Research Data
Refusal to compromise: The case of earth first!
Source:
Informa UK Limited
Extending the Theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) Through a Community Dialogue Process
Source:
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Linking provided by
