PR Pope admits divisiveness and contradictions (inadvertantly)

It has been roughly a week and a half since I read the Catholic News Agency piece "Let go of 'false lights' that lead down the wrong path, Pope says." No one seems to have followed up or comment on it that I can find. This is interesting since if you think about its contents critically for more than a few minutes it reveals that the Pope inadvertently admitted that Christianity is divisive and that the Pope routinely conveys contradictory messages. Consider:

“If now I were to ask you, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that he can change your heart? Do you think you can see reality as he sees it, not as we do? Do you believe that he is light, that he gives us the true light?...abandoning false lights...cold and fatuous light of prejudice against others, because prejudice distorts reality and builds hate against those who we judge without mercy and condemn without an appeal.”

If Jesus is the "true light" doesn't that at least imply that all other religions and beliefs are "false lights"? How is this compatible with previous appeals to treating all faiths equally? How does this not contradict to some degree the last part of the quotation. If you are compelled by faith to assume all other religions and beliefs are false how can you not become prejudiced against them? Logically, this notion seems to lead to and even demand prejudice and divisiveness.

"Authentic _______(fill in Religion)"

Anytime you come across words like "authentic", "true", or "real" in conjunction with any religion you can assume that what follows will be complete bull shit. A recent post by Roger E. Olson, "Why Authentic Christians Must Oppose the Death Penalty", is no exception. In fact, it's a pretty blatant example. Jesus is not a good figure to go back to when trying to come up with a poster boy for the abolition of the death penalty. There are numerous passages where the Jesus figure shows himself to be temperamental and at times a homicidal asshole. One of my favorite passages in this regard is Luke 19:27

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to how this could mean anything other than a direct command from Jesus to his followers to round up and massacre all non-followers. Call me crazy, but commanding mass murder seems rather antithetical to abolishing the death penalty.

The truth of the matter is that "real" Christians can pretty much behave any fucking way they want since their religion is so convoluted and contradictory that it can be interpreted in just about anyway the imagination wants. That goes for every religion I've ever come across.

Conflation Nation

To be honest, I'm not sure if John Reynolds is being intentionally deceitful or if he is just clueless. In either case his Eidos blog post on Patheos, "Did America become a Christian nation in the Fifties?", relies heavily on conflating two very different meanings for the term "Christian nation." In the very first sentence of this piece he states:
"My newsfeed has two kinds of common historically inaccurate stories. Members of my own Faith often exaggerate the Christian nature of the American Founding and experience while secularists keep writing that America was never a Christian nation."

I don't know what sources he uses but given that I read voraciously I have to assume he is either reading the most esoteric and extreme outlets possible or he is being disingenuous. Virtually every secularist, liberal, and atheist I know does refute the notion that our country was founded expressly on "Christian" values and doctrines. They do not deny that the majority of Americans at the time, including the "Founding Fathers", were themselves Christian. Those are two quite different things.

Even though Reynolds makes a few valid points in the piece most of it is degraded by this false premise that everyone using the term "Christian nation" is talking about the same thing. I got the impression that this was at least partially intentional. It seemed like he wanted to be able to criticize secularists without seeming unreasonable, petty, or preachy. Instead, I found him to be misleading and ignorant. I'm pretty sure that was not his goal but since he cannot make his case without logical fallacies or outright falsehoods it is hard not to view him in such a way.

Actually, it is eurocentric

Once again Bad Catholic is proving just how bad at logic and critical thinking he is. In a recent post, "No, Christianity’s Not Eurocentric (But You Kind Of Are)", he conflates a few things and ignores a lot more. Christianity is not eurocentric because there happen to be racist individuals among it's membership. That is not the argument. Christianity is eurocentric because it is dominated and always has been by those of european decent. Marc's own preferred faith, Catholicism, is a prime example. All you have to do to see how full of shit he is is ask two basic questions (and, of course, find the answers). Who runs the Catholic Church? How is Christ commonly portrayed?

To answer the first question an excellent resource is the Vatican itself. Using the Vatican's own information about it's hierarchy reveals that even those not currently of an european nationality a sizable percentage are of European ancestry. Just go through the List of Cardinals according to Nations and in order of Age as a jumping point to look into there background and you will confirm this fact. So lets recap. The individuals who run the church and are responsible for all it policies and doctrines are largely of European descent. This pretty well refutes Marc. If the overall membership of the church is becoming more diverse and has been for years shouldn't the leadership reflect that? It doesn't. Ooops.

Then we have the way Jesus is often portrayed by the church. Jesus supposedly was born and grew up in the Middle East yet he almost always look like a white western European gentleman. Why? The answer to this question is also pretty simple. Europeans run the church and are more comfortable with figures who look like themselves. The central figure of Christianity is presented as an European despite claims to his having been a Middle Easterner. How is that not eurocentric?

Yup, Bad Catholic is still a willfully ignorant dumb-ass.

Still Logically Untenable

Even though I am sympathetic to TJ Montoya and I tend to favor more liberal strains of theism over their conservative cousins, his overall message is just as willfully ignorant and self deluded as the narrow minded pin-heads who condemn him. Montoya does a pretty good job with his Youtube video but he really does not accomplish what he seems to think he has. Demonstrating that conservative interpretations of the Bible are generally hypocritical self serving forms of bigotry does not itself prove that homosexuality is compatible with either the Bible or Christianity. The simple truth is that Christianity does condemn homosexuals. It just happens to also condemn a wide variety of other behaviors and practices common among all those currently alive. The brief HuffPo write-up on Montoya's video is actually rather annoying since they just pile on another layer of unnecessary bullshit.

"In this video, 18-year-old TJ Montoya discusses the conclusions he has reached as a self-identifying gay Christian after being out of the closet for five years. This well-researched and nuanced discussion serves as a response to Christians who don't necessarily understand what the Bible really has to say about same-sex attraction." Again, Montoya does produced a nice short video. However, it is laced with a wide variety of logical fallacies. It certainly isn't that "well-researched and nuanced." It appears to be more profound mainly due to that fact that the average theist, including nearly the entire stable of HuffPo writers, knows next to nothing about the Bible or Christianity. Reading the Bible cover to cover and paying attention to what it says is merely a small step in the right direction. Montoya probably also read a little further. He probably did a little more research than the average curious person but I don't get the impression he went much beyond that. Simply noting the opinions of others isn't really research.

Sorry TJ but the Bible really does condemn you. Christ also in more than one place reiterates support for Mosaic Law, which also condemns homosexuals. But, if it's any consolation, you and all other homosexuals will have lots of company in Hell. Virtually the entire human species are, according to Biblical standards, sinful "abominations". It's probably a good thing that Hell is as imaginary as God and/or Jesus (depending on whether they are a single entity or not).

Listinng things don't make them true

Mark Sandlin's "10 MORE Things Churches Can’t Do While Following Jesus" is complete crap. There isn't a single on on his list that can't be debated. It is true that you can find scriptural passages that support his favored claims but you can also find passages that contradict his views. I have written about this numerous times. The "truth" is that there is not a single Jesus in the the New Testament. There are a variety of personas that get portrayed under the name Jesus. Pick the Jesus you like best and you can find support for that version. There are a handful from Sandlin's list that I find rather entertaining since there are blatant counter-examples.

"3) Turn the poor away....
4) Narrowly define who is and who isn’t a Christian....
5) Define yourself more by what you’re are against than what you support....
9) Love the sinner hate the sin."

A couple passages I've referenced before immediately spring to mind. Mark 14:3-7 is Jesus' cute self centered "fuck you" to the poor that I have commented on previously. If Jesus can decide on a whim to ignore the poor why can't another self-righteous asshole do the same? Then, of course, there's Luke 19:27 where humanity's savior orders his followers to round up all non-followers and slaughter them. That rather short passage seems to kick the shit out of Sandlin's 4,5,9 and most of the other "10 more things..." to boot.

It is really pretty simple. Followers of Jesus can do just about anything they want in Jesus name and justify it with scripture. This might account for why Christianity became and continues to be so wide spread.

Lots of people

Lots of people; That's the answer to the rhetorical question posed by Trey Lion's "Who Would Jesus Shoot?" I do agree with quite a bit of his commentary but find it rather silly and ignorant to appeal to religion for support. The assholes who oppose even mild gun control/gun regulation are just as religious as those who support such restrictions. It is also the height of self-delusion to turn to the Christ figure on such matters. As I have pointed out there isn't a single Jesus in scripture. At least one version was, according to the New Testament, a tempermental violent bastard. Luke 19:27 is a pretty blatant example:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Sorry, my initial answer is slightly inaccurate. Jesus would kill all non-Christians. Given that the Christians worldwide number around 2 billion, that means Christ would be just fine with slaughtering around 5 billion people. Somehow I don't think genocide is a good answer for reducing gun violence.

More Jesus related foolishness

I came across a handful of article this past week that just seemed so patently ridiculous even by the low standards of religion. I've picked just two to name; "The miracle of Jesus is not needing a miracle at all" on Examiner.com and "Who, What, Why: What language would Jesus have spoken?" from BBC's blog Magazine Monitor.

Reread those and take a few moments to spot why the titles (the content is actually worse) are so idiotic.

If you strip away the Jesus figures supernatural elements what is left? This, of course, assumes you didn't pick up on the semantic issues. Miracle - miracle = nothing. Without the miracles doesn't that make Jesus just another wandering preacher? The world has always had plenty of them.

Why would the language matter that much? Even after you make the huge assumption that the guy ever existed most of the claims about him would make his preferred language a rather trivial point. It is also problematic since it is an assumption in itself that he would have a favored language or be limited to a specific language(s). Isn't he supposed to be divine? Isn't one of the main points of his preaching to pass on his/God's teaching? If a divine being can't communicate their message effectively how impressive can that being really be?

And theists wonder why non-theists mock and ridicule their beliefs.

Not so "Ballsy"

Prior to reading CNN Belief blog's "The next chapter in faith films: comedy" I had seen a handful of ads for "Mom's Night Out." It looked pretty lame and a bit annoying. As far as I can tell it relied entirely on outdated stereotypes and slapstick. In other words, there was nothing notable about it. Now that I know it is a "Christian" comedy I am slightly, only slightly, more curious. I still assume it will be mediocre at best but I am interested in seeing what those involved in the project seem to think makes it different from other comedies of its type. I doubt very much. Sean Astin's comment that it's "ballsy" for aiming at "middle-class Christian families" as a demographic is revealing. That demographic is basically the average American. It isn't ballsy so much as it is common practice. The majority of Americans are Christian. The majority of movies are aimed at them and will be so long as the average American still pays to see films.

In this type of context labeling anything "Christian" seems rather silly and self-righteous. Why bother? You can't get enough people to take your bullshit seriously in its proper setting so you have to resort to various ploys? That's certainly what it seems like to me.

Note: I probably won't bother seeing this in the theatre. I doubt it's worth the admission. I haven't decided if the curiosity factor outweighs my initial impressions. I also can't stand Patricia Heaton. I have seen a number of interviews with her and she isn't a particularly good actress. The "characters" I've seen her play aren't that far removed from who she really seems to be: a whiny self-absorbed sanctimonious arrogant bitch.

The Stupidity of Adam and Eve

In his New Republic piece, "Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again.", Jerry Coyne does an excellent job dismantling the Adam and Eve narrative. He not only points out a variety of reasons why the "literal" story is idiotic crap but also shows why it is just as stupid in symbolic/metaphoric terms. Unfortunately, many theists will never fully give up on such fucking ridiculous garbage. To some degree Christians can never fully distance themselves form that type of supernatural superstitious absurdity. All the basic doctrines that make Christians an identifiable religious group rely on them. Adam and Eve are so intimately bound to original sin and therefore Christ's "sacrifice" and "resurrection" that there is very little to salvage without it. The only possible work-around I can think of is to focus entirely on Jesus as a symbol of ethics and morality stripped of all the supernatural elements. Of course, that would rely on a whole other set of delusions to make it work (unique ethics, historicity, single figure).

Yes, Jonathan there is Context

In a recent Religious News Service post Jonathan Merritt once again does an incredibly shoddy job of reporting what he claims is the "woeful silence of the American church in the face of a global epidemic of Christian persecution." His blog post entitled "Three reasons the American church is ignoring Christian persecution" is really just warmed over Christian Right persecution paranoia. He takes a few grains of truth from widely exaggerated, misleading, and biased sources and then repackages it as if he actually knows what he is talking about. His main source seems to be the deeply flawed piece by Kristen Powers at the Daily Beast. He makes references to a number of puff pieces and out right hack jobs from sources like USA Today and The Hudson Institute. He doesn't seem to have bothered to do even the most basic fact checking of a single one of his sources. This would be bad enough if they were drawn from reasonable researched sources but not one of his sources has any credibility when it comes to investigative reporting. In fact, a few of them are routinely exposed as bigoted liars.

There are far too many problems with both his sources and his own writing to do them justice on a simple blog post so I will focus on one very important one: context. For Merritts piece to actually have any merit (yes, the cheesy pun is intended) the "facts" would have to be put in context. Sadly, it is true that somewhere in the world you can find ample evidence that one religious group or another is being persecute and even killed. This should not be allowed. However, making such hyperbolic claims about Christians being persecuted when put into context actually has the opposite of effect of what Merritt seems to intend. It debases the piece to absurdist theatre. When you look at both who is being persecute and who is doing the persecuting, Christians are the least victimized of all. What about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, or the countless indigenous faiths?

Not one of Merritt's 3 reasons stands up to any critical examination. In a global context it comes across as pathetic satire. If you narrow to a North American context it would be more accurately characterized as the school yard bully complaining that a few students refusal to give up their lunch money without being beaten led to his getting a bruised fist. And, no I am not justifying or rationalizing Christians being persecuted. Again, no one should be persecuted. If your Religion happens to be "the" dominant faith* on the face of the planet complaining about being abused when you have done little to help those being similarly abused comes across as being a pampered cry baby.

*No one in their right mind can possibly claim otherwise given that the overwhelming majority of individuals and groups that dominate the world's social, economic, and political institutions are Christian.

Boring?

I'm aware of a wide variety of summaries, descriptions, and criticisms of Christianity but I don't recall anyone calling it "boring." Even before considering all the mischief and mayhem this major world religion has foisted on the rest of us, reviewing the massive doses of intrigue and in-fighting that has occurred within and among the 40,000+ sects/denominations is anything but boring.

Once you get past this silly notion Acuff's example of excitement from the Gospel of Luke is pretty terrible. Then again, the Bible is chock full of horrendous behavior and piss-poor role models. The whole piece, "Should Christianity be so boring?", is a rambling mess that doesn't ever come together or make any coherent valid point.

If you're studying Christianity, or any religion, and you find it boring you either aren't paying attention or your research skills really suck. Whether you like it or not, religion is one of the most fascinating fields to study.

Just kidding, and F You

Wow, didn't have to wait long to be proven right about the Pope's latest PR ploy. A day after the Pope made his comment about atheists being redeemed a Vatican spokesman nullified the sentiment. That wasn't what surprised me. I was assuming they'd find a weasle-way to negate it without drawing too much attention to their intention. What did make me pause was the way Rosica attempted at reconciling the Pope's statement with it's correction*.

"[Pope Francis] is first and foremost a seasoned pastor and preacher who has much experience in reaching people...His words are not spoken in the context of a theological faculty or academy nor in interreligious dialogue or debate."

To me, that sounds like an admission that it really was a PR ploy. It also seems to imply that the Pope has little to do theological doctrines. Really?! Isn't he the top guy? "God's vicar" here on earth?

In comparison to a few other implications from the statements made by Rosica this is also of little consequence. Inadvertently, this spokesman has effectively admitted to a number of other points I, and others, have been making for years. He made it clear that the Catholic version of Christianity is by its nature divisive and bigoted. He justified his alterations to the Pope's statement by pointing out that the Catholic Catechism states,
"All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body,..."

If you stop and think about that for more than a minute it is a rather horrible statement. Essentially, only Christians can be "saved." It implies, at best, that everyone else is automatically damned. All non-Christians, whether atheist or theist, are wrong. It implies that billions of people are morally and ethically inferior to Christians. That is the theological equivalent of a big old Fuck You to the rest of us.


*Officially, the Catholic Church still maintains the doctrine that the Pope is infallible. They won't even admit that his statement was corrected since that would imply a mistake. They like to couch such corrections in terms like "clarified" or "amended."

Religion is Innately Supernatural

Recently the question of whether religion is automatically supernatural in nature and whether it is possible to deny the supernatural and still be Christian came up on Roger Olson's Patheos blog. It was an odd piece in that I found myself somewhat impressed by Olson's immediate admission that Christianity and religion are, or at least contain elements of, supernatural.

I was rather less impressed with the reason it came up and how he set about writing about the connection. He seems to have just assumed that one of his readers assertion about a notable theologians position on the subject was precisely what the reader claimed it to be. This reader claimed that Karl Barth did not believe in the "supernatural" and insisted that Christianity did not require it. I am by no means an expert on Barth's work but I have read some of it and don't recall his making such a definitive claim. Not only does Olson not indicate that he bothered to review any of Barth's writing to determine if the claim had any merit (being dead we can't just ask him), he spends most of the piece trying to reconcile Barth's supposed view with his own.

Though the mental gymnastics were amusing it seemed rather futile. Even if Barth did make such a claim it would not be the first time a theologian had deluded himself into believing something that is blatantly incoherent and contradictory. There is no aspect of Christ's supposed life and ministry that is not laced with the supernatural. Miracles, for instance, are by definition outside the natural laws. So is one of the most important aspects of the Christ narratives: resurrection.

Basically, whether Barth believed that religion, specifically Christianity, was innately supernatural does not change the fact that Christianity has to be. Without the miracles, the resurrection, and the transfer of sins as a result Christ would be just another itinerant preacher/reformer.

Actually, Christ does Need Christianity

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again point out that without "Christianity" there would be no Jesus Christ. Shane Hipps makes a feeble attempt at the opposite claim in his HuffPo piece, "Why Christ Doesn't Need Christianity." Like so many before him he simply ignores the most relevant details. That there are no accounts of Christ* outside of scripture should bother anyone interested in legitimate historical research.

I found the third paragraph particularly amusing. It is a single sentence but serves as an excellent example of his mindset.

"Just because Christianity claims Jesus as its own does not mean that Christ automatically claims Christianity as his own."

Setting aside that the likelihood that Christ ever really existed is near zero, it is an odd comment considering the consensus among Biblical scholars is that the earliest pieces in the New Testament are at least one generation removed from the time Christ was supposed to have lived. Having been dead for a handful of decades it would be rather difficult for Jesus to claim anything about Christianity whether he wanted to or not.

Which brings me back to the main point. Whether real or mythical, the odds that anyone would know anything about Jesus Christ had the Christian religion not formed is very low. Christ does need Christianity. On the other hand I can see Christianity outliving the notion that Christ was real. Daoism (or Taoism, if you prefer that spelling) is still around despite scholars coming to the consensus that its founding figure, Lao Tzu, never actually existed.


*There are accounts of Christians but that is hardly the same thing.

Another Silly Season

Another silly season is about to end. Easter doesn't seem to last quite as long and has not been commercialize as much as Christmas. That may have something to do with the smaller surge in stories about Jesus or it may just be coincidental. In either case there is a bit of irony that this Holiday does not get the same level of hype since in terms of theology it is far more important. The birth of the Christ figure, though notable in Christian Theology, pales in comparison to the resurrection upon which the faith is founded. I have to admit that the articles that have been popping up are more interesting this time around. Among the more interesting over the past month and a half are:

Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus
Did Jesus Exist?
Hunt for the Historical Jesus
The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus
If Jesus' Crucifixion Is the Solution, What's the Problem?
Why Did Jesus Go To Jerusalem? A Holy Week Reflection
Andrew Sullivan: Christianity in Crisis

Some of these I find interesting because they are either well written or make at least one decent point. While others fascinate me due to the level of ignorance dressed up either in scientific or intellectual terms. A chunk of them are centered around a relatively recent archeological discovery that is generally referred to as the "Patio Tomb." The work being conducted on this site could very well lead to a better understanding of the formation of Christianity. Unfortunately, a number of pieces on the discovery are highly misleading or outright false. It has yet to be determined that the ossuaries or "bone boxes" in the tomb are Christian. There are two pieces of evidence that are still being evaluated that may end up confirming this assumption. There is a symbol on the boxes that may be a fish. Many scholars are not convinced. It is possible that the symbol could be a roof. In either case a few are insisting that the fish symbol is automatically an indication of Christians. It isn't. The fish as a symbol has been used by virtually every culture around the world. Judaism is no exception. Tabor is convinced it is a reference to Jonah (which would be Jewish in origin) but doesn't seem to realize that the fish as a symbol of fertility among semitic people (Jews included) predates Judaism and therefore predates Christianity. The other proof is an inscription that has a handful of possible translations. Tabor and company have already concluded that it is a reference to Christ's resurrection. Assuming it can be interpreted to mean a resurrection at all it does not necessarily mean Christ. Resurrection is also a common theme.

There are a number of other foolish false conclusions made by Tabor but these do not directly involve the Patio Tomb. He reference another near by tomb with even more tenuous "findings." On a recent episode of Culture Shocks Barry Lynn interviewed Tabor and as a follow up Joe Nickell. It becomes pretty clear that Tabor reached conclusions ahead of any real findings. It also is very obvious that he is incapable of separating potential evidence of early Christians from evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. The former does not prove the latter. Even if you didn't know up front it was a joke, finding evidence for the existence of Pastafarians would not prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Once you get past the various pieces that drone on about the "historicity" of Christ you get a few pieces on the "true nature" of Christ. These don't tend to be as interesting. They are pretty standard and lack much in the way of originality or consistent critical thought. I found Sullivan's piece interesting mainly because I am fascinated by him. He is a walking contradiction of self-delusion and displaced self-righteous indignation. He tends to rattle on about the shortcoming of others without ever fully grasping his own or that he definitely contribute to many of the problems he sees. These interesting personality quirks go beyond his being a Christian conservative Republican homosexual. However, reread that last sentence and you got a good place to start thinking about why his ideas are such an odd jumble.In the end what he writes in regard to Christianity is not original or even much in the way of a variation.

Overall, these pieces and a few others did keep my interest longer than some of those I came across during the Christmas season. I hope that once the novelty wears off and the media loses interest that some more serious scholarship will be conducted regarding the Patio Tomb. Of course, religion is and will continue to get in the way. The Jewish Orthodox community has not allowed anyone to actually enter the tomb. Up to this point the "excavation" has been conducted by remote cameras.

Monotheism and Christianity

Even though many Christians assume that their religion is monotheistic by nature it is not. There are Christian monotheists but there are many sects/denominations within Christianity that are by their nature not monotheistic. Any fundamentalist or evangelical group that believes in a literal reading of the Bible is not monotheistic. Aside from the numerous passages that imply the existence of other gods, the acceptance of the devil as an independent being automatically negates any claim to being a monotheist

True monotheism requires that God be perfect and all powerful. To claim otherwise leaves room for the existence of other gods which by definition would contradict monotheism. If the devil is an independent entity with the ability to command evil forces and influence humans then the devil has some power. God, therefore, does not have all power and is not perfect. This god would then not be the one true god of monotheism. To be a monotheist requires the rejection of even the possibility of any other source of power beyond God.

It could also be debated as to whether any Christian individual or sect/denomination that accepts the idea of saints and/or angels is truly monotheistic. Whether you pray to or through a saint or angel, if it is accepted that they have power or influence of their own it would similarly negate the requirement that God be all powerful.

With these two scenarios in mind it may be more accurate to both belief and practice to consider groups of Christians to be dualistic or polytheistic. Most Christians would vehemently argue against this characterization but in all likelihood would ignore the contradictions at the heart of the argument. In some ways there are many who would have to ignore it. At least those who tend to view polytheism with contempt would find it necessary to do so.

Premarital Sex and Religious Delusions

A recent post on CNN's Belief blog, "Why Young Christians aren't waiting anymore", seems to have fallen for one of the favorite myths of the Christian Right. As the nation slowly but steadily shifts to a more secular outlook the nations morals have not really changed that much. Even if, premarital sex is an indicator of lax morals, there is nothing to indicate that the rates of sexual activity among the unmarried have changed in any statistically significant way. In general Christians are no different than any other identifiable group when it comes to sexual activity*. They may come across as more repressed and tend to deny publicly having sexual relations but that is not the same as actually abstaining. Maybe young Christians are becoming more honest and accepting of reality, at least as it relates to sexual behavior.



* Among conservative Christians there are actually some statistical differences when compared to more liberal Christians. Conservatives have higher rates of teen sex, teen pregnancies, and STDs in their general population (teens and adults). Conservatives also tend to have higher criminal rates related to sexual activity and personal relationships. They exceed their more liberal counterparts in rates of incest, adultery, domestic abuse, and rape.