Though I do respect and admire the Pew Research Center, I have pointed out that their surveys often have flaws. They provide a lot of great research that can be used as both catalysts and starting points for more in depth studies. But since most of their work relies on self reporting it should never be used as a stand-alone resource. Cathy Grossman doesn't seem to get that. The title of the piece, ironically, is more accurate than the content. In "Highly religious people say they’re happier, too, survey finds" never bothers to point out that for decades white evangelicals, which the piece is predominantly about, have been linked with both conservatism and anger. It is not some liberal media conspiracy since reputable conservative outlets have also noted the correlation. Below is just a handful of pieces that can be found on these links.
White Evangelicals = Conservatives
Brint, Steven, and Seth Abrutyn. "Who's Right About The Right? Comparing Competing Explanations Of The Link Between White Evangelicals And Conservative Politics In The United States." Journal For The Scientific Study Of Religion 49.2 (2010): 328-350. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Campbell, David E. "Religious “Threat” In Contemporary Presidential Elections." Journal Of Politics 68.1 (2006): 104-115. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Green, John C., and James L. Guth. "Evangelical Realignment: The Political Power Of The Christian Right. (Cover Story)." Christian Century 112.21 (1995): 676. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Kiecolt, K. Jill, and Hart M. Nelsen. "Evangelicals And Party Realignment, 1976-1988." Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press) 72.3 (1991): 552. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Conservatives = Anger
Corn, David. "Too Sane For Congress." Mother Jones 36.1 (2011): 10. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Klein, Philip. "Will Grassroots Anger Sink The GOP?." American Spectator 39.2 (2006): 50. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
MCCARTHY, DANIEL. "Why The Right Doesn't Win." American Conservative 14.5 (2015): 22. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Phillips-Fein, Kim. "The Business Lobby And The Tea Party." New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.) 23.2 (2014): 14-20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Von Drehle, David. "THE CONSERVATIVE IDENTITY CRISIS. (Cover Story)." Time 179.6 (2012): 28-31. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Monday, April 18, 2016
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Another pseudo-scandal?
To be honest I know very little about the details of Kendra Turner's expulsion. However, given the track record of such incidences it is relatively safe to assume that the media has once again fucked-up the story. I seriously doubt she was expelled for just saying "bless you" after a classmate sneezed. Considering how most of these stories play out I'd be willing to bet that either she has a track record of interrupting and causing disturbances in class that led to the teacher's actions or she has a record of attempting to proselytize during school. In the end the details once they finally come out won't really matter since the religious right will latch on to their preferred version of the story either way.
"Student Says She Was Punished At School For Saying 'Bless You'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/kendra-turner-bless-you_n_5697629.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
"Student Says She Was Punished At School For Saying 'Bless You'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/kendra-turner-bless-you_n_5697629.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Pondering Faux History and Whiny Assholes
Right from the start David Gibson's "Analysis" is full of ridiculous shit. As a title, "America’s Christian conservatives ponder a ‘Babylonian exile’ (ANALYSIS)" sets the tone quite well. Comparing the US's religious right to the Biblical "Babylonian exile" of the Jews is utter non-sense. No one is forcing these self-deluded hypocritical assholes to do anything. They also still wield influence and resources far beyond what you might expect from their numbers.
It isn't just the stupidly of the title that irritates me. The implications of the very first sentence should annoy anyone who knows the actual history rather than the elementary-school rendition of it.
"From the moment they set foot on North American soil, the Puritans who came to the continent viewed their “errand into the wilderness” through a biblical lens, seeing themselves as modern-day Israelites building a New Jerusalem in the New World."
The "Puritans" fled England for the Netherlands in order to gain religious freedom. They got it. The left the Netherlands for the "New World" for expressly economic reasons. They came to find better access to resources and develop their personal wealth. It may seem nit-picky but it is common myth that the willfully ignorant religious right insists on using to make all sorts of other baseless claims.
Even though Gibson does not completely buy into all the bullshit the individuals he wrote to and spoke with about this "exile" he does very little to set the record straight. He even seems somewhat sympathetic to what all their griping really boils down to: their ability to bully other without question or limitations. I just don't get it. I do not understand why comparatively (emphasis on comparative) reasonable theists keep giving these overprivileged jerks yet another soap box. I also find it rather telling that Gibson and company don't see the innate contradiction. The religious right whines about not being taken seriously enough yet every mainstream outlet bends over backwards to give them as much of megaphone as anyone can possibly have.
Condoning and codling these dip shits doesn't help anyone.
It isn't just the stupidly of the title that irritates me. The implications of the very first sentence should annoy anyone who knows the actual history rather than the elementary-school rendition of it.
"From the moment they set foot on North American soil, the Puritans who came to the continent viewed their “errand into the wilderness” through a biblical lens, seeing themselves as modern-day Israelites building a New Jerusalem in the New World."
The "Puritans" fled England for the Netherlands in order to gain religious freedom. They got it. The left the Netherlands for the "New World" for expressly economic reasons. They came to find better access to resources and develop their personal wealth. It may seem nit-picky but it is common myth that the willfully ignorant religious right insists on using to make all sorts of other baseless claims.
Even though Gibson does not completely buy into all the bullshit the individuals he wrote to and spoke with about this "exile" he does very little to set the record straight. He even seems somewhat sympathetic to what all their griping really boils down to: their ability to bully other without question or limitations. I just don't get it. I do not understand why comparatively (emphasis on comparative) reasonable theists keep giving these overprivileged jerks yet another soap box. I also find it rather telling that Gibson and company don't see the innate contradiction. The religious right whines about not being taken seriously enough yet every mainstream outlet bends over backwards to give them as much of megaphone as anyone can possibly have.
Condoning and codling these dip shits doesn't help anyone.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Their Anger is a Constant
The recent post on the Formerly Fundie blog (Patheos), "3 Key Reasons Why Religious Right Leaders Are So Angry", is quite good. There is only one point that should have been added. Anger is a constant among the religious right leadership. Even if things were going better for them they would still be angry*. Put simply they are angry because as authoritarians no amount of power and control will ever satisfy them. They will always want more. These coercive bullies tend to be all the terrible things they insist on projecting on other people.
*Unfortunately their outlook is not as bad as they or Benjamin Corey perceive it to be. They do still have power and influence and our pathetic ideologically driven Supreme Court has handed them a few gifts recently.
*Unfortunately their outlook is not as bad as they or Benjamin Corey perceive it to be. They do still have power and influence and our pathetic ideologically driven Supreme Court has handed them a few gifts recently.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Be an Asshole for (organized) Religion
Apparently, the Acton Institute doesn't think being a decent human being should count for anything. They don't even seem to think simply being a believer matters all that much either. You must belong to a specific faith and blindly follow that organized religion or else you are scum. That is main message in Elise Hilton's Power Blog post "'As Long As I’m A Good Person'"
She opens with:
“'It doesn’t matter what I believe…as long as I’m a good person.'
How many times have you heard that? As our society trends more and more to the secular, this type of thing becomes more common. We’ve gone from a society that, at the very least, paid lip-service to communal worship and having moral standards set by a higher authority, to 'I can worship God on my own; I don’t need a church to do that' to 'It doesn’t matter what I believe, as long as I’m a good person.'
Is that right? Can a person believe “whatever” and still be good."
Her answers end up being, big surprise, NO. You must be a blindly obedient ignorant sycophant to be a good person. It never crosses her mind that if a person ends up behaving decently then perhaps their beliefs are positive. It certainly never occurs to her that beliefs do not always translate into actions. Perhaps we should look at a balance between what a person believes and what they actually do with those beliefs?
Nope. Religious Right assholes cannot accept such a reasonable approach no matter how positive the outcome. They are as interested in controlling people as they are anything else. At least the blog's name is honest.
She opens with:
“'It doesn’t matter what I believe…as long as I’m a good person.'
How many times have you heard that? As our society trends more and more to the secular, this type of thing becomes more common. We’ve gone from a society that, at the very least, paid lip-service to communal worship and having moral standards set by a higher authority, to 'I can worship God on my own; I don’t need a church to do that' to 'It doesn’t matter what I believe, as long as I’m a good person.'
Is that right? Can a person believe “whatever” and still be good."
Her answers end up being, big surprise, NO. You must be a blindly obedient ignorant sycophant to be a good person. It never crosses her mind that if a person ends up behaving decently then perhaps their beliefs are positive. It certainly never occurs to her that beliefs do not always translate into actions. Perhaps we should look at a balance between what a person believes and what they actually do with those beliefs?
Nope. Religious Right assholes cannot accept such a reasonable approach no matter how positive the outcome. They are as interested in controlling people as they are anything else. At least the blog's name is honest.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Self-delusion is not Proof of anything
Even though I do find many of the pieces on Salon interesting, I do not place much confidence in their accuracy. A handful of recent pieces seem to be outright silly. One piece I had a good laugh over was Kerry Eleveld's "GOP civil war! Poll shows Tea Party disdains religious right." Kerry has definitely partaken of the Tea Party Cool-aid. Just cause a handful of Tea Party goofballs say something does not mean it matches reality. All you have to do to see through this bullshit is review the past and present darling of the so called "Tea Party" movement. If these groups disdain the religious right so much why do they support candidates that either have direct links to, or frequently pander to the religious right. Allen West, Christine O'Donnell, Eric Cantor, Ted Cruz....are all lackeys (champions if you are of that mentality) of the religious right. Another good example of the disconnect between such polls and reality can be found on the various websites maintains by these groups. If Eleveld had spent even ten minutes with Google she should have been able to find a handful of such sites. Scroll through and you will find any number of religious right mouthpieces.
Here's an example (less than a minute to find), on Tea Party 911 you can find there officially endorsed candidates. The first one listed is Matt Bevin who notes his backgrounds is "...built on a bedrock of strong Christian values..." Even though he has not yet placed much emphasis on his positions on social issues publicly it seems a bit too coincidental that they line up precisely with those of the religious right.
Basically, not only is the "tea party" a faction of the Republican Party it is also allied with the religious right. Those that claim to disdain it while upholding its position are just demonstrating how idiotic ignorant and hypocritical they are.
Here's an example (less than a minute to find), on Tea Party 911 you can find there officially endorsed candidates. The first one listed is Matt Bevin who notes his backgrounds is "...built on a bedrock of strong Christian values..." Even though he has not yet placed much emphasis on his positions on social issues publicly it seems a bit too coincidental that they line up precisely with those of the religious right.
Basically, not only is the "tea party" a faction of the Republican Party it is also allied with the religious right. Those that claim to disdain it while upholding its position are just demonstrating how idiotic ignorant and hypocritical they are.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
An Apology Can Say A Lot
Can you remember a single instance where a theist or group of theists said something inaccurate or misleading about atheists and then apologized for it? I can't. Yet, there have been numerous examples where atheists have admitted to exaggerating or misrepresenting something theists said and apologized for it. Just such an incident recently occurred. American Atheists apologized for misquoting Sarah Palin on one of their billboards. I am pleased that they corrected their minor error. I find it rather telling. It seems to me to be further evidence that atheists are generally more concerned with accuracy, intellectual integrity, and ethics than their theistic counterparts.
I think it is also worth noting that the error they made in the quotation did not actually change the meaning or intent of Sarah Palin. American Atheists quoted Palin as stating, "We should create law based on the God of the Bible", when in fact she claimed that our founding fathers believed such a thing. Basically, she was making shit up. In some ways it makes her look worse since it is clear that that is what she wants to believe and she is willing to lie about. The idea that the US was created as a "Christian nation" has been debunked over and over again. Accuracy is important so it was right of American Atheists to make the correction and apologize for their slip-up.
It would be nice if the religious right cared at all about accuracy, honesty, and personal ethics. I'm not counting on that happening any time soon.
I think it is also worth noting that the error they made in the quotation did not actually change the meaning or intent of Sarah Palin. American Atheists quoted Palin as stating, "We should create law based on the God of the Bible", when in fact she claimed that our founding fathers believed such a thing. Basically, she was making shit up. In some ways it makes her look worse since it is clear that that is what she wants to believe and she is willing to lie about. The idea that the US was created as a "Christian nation" has been debunked over and over again. Accuracy is important so it was right of American Atheists to make the correction and apologize for their slip-up.
It would be nice if the religious right cared at all about accuracy, honesty, and personal ethics. I'm not counting on that happening any time soon.
Friday, April 27, 2012
America, sometimes home of the scary
Even though there is no direct link between these two posts beyond them being published on the same day both are frightening and serve as examples of how dangerously foolish we can be as a nation.
The posts in question are:
"Survey: Religion a key factor in determining support for Obama vs. Romney"
Religion should play no role in selecting a president. The country is far too diverse and religion far too contentious. The president is suppose to represent all Americans and do what is best for all Americans. Mixing religion into politics has never proved to be positive and I find it hard to believe it ever will.
"Kirk Cameron's Growing Circle of Reconstructionist Friends"
That a fool like Cameron is gaining influence among any group is disturbing enough, it is even worse that he seems to getting more media attention. I have no doubt some will still view him as the cute guy who once played a mischievous but lovable character on Growing Pains. They may be willing to overlook some of the details of his new career out of misplaced sentimentality. This thin veneer isn't likely to get him all that far but it may be just enough to gain more attention and resources to do real damage.
Put these two together and I can't help but start feeling pessimistic about our future. Little things can make big differences. Every little step forward made by the religious right is a step back for all of us.
The posts in question are:
"Survey: Religion a key factor in determining support for Obama vs. Romney"
Religion should play no role in selecting a president. The country is far too diverse and religion far too contentious. The president is suppose to represent all Americans and do what is best for all Americans. Mixing religion into politics has never proved to be positive and I find it hard to believe it ever will.
"Kirk Cameron's Growing Circle of Reconstructionist Friends"
That a fool like Cameron is gaining influence among any group is disturbing enough, it is even worse that he seems to getting more media attention. I have no doubt some will still view him as the cute guy who once played a mischievous but lovable character on Growing Pains. They may be willing to overlook some of the details of his new career out of misplaced sentimentality. This thin veneer isn't likely to get him all that far but it may be just enough to gain more attention and resources to do real damage.
Put these two together and I can't help but start feeling pessimistic about our future. Little things can make big differences. Every little step forward made by the religious right is a step back for all of us.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Is Paranoia a Religious Tenet?
I've long suspected that paranoia and conspiracy theories are an integral part of conservative interpretations of Christianity. The link below definitely helps confirm this view. The video imbedded in PFAW's Right Wing Watch blog post is both amusing and disturbing.
"Religious Right Activists Warn Parents Against Sending Students to Communist, Atheist, Gay Public Schools"
Wow! I'm at a loss to comment on this one, which is pretty rare for me. So much bullshit, bias, and falsehood in such a short segment is just astounding.
"Religious Right Activists Warn Parents Against Sending Students to Communist, Atheist, Gay Public Schools"
Wow! I'm at a loss to comment on this one, which is pretty rare for me. So much bullshit, bias, and falsehood in such a short segment is just astounding.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Is America Moving Away from Religion?
It would be nice if it were true but I don't see it quite the way Tana Ganeva does in her Alternet piece, "5 Signs That America Is Moving Away from Religion". In the introduction she talks about how fed up people are with the "Tea Party" and the GOP, especially the manner in which they use religion. It does not seem to occur to her that she is conflating a loss of faith in the Religious Right with a shift away from religion itself. Just because people are gradually come to realize that mixing religion and politics is a terrible idea does not mean they as a whole are becoming less religious.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)