Self-reporting doesn't equal fact

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.

Even the "best representations" are pathetic

I have read or viewed many of the pieces mentioned in Peter Stanford's Guardian piece, "The 10 best representations of God in culture", and highly recommend them. They are wonderful. However, it is rather telling if not somewhat amusing that virtually every single example further demonstrates how pathetically weak the God concept is and how deluded theists tend to be about it. They all provide examples of how innately contradictory and or convoluted the attributes of God are. Quite a few of the pieces either imply or outright state that God is not perfect. As I've pointed out this is a huge problem since if God isn't perfect, and therefore all-powerful, it opens the door to polytheism. Why would there be only one supernatural entity with immense power? The flipside is that perfection is logically impossible. No entity can both exist and be perfect. This is, of course, just one example of the flaws revealed even with the "best representations of God in culture". The lame dismissive excuse so often used by theists that human perception is to blame since we are imperfect doesn't cut it. They never seem to notice that by that standard they themselves can't or should be wasting there time on the concept.

Subtitle says it all

Longenecker has once again demonstrated what a deceitful hypocritical dumb-ass he truly is. "The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism: Jesus rose from the dead. How's that for evidence that God exists?" is one of his worst pieces, yet. That's pretty bad. If you don't want to waste your time on this idiotic crap just think about the sub-title. It is a pretty good summary of his deficient thinking process.

This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."

Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.

From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.

Cheapening Patriotism

A patriot should never fail to respect and uphold the ideals of his/her country. That's what patriotism is supposed to be about. Very few right-wingers have ever understood that. Symbols are important as are the individual's person beliefs but they do not automatically translate into patriotism. In a rather superficial and wish-washy way Tobin Grant questions this approach in his post, "Real Americans are Christians?", on the most recent General Social Survey.

Personally, I think the "Two-thirds of evangelicals say that true Americans are Christian" are among the worst examples of Americans. Though, it is an opinion it can at least be backed up. These dumb-ass self-righteous prick defy one of the basic principles of our constitution; Separation of Church and State. As I've pointed out numerous times there are only two references to religion in general between the Constitution proper and the Bill of Right. Both are framed in the negative. Separation was clearly intended despite claims to the contrary. These ignorant fools certainly do not live up to our nation's first and best motto, "e pluribus unum" (out of many one). And, yet, it's this same subset that often claims atheists and non-Christians are the troublemakers.

"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.