Quantifiable proof that a majority of white evangelical Americans are hate-fueled sociopaths ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

... making themselves and others miserable with a perverse and delusional persecution complex.

Awesome link text from Fred Clark (white himself, and he used to call himself 'evangelical', though his exasperation with the bigotry of others who call themselves that is leading him away from that label, though his Christian belief is as strong as ever) :

Do white evangelicals have a delusional persecution complex? Barna says yes, and provides quantifiable proof

...
Here’s a more concrete example relating to an actual bit of recent research reported by the Barna Group. Libby Anne recently highlighted a comment on her blog that seems to epitomize what many of us have observed as a widespread, delusional sense of persecution on the part of many members of America’s privileged religious majority. The comment provides a remarkable specimen of what I call the “persecuted hegemon” — a person enjoying the rewards of cultural dominance while simultaneously insisting that they are aggrieved and suffering an injustice at the hands of people who are, in fact, marginalized minorities.
...
Well, yes. But it’s one thing to say that Metaxas and the Georges and the commenter at Libby Anne’s blog are delusional sociopaths who hate the rest of society — that much is obvious. It’s quite another thing to demonstrate that this hate-fueled delusion is more widely present within the broader white evangelical subculture.

And that’s where the latest survey from the Barna Group comes in. Because that survey provides what all those anecdotal examples cannot provide: Quantifiable proof that a majority of white evangelical Americans are hate-fueled sociopaths making themselves and others miserable with a perverse and delusional persecution complex.

Barna doesn’t quite put it as strongly as that, but the implication is identical. A majority of white evangelicals “want Judeo-Christians to dominate the culture,” said David Kinnamon, president of the Barna Group.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/28/do-white-evangelicals-have-a-delusional-persecution-complex-barna-says-yes-and-provides-quantifiable-proof/

The findings of a poll published Wednesday (Jan. 23), reveal a “double standard” among a significant portion of evangelicals on the question of religious liberty, said David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group, a California think tank that studies American religion and culture.
...
The poll of 1,008 adults showed that 29 percent of respondents were “very” concerned that religious liberties are under threat, and 22 percent “somewhat” concerned. Evangelicals were the religious group most likely to be concerned, at 71 percent.

Asked for their opinion as to why religious freedom is threatened, 97 percent of evangelicals agreed that “some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values.”

And 72 percent of evangelicals also agreed that gays and lesbians were the group “most active in trying to remove Christian values from the country.” That compares to 31 percent of all adults who held this belief.

The survey:

http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/600-most-americans-are-concerned-about-restrictions-in-religious-freedom

[ms liberty]

1. K&R. Excellent article, bookmarking. Thanks! n/t

[Warpy]

55. Same here. It will be useful to circulate to others.

It's very nice to see what we've always suspected proven and quantified.

The problem is that hate sells so well to people under economic stress, as we all have been since the 1980s.

[cbayer]

2. I would agree that there is a preponderance of homophobic bigots, but delusional

sociopaths goes a bit too far.

[skepticscott]

4. Well, look at what

they think should happen to Muslims, atheists or gays, and consider that again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The delusion is that they think they are under attack

and having their religious freedoms taken away. The 'sociopath' tag he took from another Christian blog, describing those who signed the Manhattan Declaration, or claim Obama is attacking religious freedom with:

The brouhaha over Louie Giglio and the Inaguration.
The contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
The demise of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

When people like the authors above, or the creators of the Manhattan Declaration, complain that, not faith, but that their particular embodiment of faith isn’t given supremacy above all others and cries of ‘persecution’ are heard, it is rightfully interpreted as an innate hatred of the rest of society and disdain for the social contract we all live under.

There’s a name for people who believe they, and their beliefs, should always be kowtowed to no matter what….

….they’re called sociopaths.

[cbayer]

9. Those are opinions, not irrefutable proof.

Bigoted, hateful, unacceptable and not valid - but I would still not call them delusional sociopaths.

But then I have a strong bias against using clinical terms in flippant and cavalier ways.

[skepticscott]

16. Is it an "opinion"

that some evangelicals would be happy to see homosexuals herded into gay chambers? What would you call such people, if not sociopaths?

[patrice]

8. Agreed. That's over-stated. & It's not in the research itself. nt

[DryRain]

19. Sociopathy, please review the definition or do some study

Profile of the Sociopath

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.


Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

...........................................

Update: A thorough article. You may also find more at http://sociopathworld.com/.
I, the creator of this site, am not a psychologist and no special expertise in the subject. I created the site as a public service, because no similar site existed in 2003. I occasionally get sad calls and emails. I urge you to consult either a clinical psychologist or the police depending on the problem you face, and wish you good luck.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

[cbayer]

20. Lol, I just love it when you school my on all things psychiatric.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. While it may not be precise, a comment in Fred Clark's blog point to Antisocial Personality Disorder

as defined in DSM-IV:

Antisocial personality disorder is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) as “...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” People with antisocial personality disorder may disregard social norms and laws, repeatedly lie, place others at risk for their own benefit, and demonstrate a profound lack of remorse. It is sometimes referred to as sociopathic personality disorder, or sociopathy.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1antisocial.shtml

Now, this majority of evangelicals may not be disregarding social norms, and perhaps not laws (though part of this is that they want the laws to be written their way, to allow them to disregard others' rights), but the rest of it isn't a bad fit.

[cbayer]

42. It's really inappropriate for people to make psychiatric diagnoses on

people they have not examined personally. It's just a way to attack a group by calling them psychiatrically ill.

This is neither fair to the group nor to the psychiatric community that actually suffers from illness.

[TheMadMonk]

27. And a pretty acurate description of virtually ANYONE...

...who comes to an argument with God on their side.

[truebluegreen]

56. Maybe there's a reason for that.

[reteachinwi]

30. Perhaps this is what Wall Street

and fundamental Christians have in common and leads to their coalition in the Republican Party.

[starroute]

23. I think Fred Clark has earned the right to use harsh language

I've been reading his blog on and off for years, and it's clear that he and the few remaining liberal Christians like him are being driven out of Christianity.

Present-day American Christianity has far too much in common with the Republican Party. Large chunks of it have been taken over by the religious equivalent of tea baggers -- in some cases by carefully staged infiltration efforts and what can only be described as coups -- and the remaining sane people are being purged or marginalized.

I'll agree with you that it's unlikely all right-wing evangelicals are sociopaths on a personal level. I'm sure many of them are sweet, empathetic, and would come to your aid in a second if you were in serious trouble. But they most definitely are delusional if they see themselves as a persecuted minority. And the social entities to which they subscribe are decidely sociopathic -- as much so as the average large corporation.

[cbayer]

24. We actually have a number of evangelicals who post here.

I haven't found them to be either delusional or sociopathic. I think it's important to make distinctions in when talking about large and diverse groups.

[starroute]

25. Clark also considers himself an evangelical -- or did until recently

So any others like him who post here are presumably also of the faction that's being pushed out of the party. That 28% or whatever of the non-delusional.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. And the distinction is "the majority"

It's because this is a survey, with numbers. He's not just talking about the prominent leaders, or bloggers, or commenters - this is a look at how the whole community divides up.

[link:http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx|
Evangelicals voted 79-20 in favour of Romney], and so it would be fine to say here "a large majority of evangelicals are Republican" - but I wouldn't take that as meaning that any evangelical DUers are. My guess is that pretty much the entire 54% who want 'Judeo-Christian values' given preference voted for Romney.

[TheMadMonk]

28. Actually they are persecuted. They're no longer being allowed...

...many privileges and one sided advantages, they've always enjoyed.

[NoOneMan]

3. Chicken, egg, or a little of both?

[Lordquinton]

31. The egg

It was the egg that came first!

(and the chicken just had to stay awake unsatisfied...)

[skepticscott]

5. You can leave off

the "Judeo" part. They want Christians to dominate the culture...period. The only use the Jews are to them is to keep the Holy Land out of Muslim hands until Jeebus comes again.

[patrice]

6. Lowest on "No one set of values should dominate" + Highest on "Judeo-Christian values should be

given preference".

The Paulites won some theological debates a long time ago.

[patrice]

10. Interesting because it shows that they are guilty of what they accuse others of. nt

[cbayer]

12. Excellent point. Now this is a time when a psychiatric term might be appropriate -

that's projection, a defense mechanism.

[patrice]

14. Yes, projection fits pretty well, driven by guilt over something that isn't what they claim it

is, love, but something more like the need for re-assurance through power.

[mike_c]

11. kicked and recommended....

This is worthwhile data. Real data.

[rug]

13. From the Barna Group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barna_group

[mike_c]

15. perhaps despite of themselves...

...but unless the numbers are faked or the methodology otherwise botched, it's hard to argue with data. Of course, I don't actually know anything about the reliability of this study, but given the source, and what the data seem to suggest, it hardly seems in their interest to make it up.

But thank you for reminding me that there is always the possibility the data are flawed, a caveat that I should have included in my remark above.

[rug]

17. It does seem to go against confirmation bias.

[mike_c]

18. not mine....

[MightyMopar]

21. But they're southern/midwestern rural gun owners, so we can't show our bigotry toward them

How will we ever win the 1994 election?

[tama]

40. Hmm

Maybe it's better to show bigotry than to hide it from sight and let it fester in subconsciousness?

[kwassa]

22. The category of "notional Christian" is very bizarre.

It probably contains a majority of Christians, including all the main-line denominations, but is completely undifferentiated in this method of polling. Any Christian who doesn't claim to be evangelical or born-again fits here, which will include some strange bedfellows. Still, it is interesting to note that the majority of the notionals have more open-minded views of things. This poll does not tease them out, though.

[TheMadMonk]

29. The sort you'll only catch in church at weddings and funerals. /nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I'm not sure - I think mainline denoms are more likely "non-(evangelical born again) Christians"

The Barna Group is respectable enough that I wouldn't think they'd call, for instance, Catholics 'notional Christians'. I think it's more likely to be, rather like TheMadMonk says, people who will answer 'Christian' to a simple "what is your religion?" question, but who don't belong, or go to, to a church. It is, however, badly enough defined that we can't draw much from its figures; but 'evangelical' is a category that does have a fairly widely accepted definition.

[kwassa]

52. Mainline Protestants don't identify as born again.

so I think they fit as notionals to the Barna Group.

[quakerboy]

26. I gotta ask about the 9%

Among evangelicals, 63% believe that one set of values should dominate the country (100-37=63)
And 54% believe that judeo christian values should be given preference.

Which would seem to indicate that 9 percent of evangelicals believe that once set of non Judeo-christian values should be given preference in the country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Could be a 'don't know' option to mop up the difference (nt)

[truebluegreen]

57. What I find odd is

95% of evangelicals think "all citizens should have freedom of conscience", to believe and practice their faith

AND

97% of evangelicals think that "religious freedom has become more restricted in the U.S. because some groups have tried to move society away from traditional Christian values."

Now there's a great example of holding two contradictory notions at the same time.

[freshwest]

32. Does anyone have that article from back in the Bush years - with the high percentage of evangelicals

surveyed who agreed with using torture in the war on terror?

I remember fighting it out with wingnuts and asking for the verse where Jesus said that was the right thing to do to people. Seeing as how he was tortured to death it was proof of human cruelty and depravity.

They never found a verse, blustering that I couldn't have been a Christian if I didn't agree. I'd read the whole Bible from one end to the other for years and was ready. Then I referred them to this website. Naturally, being a liberal was a sin, anyway:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/default.html

They abandoned the argument as they weren't good at reading or thinking. Just parroted whatever drivel Boortz or Rush said to them on the air. I don't think these folks ever cracked a Bible. Got their theology from CBN, TBN, etc.

[reverend_tim]

33. I love questions 3 and 6 they makes obvious

# 3 ends in "values of your faith" not the values of their faith.



#6 only 37% in that evangelical column.

[tama]

34. Does this OP

help readers not to behave like "hate-fueled sociopaths making themselves and others miserable with a perverse and delusional persecution complex" and if so, how?

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I wouldn't expect to find anyone here who thinks Christian values should be given preference

(though Fred Clark shares the Patheos website with plenty who do; it'll be interesting to see how they react to him calling them out). If there are a few reading it (lurkers, perhaps) who think that Judeo-Christian values should be given preference in the USA, and think they're under attack (or, even worse, think it's gay people attacking them, as 72% of the evangelicals do), then I'd hope they examine their conscience, the constitution and founding of the country, and the actual positions of privilege in the USA today, and realise how wrong they are, and how much they are causing pain and hatred by pretending to be under attack.

However, I'd say there will be many DUers who know people like this; if they point out the double standard, and the implications of the harm it does, to them, then it might help make a better society, and even rescue the reputation of US evangelical Christianity, which is currently in the toilet, as far as most liberals are concerned.

[tama]

39. "if they point out the double standard"

What do you mean by that, in practice? What I can imagine is that a reader of OP develops a stereotype of Evangelicals as "hateful sociopath", and following your idea of pointing out when they meet Evangelicals, point to them and say: "You hateful sociopaths!". And in my experience usual reaction to such approach is not to change opinion and worldview or feel more empathy and compassion, but to respond in kind: "No, you are hateful sociopaths!". That's how kids do, adults don't stop doing that but perhaps just invent more complicated ways of doing that.

[pinto]

43. I've never quite gotten the "attack on religion" meme in our country other than it seems a political

not spiritual construct.

[Festivito]

44. This is kind of silly. 1. No such proof is given.

The article COMMENTS points to a blog with the assertion, the blog points back to the article. Hmmm.

Further, evangelicals are pounded with right-wing assertions of 1. our nation being founded on Christian values, and 2. gay lifestyle is beyond Biblical interpretation. (Both wrong.) But, being pounded by these points leads rationally to believing that taking away Christian values takes away American values, and that gay values are well funded on TV and in movies. Such that the supposed hate-filled-ness is really this skewed rationale -- not hate.

As the Rothschilds' banks could fund both sides of a war only to make more money, we seem to have a right-wing AND A LEFT-WING, both supposed, fighting each other to advantage the rich blood suckers that make us a sucky life.

[tama]

45. Wedge issues

to keep us divided so that we don't take down abstract power structures that are hurting us all and which we really can't afford any more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. 'Wedge issue'? Drawing attention to scapegoating of LGBT people is a 'wedge issue'?

It's not a 'wedge issue' to me. And this isn't about 'us' being divided. It's about the attitude of the majority of evangelicals - most of whom vote Republican, work against LGBT rights, and are now fighting coverage of contraception under the ACA.

This isn't about 'abstract power structures', either - there are real power structures involved - the confluence of the Republican party and evangelical megachurches and lobby groups. They encourage the blame the majority of evangelicals lay on the LGBT community.

[tama]

48. By and large

that battle of cultural wars has been won, world wide. Lot to do still, of course, even though the tide has been turned. And it's wedge issue especially by authoritarian preachers who want to keep their flocks in order by controlling their sexuality, by creating "good enemies" etc. to keep the cash coming and feeling of power empowering. I don't believe there are much illusions about that on DU.

But there are also other battles, such as we the people against abstract power of money and banks, which are destroying the natural balance from which we and our children depend from. In that struggle the tide has not been turned and the destruction is getting worse. In this battle it does not help to demonize all Evangelicals, or all religious people based on some negative prototype, because of differences of certain cultural values. When you are e.g. fighting against fracking and keystone etc., you want all the allies you can get. Because it's also their battle. Because we are all in the same boat, on Mothership Earth.

[Festivito]

50. God, guns, gays, ... all have simple answers.

But, we're not allowed to have the simple answers. NO. We must fight, go to war -- NOT!

But, also, we can afford more, until we all look like either tiny Tim or Bob Cratchit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. 1: the article points to the Barna Group report

and I gave the link to the Barna Group report too. They carried out the poll.

2: Who on the left wing are you accusing of helping "rich blood suckers that make us a sucky life"?

3: "But, being pounded by these points leads rationally" .... no, it's not 'rational'. If the person who is 'pounded' has a tendency to believe they are being attacked, but deserve to be privileged, they'll believe it. It's not 'rational' (being rational would involve actually looking at reality, not just the RW assertions), and you shouldn't dignify it with such as word. It's selfish.

[Festivito]

49. ..and the Barna Group report does NOT SAY PROOF at all.

Who was helping Napoleon to urge battle, and who was helping Wellington urge battle? Pfft! What does it matter as long as the banks made money. Lots of people were sure they were on the side of good, if not God. Surely it was a combination of well-meaning persons on each side, certain of their values, and the correctness of those values, and certain of the certitude of their own correctness.

Perception is reality. Persons living in their own little worlds not as full as the one you and I see, are at most guilty of ignorance, not selfishness. There are pockets of selfishness, just as in France there were pockets of those ready to make a little on the transactions that would follow. But, they didn't just tell people the truth, they simply pushed the buttons that made the rest to want to go to war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. I'm glad you're annoyed at bankers from 200 years ago, but what has that to do with 21st LWers?

Seriously, I can't see what funding of the Napoleonic Wars has to do with American evangelical attitudes. At all.

[Festivito]

59. History repeats itself -- oft in rhymes.

It's a set of beliefs, usually incomplete, that take people to war -- specifically a war to profit a few.

So, how does that analogy play to 21st century left-wingers?

Each side has a set of beliefs in this war. Evangelicals believe there is a war on Christmas, it's reported on FOX, Rush, Shawn, in the hallway and in the sermon's joke of the day. The announcers get help from richly paid think tanks. The minister and the district above him work on getting that donation that just happens to come just prior to an election. They might see the ruse. But, the parishioners don't as they engage in water-cooler wars with stories carefully devoid of the underlying rationale. They could have googled and snoped, but they didn't.

On the other extreme a group pushes that the war on Christmas is a joke and they must ridicule those people -- NOT STATE THE FACTS -- ridicule. Oddly, well funded little cartoons, tomes, polls, and such appear keeping the other side from talking with the soldiers and soldiers from talking with the other side. Much like two countries, keeping different language, custom, leading to the need for border guards. Sites are today's states.

The incomplete beliefs on each side, lead to a kind of war that in turn profits a few -- as history once again repeats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. "well funded little cartoons"? WTF?

You appear to be indulging in 'creative speculation'. You are seriously claiming that some evil genius is paying cartoonists to say that the "war on Christmas" is a joke? That means, presumably, that you think there actually is a "war on Christmas".

Your post is crazy.

[Festivito]

61. Ah, the pull-out-a-single-line attack. Complete with ad hominem.

Proceed!

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Let's be clear: your entire thesis is paranoid. It also attacks the left wing

and implies there actually is a 'war on Christmas', so that people have to be paid to ridicule the claim that there is one.

And, no, it's not an 'ad hominem'. I said nothing about you. I only talked about your idiotic claims in this thread. Please look up 'ad hominem' before trying to use the term.

[A HERETIC I AM]

63. LOL

Sic em'. Get em'. Bite em' onna leg. Get em'.

[Festivito]

65. Oh! Oh dear! Why am I LOL.

Wait Oh dear, No. more, but I must

[Festivito]

64. Let's see: "You.., You.., ..you.., Your post.." as subjects. Hmm.

At least the last sentence was to the post.

Am I paranoid that bankers or a MIC create wars for profit, that the rich support think-tanks, Republicans and wedge issues for power, power that begets more money? Oh dear. You find that paranoid. Oh well. Whatever.

If someone surmises that the "war on Christmas," which is an expression that has taken some print such that it does exist in print, exists as a wedge issue, perhaps funded (i.e. given time or money) by the rich and their sycophants as a wedge issue, even supplying both sides of the argumentation in order to keep the appearance of there being what a hyperbolic expression "war" would imply, it is not necessary that such a someone would actually believe in a war on Christmas, rather than simply believing that the perception of such a war would exist, nor should thinking that such funding from one side going to both sides be construed as an attack on the side not allegedly funding the two sides. IOW your logic fails. But, again, proceed!

[tama]

53. Hmm

If the person who is 'pounded' has a tendency to believe they are being attacked, but deserve to be privileged, they'll believe it.

Hard to say who or how many actually believe so, but US as abstract entity has biggest and nastiest army in the world, is fighting multiple wars "being attacked by" imaginary enemies like "drugs" and "terror" (but killing real people), and in terms of consumption and destruction of natural resources is the most "privileged" nation in the world.

Should we blame just Evangelicals for all of that? Or is any American in position to cast the first stone?

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Since the poll didn't ask about those, you'll have to sort that out yourself

The poll was about some attitudes to do with religion - whether one religion should be privileged, whether religion is under attack in the USA. The questions are in the OP.

[tama]

58. Nope, that's something to sort out together

Can't do much alone.

The OP attached set of characteristics to a group of people and called them hateful sociopaths - each and every one of them.
Very same set of characteristics can be attached to a larger group of people called 'Americans'. By analogy, should we call Americans hateful sociopaths, each and every one of them?

I don't believe that would be helpful. You are free to disagree, of course.

[Raffi Ella]

66. Very interesting but not surprising.

Not to me anyway. I was born and raised in GA. I've lived among evangelicals and have some in my own family. I know first hand what they say behind close doors, I've been the target of some of their hatred and bigotry myself. As far as they are concerned I'm a 'heathen' that is going straight to 'hell'. "Bless their heart" is what I see in their eyes when they speak to someone they know not to be one of their own, in other words pity and arrogance is in their every syllable.


I'm not a religious person but to use their language? I'd call their hypocrisy and judgement the height of 'evil'. It's a selfish nastiness that I can't even begin to understand how they justify.

yet they are the persecuted ones.

[SpartanDem]

67. Pretty much confirms what we already knew

that these people are theocrats.