Study finds White Christians more racist than secular white people

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

https://www.christianpost.com/books/white-christians-more-racist-than-secular-whites-researcher-robert-p-jones-reveals.html
*gets his golf club and swings directly into a row of killer hornet nests*

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Studies? I wouldn't listen much to what they have to say.

Really though he found that white Christians tend to have questionable attitudes about systemic racism.

I really do want to see what his questionnaire entailed.

[McAvoy]

Isn't this sort of thing been a fairly common narrative for the past decade or more now though?

All this study will do is fan the flames even more so and infuriate the white Christians especially those who feel they are the Most Prosecuted Religion in the World....

[CharlesPhipps]

Speaking as an academic, these studies are worth less than their value as toilet paper during a pandemic.

[Jonathan101]

I read an interview with this guy and read a bit about him and his book and I found some red flags.

Firstly, he said something along the lines of "historians hardly ever talk about this", which is a sales tactic akin to "buy my book and be smarter than the experts!". He's a former Assistant Professor of Religion, so he obviously has some knowledge of the scholarship, but he wouldn't be the first academic to make a dodgy claim to sell his stuff.

Secondly, his last book on this subject sold really well, and came out in 2016, while this one is coming out in 2020- in other words, it seems like he times them to be released for the US elections, when political and racial tensions are highest and his book will sell more easily. Doesn't mean he's lying, but does mean he's a scholar who found a way to make a lot of money, which is rare opportunity.

Thirdly, both of his books look to be quite short- each are only a little bit over 300 pages- and proper historical books usually have more weight and depth to them and clock in at around 500 pages at least. Going over the reviews, both of them seem to be full of facts and statistics ("lies, damned lies and statistics"), which isn't a great sign in a historical study since they are usually more analytical and qualitative- good history books that have lots of statistics are usually even longer than normal because of that, since they need to explain what the stats actually mean, not to mention explain why they should be interpreted "this way" and not "that way", how other historians might explain them or what other stats might be out there etc

Fourthly, his credentials and even the cover of his books highlight him as representing "The Public Religion Institute"- an "institute" is different from an "Institution"- you need to meet certain criteria to be allowed to legally call yourself an Institution in the US, relating to size and such- and is more informal and doesn't have any legal connotations- we could start an SF Debris Institute tomorrow if we wanted. Sure enough, if you check it's Wikipedia page (the author doesn't have one himself) it lists over a dozen studies published by this "institute"...and ALL of them were by this author, suggesting he and the institute are one in the same, ie. it's just another sales' tactic to make himself sound more authoritative.

So, yeah, I can't judge this book properly without reading it, but the book and the author show signs of superficiality to me.

[GreyICE]

Speaking as an academic, these studies are worth less than their value as toilet paper during a pandemic.

Ayup. "Study" written in "his latest book" is a hard nope. I'm absolutely sure that you sectioned things super scholastically in your peer reviewed... popular book. And the research by the institute you founded to... cite in your novels. Oh, I'm sorry, not "novels", it's "hard-hitting cutting edge research no one else is doing." I really, really, really love how you founded it in 2009 with the money you got from a book written in 2007, and then it started doing the research you wrote about in your articles. And you were the one doing it. No, no, nope, no, no and also fuck no. That sort of scholarly incest is only slightly better than the Alabama kind.

The only problem with using his book as toilet paper is that's a really bad location to get a paper cut.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Jinkies.

[Darth Wedgius]

Does that include all racism, or just racism not against white people?