God forbid we use science

[Jester]

Now you are being unreasonably obtuse.

GAH!

I showed you my source. .5% of people when asked describe themselves as Evangelicals.

The number of people who would *describe themselves as Evangelicals* is much higher than 0.5%. It's ... (I'm sure we're all tired of hearing this) AROUND 25%.

The statistic you cited was the number who, when asked "How would you describe your religion," and forced to give one answer alone, would say Evangelical. If we extended the same concept to how many "Christians" there are (Because, by your inane misconstrual, that's how many "when asked describe themselves as Christian") we would end up with 6.8%! That's not even a 10th of the actual number.

Plus, we have a perfectly good set of numbers that we have also looked at, and discusses, and from which we get the numbers cited, from where you get the 9% of "traditional" evangelicals. How on earth are 9% of the people "traditional" Evangelicals, if only 0.5% are Evangelicals at all?!?!

In short, that 0.5% number is nothing more than trivia. It does not match what I mean when I say "Evangelicals." It does not match what anyone I know means. It does not match what the National Association of Evangelicals means! It doesn't match anything at all, except a number on a table that means almost nothing! It's like a clueless Martian anthropologist figuring the number of people who are "Earthlings" by asking humans for one term to describe where they're from, and ONLY counting the people who said "Earth"!

And you're accusing *me* of being unreasoningly dense?

I would agree that the political movement of the Religious Right is higher than .5%, but it is also much broader than Evangelicals. [...] If we go with the 25% number, then you would also have to go with the 9% number which are the portion of Evangelicals which are Traditionalist Republicans.

Are you painting with the broad brush? I say yes, and I've shown you why.

Look, this is an *internet forum*. I can't chisel out a picture-perfect statue of the entire American public in all its glory in every post. What I have said is, as best I can tell, correct, or at least, correct enough to be posted here. It is certainly a fair sight more nuanced than the *ludicrous* generalizations you whip off about Muslims on a weekly basis around here.

What you are saying about Evangelicals, would be akin to saying that Catholics are the source of the abstinence-only movement. When, again, there is a large portion of Catholics that would fall on both sides of the issue.

As I have *already* said, they are not the ONLY ones who support abstinence-only. They are, however, the *largest* block in favour of it, the most *consistent* block in favour of it, and the most *republican* block in favour of it. They are the most likely to vote their religion, on this kind of issue. Therefore, they are, *primarily*, the ones Mitt Romney is looking to win over! If you are unwilling to make even this kind of generalization, how the heck to you ever talk about politics at all? By qualifying every sentence with an entire encyclopaedia?

Are Blacks the problem with crime? Are homosexuals the problem with AIDS?

Hey, how about that! I already made those distinctions *in this thread*!

You would be quick to jump all over someone for a "bigoted" view, unless that view is held by you.

And this one!

Bah.

-Jester