I do not equate and never intimated that they were equivalent.
The Pew group is well known for its antiCatholic bias, just as most liberal groups are. Calvinist organizations are well know for their antiCatholic biases as well. I think that it is the seizing on one antiCatholic's bile by another antiCatholic group and I in no way intended to present them as equivalent or in collusion in any way.
What you stated, based upon what you knew, was that the Pew study was “I am forced to conclude that this study has been pulled from the same orifice as the collected works of Calvin and all his minions has been.” You are equating them at least in the sense that that they had little or no credibility in your eyes, while seemingly dismissing such out of hand due to source and results more than anything else.
It also seems that you yourself have invoked statistics, and your demanding standard is not shared by RCs who quote stats which show things which make Protestants look badly. And if that were overall the case, i do not think i would find RCs questioning their veracity.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. Proof is proof and wishful thinking is wishful thinking. If the good Doctor wishes to engage in grand mal seizure type behaviour in waving around a prayer hanky utilizing unsubstantiated claims in claiming victory over the Christians, then, I shall challenge those claims.
I have offered up an example scientifically accurate poll and asked her to come up with her own if she does not like that one and I have repeatedly offered to discuss data and scientifically accurate conclusions, regardless of which scientifically accurate poll she wishes to use.
I could better understand your rejection if you had substantiated your charges. From what i see Eck — in response to WpaCon who rightly claimed the Catholic Church is the largest “denomination” in the world and in America — claimed Prots outnumbered Catholics, and referenced a news report, which claimed that evangelical Protestantism was the larger religious tradition vs. Roman Catholicism, which referenced a Pew study, the figures being 51% Protestant, 26% Evangelical Protestant, and 24% Roman Catholic. The comparison of the latter two is what is problematic, as shall be seen.
In response, you dismissed the 2010 Pew study as being flawed, charging that it had no data or methodology cited, though unlike yours, the survey is easily found, and the the “Note on defining religious affiliation” is easily seen with more details, methodology and DataSets being accessible from the same main web report page.
You asserted that 2001 City University of New York (CUNY) did not have the political bias that Pew does. But the link you posted does not go to the CUNY study, but to a map (which site and map is interesting) based on Catholic missionary advocates, Glenmary Research, which i myself do reference elsewhere (and which refs the ARIS ref. below on another page). You also invoked the methodology of the CUNY study, in which they asked the respondents to self-report their religious affiliation, not from a list, thus eliminating numbers based upon church rolls (such as that of Adherents). This study showed 38% of respondents identifying as Catholics, and approx. 51% being Prots (with 25% being Baptists). Thus Catholicism would remain as the largest denomination, but not “tradition,” though Eck apparently saw the two being (wrongly) equated someplace. However, the CUNY survey only covers denominational affiliation, not theological or moral views, and its methodology is insufficient for evidencing “traditions” or subsets of groups which hold to fairly distinguishing views.
As for the Pew methodology, its numbers were not from church rolls, but were based upon self-identification, though with Protestants also being grouped into religious traditions based on their specific denomination. Thus the evangelical stats — it not being a formal denomination, but a recognized “tradition” marked by certain distinctives, (like “Pentecostal”) — were based upon what Protestant denom they ID themselves with. Again, more on that later on.
Your assertion is that Pew has an antiCatholic bias is that it is well known, the proof seemingly being based upon association with the MSM, this does not prove that the report by Pew is, or that the multitude of studies that concur with it are, and that they have a corresponding pro-evangelical bias. And who are also treated with scorn by the MSM, if not more, especially as relative to their size.
As for CUNY being unbiased, i see no proof that this public college is critically distinguishable it from the education establishment in general, which is overwhelmingly liberal the best i see indicated, if disputable. Also, the larger (35,000) extensive (45 questions) Pew study also states that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority (presently 51%) Protestant country, though with Catholicism also decreasing (31% being born Catholic with 24% remaining so). And if bias really effects the stats, then we could expect that against both.
An assertion of bias is also weak as it supposes that negative figures on Catholics versus evangelicals would serve the liberal agenda, while an anti-Catholic agenda could just as well or be better served by targeting Roman Catholicism as the most conservative Christian group, rather than alarming Rome, possibly resulting in a reformed and more vibrant conservatism.
However, both studies confirm that Protestants outnumber Catholics in America, which concurs with every study i have ever seen. But there certainly are more Catholics here now than there were in 1800. As regards the 2001 38% versus 2010 25% Catholic figure, this variant figure needs linked information, such as sample size, from where the respondents were, etc. and more conflating studies for confirmation.
The AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY (ARIS) of 2008, a replica of 1990 and 2001 massive studies, and which is hosted (sponsored?) by CUNY, asked all 54,461 random respondents (in English or Spanish) the same unprompted, open-ended key question: “What is your religion, if any?” The religion of the spouse/partner was also asked. If the initial answer was ‘Protestant’ or ‘Christian’ further questions were asked to probe which particular denomination. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers.
As so large a study this resulted in over 100 unique answers, they were categorized into 12 religious traditions and smaller lists, with one list including as Catholics all those who responded that they were Roman Catholics, or Eastern Rites Catholics, and all others who used the term “Catholic” in their response. In distinction were “Other Christians,” these being composed of all non-Catholic respondents who self-identified with a religious group which claims to be Christian (Baptist, etc.) as well as any theological term that related to Christianity. This resulted in 25:1% of respondents self-Identifying themselves as Catholic, down from 26.2% in 1990, and 50.9% being “Other Christian,” down from 60% in 1990 (15.8% were Baptist; 12.9% Mainline Prot, 5% Methodist, etc.). Further questioning involved such questions as, “Do you identify as a Born Again or Evangelical Christian?,” with no definition offered of the terms or distinction made between them. In response, 44.8% of all American Christians (34% of the total national adult population), fell into the born again/evangelical, category 18.4% being Catholics. (p. 9) In a smaller study, 14 percent of Catholics described themselves as evangelical, along with 47% of Protestants, and 62% of Baptists in particular.
Only 1.6 percent of Americans called themselves atheist or agnostic, yet the percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent. 90 percent of the decline of Christians comes from the non-Catholic segment of the Christian population, while most the rise in the Christian population (not percentage as a whole) occurred among those who identified only as "Christian," "Evangelical/Born Again," or "non-denominational Christian," with 38.6 percent of mainline Protestants identifying themselves as evangelical or born again. A 2004 Gallup poll of 2,003 U.S. adults reported 41% said they were born-again or evangelical, with a 2008 poll showing 22% Catholic and 55% non-Catholic Christian.
A survey i also include by the The Henry Institute, and reported by the http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/survey_finds_some_catholics_looking_for_a_political_home, broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists, and found that 5.3 percent of the respondents qualified as traditionalist Catholic, 5.4 percent as centrist Catholics, and 4.9 percent of respondents are modernist Catholics. It also shows about 68 percent of traditionalist Catholics opposed gays and lesbian marriage, versus 50% of centrist Catholics and 65 percent of modernist Catholics. In the Baylor study, Catholics that indicated they were Biblical literalists (11.8%) held more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does.
This was an extensive (in questions) 2005 Baylor Religion Survey (polling by Gallup of 1,721 American respondents, by telephone and self-administered mailed surveys), and in addition to presenting respondents to choose from a standard list of denominations, they asked respondents to give the name and the address of their place of worship. This survey found (p. 11) 21.2% Catholic, 22.1%, Mainline Protestant, with 33.6% being Evangelical Protestant by affiliation. (See list of churches on p. 9) Yet only 15 percent of the population used the precise term “Evangelical” to describe their religious identity and barely two in 100 Americans say it is the best description. Moreover, only 32.6% of Evangelical Protestant congregations and denominations referred to themselves as “Evangelical.”
The ARIS study reports 34% of American adults self-identified themselves as “Born Again or Evangelical Christians” in 2008, while Barna classifies them according to their affirmation of all of 9 basic theological factors. This latter classification results in a figure of 8% being evangelical in America, much less than when respondents are classified according to what denom they ID with, which denoms themselves are classified according to a criteria. Yet if all individuals were classified according to affirmation of all of 9 fairly distinguishing theological factors then we can reasonable expect all the conservative numbers to drop, and just as significantly. However, this method would eliminate both PINOS, CINOS and EINOS, and would allow some Catholics to be part of the evangelical category.
Those who self-identify as evangelicals consistently show more fidelity to core truths and values, whether they are classified as such due to their denominational affiliation, or affirmation of a basic theological criteria.
In conclusion, i find not warrant for impugning the integrity of the Pew report on the number of Catholics vs. Protestants, nor is the figure for evangelicals unreasonable or evidence of bias. But while the evangelical classification is a recognized and warranted tradition (as is Fundamentalism, a subset of it), due to its nature and polling methodology, numbers for it cannot be as accurate as for those who belongs to what denomination. Yet self-reporting that may not necessarily reflect what persons in denoms believe, which classifying people according to their answers to theological and moral questions can reveal, and which thus gives birth to, or substantiates distinguishing traditions, as imprecise as they may be.
And rather than showing great disparity, an overall uniformity is evidenced Catholic studies show Catholics as more liberal. If you find stats that overall show the opposite, then let me know. I have not.
More liberal in what way than what group?
Than that “tradition” called “evangelical,” under every method, which also allows distinguishing among Catholics in general and those in evangelical denoms, and among Protestants in general.
Standing applause. You have pulled together a tremendous post and I congratulate you for it.
I would like to PM you with an explanation if I may.