The Butthurt of Christian Sociology

It couldn't be that I'm fucking a statue.

It couldn’t be that I’m fucking a statue.

Well, Marky Mark is testifying against civil rights for his fellow Americans up in Michigan, but I’m too controversial to say anything about it. I guess since I’m at bullshit state, and since I say “fuck” a lot that makes me unqualified, so the plaintiffs have no quantitative social scientists to counter Regnerus’ bullshit.

Ah, and what does Marky Mark say about my assessment of his little bullshit paper in my audit for SSR? He claims that I’m a long time detractor. And an evil anti-Christian who has always opposed his work.

Yeah. Fuck you. Fuck you, all of you fucking fucks. How did you get your job? If it were not for me, it is very likely that Mark Regnerus would have remained at Calvin College. Indeed, if it were not for me, it is very likely that Mark Regnerus’ dissertation advisor would have been denied tenure at UNC. I’m so sick of these whining losers. I put all of my own personal biases aside, and  double checked them. I knew that these guys were conservative Christians, and since I was an atheist, I felt compelled to give them a chance and to not let my own personal beliefs and preferences influence my assessment of their research. Atheists are moral like that, unlike Christians.

When my old mentor Tony Oberschall called and said that they wanted to fire Christian Smith and he wanted to know why they shouldn’t, I argued that while Christian’s work was theoretically uninformed and would never be published in top tier journals, it was, nonetheless, much like demography. Christian was documenting the contours of social movements and religion, so that others might eventually make sense of them. It worked, unfortunately. Notably, in his “we’re going to fire you” pre-tenure review, Christian had been told that he should be doing more theoretically informed work, like some guy at Vanderbilt was doing.

Regnerus took a job at the conservative Christian Calvin College, but quickly realized that he needed a bigger mouthpiece. He claimed he wanted to be at a more research focused place, and I was happy to support his candidacy—easy enough to do since my old friend and co-author Chris Ellison was pulling the strings at Texas. But, I meant it. Regnerus really is a bright guy and a decent researcher–back when he wasn’t trying to prove a political point. That’s how I know he’s full of shit with his bullshit Fucked Up Family Study or whatever. Marky knows that is shit. Loser ass non-quants may not know that, but Marky is smarter than that. Which also means that he’s become a total political operative. But, that’s what’s become of all of the new Christian Sociologists. It doesn’t matter what the topic is, they’ll mislead you on family, science, sex, race, and even how we should confront AIDS in Africa! Gee, you think any of our Christian Sociologists have ties to the Kill the Gays shit? I can’t imagine……As soon as these people make tenure they become right wing political activists. That’s an empirical fact.


3 Responses to “The Butthurt of Christian Sociology”

  1. Ryan Cragun Says:

    So we have you to thank for Mark Regnerus?!?


    (I’m shaking my head in disbelief.)

    I knew you saved Christian Smith – you told me that over dinner in Hartford. But homophobe Regnerus?!?

    The real question is: How can we stop the damage Regnerus, Smith, and others of their ilk are doing to our discipline?

  2. Daniel P. Says:

    Well, it will be another day or 2 before the transcript is out, but the press reports today indicate that he didn’t do well under cross examination. Press reported that he was nervous and defensive. It was a bad sign when the judge interrupted even before cross examination had started to ask Regnerus whether it wasn’t true that his study would have included a lot of kids who were never raised by the parent who had had a same-sex relationship. You can’t always go by press reports, but FWIW it didn’t look good.

    Sherkat, the reason you are not well suited to be a testifying expert is because you write a lot, you write in a way that is accessible, and you write provocatively. All of that could be used against you if you were a testifying expert. It is no insult to you that you aren’t a good fit for that role. Samuel Jackson is a great actor, but if I am looking to cast someone as a a mild-mannered accountant, he’s not the guy.

    What your role could be in some future case is that of a consulting expert. In that role, you would work with attorneys behind the scenes, advising them of the best ways to attack and defend on the issues, deconstructing your adversary’s research and report, and generally answering their questions and guiding them along. In this role, your engaging personality and plain spoken style would probably be appreciated by a lot of litigators. And the cussing would be a plus.

  3. Behzad S. Says:

    While most definitely I am not a Christian, I fear that the type of sweeping language you use here can promote a witch-hunt in the academy against conservative Christians. I think we can take it for granted that researchers have ideologies, histories, cultural backgrounds, religious (un)beliefs, political preferences, etc. The real question is whether their publications satisfy scientific standards. If they don’t, it doesn’t matter whether they’re Christian, aetheist, or whatever. And if they do, then I don’t care about what their background is and what kind of political uses or abuses some people might put their work to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: