Here are the most salient of the 16 characteristics of sociopathy referenced in the Psychology Today article: (my emphasis)

Superficial charm and good intelligence
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations

In other words, evangelicals who display sociopathic features are not outright 'crazies'

These seem quite significant:

Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
Specific loss of insight
General poverty in major affective reactions
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame

Pew Research: American Exceptionalism.

Religion is significantly less important to Europeans than to Americans. Just over half in the U.S. (53%) say religion is very important in their life, nearly double the share who hold this view in Poland, which registered the highest percentage among EU nations polled in 2015. In France, only 14% consider religion very important. Globally, there is a strong relationship between a country’s wealth and its level of religiosity. Nations with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita tend to have lower percentages saying religion is very important in their lives. However, the U.S. is a clear outlier to this pattern – a wealthy nation that is also relatively religious. — Cavacava

The US may have a very high level of GDP, but very large numbers of Americans (as a group and individually) have a very small share of that largesse. A lot of Americans are both relatively and actually poor, so the correlation holds between poverty and religiosity.

The effectiveness of re-tooling or exploiting belief to make money is just a fact of human behavior (innovation satisfying basic needs, doing what works for you).

Evangelicals historically probably had to sell other stuff beside their bibles to make a living. It's that guy who has bibles on one half of his coat and pornography on the other. An apt illustration of human nature (of the entrepreneur) if there ever was one.

The US may have a very high level of GDP, but very large numbers of Americans (as a group and individually) have a very small share of that largesse. A lot of Americans are both relatively and actually poor, so the correlation holds between poverty and religiosity. — Bitter Crank

Hey BC, I answered the question in the other thread if you're interested, but thought I'd chime in on this topic as well. The Enlightenment has provided a way to see the world which does not tether the individual to older worldviews that provided solace in a vicarious universe that did not care if one day you were prosperous and the next you had the plague. Things were easily answered with mysticism, folk beliefs, and religious throw away answers (probably with the shrug of the shoulder). After the Enlightenment by-and-large spread through Europe and by migration to the Americas, the ideas of progress spread. It did not spread evenly though. Competing Protestant groups were looking for adherents to a strict Calvinist outlook. The 1500-1600s saw the rise of both wildly strict varieties of Protestantism (and Catholicism with its counter-Reformation and Inquisition). Meanwhile, people like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the like whittled away much of the religious mumbo jumbo (in Jefferson's case literally) until they essentially assented to either pseudo-atheistic, pantheistic, or deistic varieties of belief (if only to their peers or personal journals). This divide between the strict Protestant and the Enlightenment is seen to this day. Largely, "social progressives/liberals" share in the more pantheistic/atheistic/deistic (and definitely NON-TRADITIONAL) accounts, while "social conservatives" adhere to theistic/orthodox/traditional worldviews.

Oddly, the mentality of the Enlightenment (human reasoning using scientific-mathematical methodologies) has created the framework for much of the technology that is praised by both theists and non-theists alike. Yet, though the theists like the products of the reasoning, the framework of a strictly causal world is scorned. The Enlightenment and its scientific antecedents in a way are scorned for their views by fundamentalist theists, but the outcomes of these views, they do not mind at all using.

The problem with the article (as Michael pointed out) was that a pastor was quoted as lamenting the fact that more gays weren't killed in Orlando. He obviously (to me) does not speak for most evangelicals. If the question simply is whether the radically religious of all stripes are disproportionately sociopathic, I'd assume so, but that's a no brainer.

There really are good hearted Christians who walk the walk. Religiosity most often is a product of upbringing and geographic origin, not some organic brain dysfunction that leads to sociopathic tendencies. Arguments otherwise only polarize the left from the right farther (like that's possible) because they appear as blatant attempts to further deligitimize traditionalists who already complain they've lost the podium to the left.

The point is that if you think there's a modicum of truth to the article, you're not at all interested in what the right has to say. You're firmly planted among your kind, and I can see no reason how'd you justify serious debate with the sociopathic right. That is, the debate is over and the opponent has been proved nothing less than a cuckoo bird who predictably sticks his head out the door throughout the day and makes cuckoo sounds.

If the question to you really is whether evangelical Christians are sociopaths (i.e. cuckoo birds), don't expect them to seriously engage you.

Does it contain a thick, robust streak of sociopathy? — Bitter Crank

I personally really don't think so. Yes there are some believers who are more literalistic and legalistic in their beliefs, but they're not sociopathic.

This woman was given as an example in the article.

Now she obviously has some problems with her son and doesn't agree with the path he has chosen in life, and is obviously hurt by this. She doesn't appear to have any kind of poverty in her affective reactions, be insincere, incapable of love, etc.

I did read your reply in the other thread which had risen about to my eyebrows, and is now over my head. Thanks, however, for your further comments.

One of my sisters (maybe all of them, I'm not sure) migrated into the camp of the fundy-evangelicals decades ago in the form of Missionary Baptists. Their theology is pretty rigid; I've been sent to hell for various short comings, including not accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Being Lutheran isn't enough. "They don't really believe in Jesus." Then there's homosexuality. (If she knew the actual depths of my theological depravity she'd probably not speak to me again.)

She is up to date; she doesn't practice faith healing--she believes in scientific medicine. She has a computer and a smart phone. Otherwise, there's no evolution, no big bang, etc. All that is "anti-god".

Money mindedness is pretty common among all religious, pretty much. Most churches are effectively real estate operations. The needs of the edifice drive the congregation. Only the richest, most endowed of congregations can afford to put service before building maintenance. Then there are the clergy who, in many denominations, are well paid. Our congregation spends at least $110,000 on the senior pastor and $45,000 on the assistant pastor. They are well paid; neither of them have what I would call difficult jobs.

There are a couple of pathologies among many religious:

For one, they like tangible assets -- the very kind that Jesus said we ought not store up where rust and thieves might get at them.

For another, they really don't like the poor getting too close. They are willing to give a little to the poor at a distance, just don't knock on our door. (This is also a direct contradiction of the Gospel.)

For three, there is a disconnect between the Gospel and what many churches focus upon. The church is usually more of a fraternal organization than a group preparing for the Kingdom of God. I like the fraternal aspects of the church; it feels good. That, in itself, isn't a bad thing. It's when there isn't much more that it becomes a problem.

The pathology here is 'disassociation' rather than sociopathy.

There really are good hearted Christians who walk the walk. Religiosity most often is a product of upbringing and geographic origin, not some organic brain dysfunction that leads to sociopathic tendencies. — Hanover

Of course there are good hearted Christians -- millions, I would guess. Yes, religiosity is indeed most often the product of upbringing (and maybe geographic origin). But good heartedness doesn't rule out

some organic brain dysfunction that leads to sociopathic tendencies — Hanover

And no, most fundamentalists and evangelicals are not sociopaths -- an army of sociopaths would surely tear itself apart. It's among the small numbers at the top where one will find the really twisted sisters. And they will also show up among the most outspoken.

You're firmly planted among your kind, and I can see no reason how'd you justify serious debate with the sociopathic right. — Hanover

Indeed, this is about the dangers/nuisance value/problem of the sociopathic right, not a request for a dialog. The kind of conservative i like to read and hear is David Brooks.

If the question to you really is whether evangelical Christians are sociopaths (i.e. cuckoo birds), don't expect them to seriously engage you. — Hanover

Like I said, it's the leadership and the most rabid followers that are likely to be pathological. Most Christians--Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox, can be understood by reading Kierkegaard's Attack on Christendom.

Now she obviously has some problems with her son and doesn't agree with the path he has chosen in life, and is obviously hurt by this. She doesn't appear to have any kind of poverty in her affective reactions, be insincere, incapable of love, etc. — Agustino

She's sincere, I suspect. If a belief system can be "sociopathic" (the term applies to persons) it's for providing a strong incentive to disassociate herself from her gay son. She's a homo-hater, encouraged by her religion. I get that she may be hurt and disappointed in her son -- at least as hurt and disappointed as her son is in her.

I think it's more likely that gay activism is becoming evangelical.

than what?

The celebration of diversity in everything except for opinion.

The US may have a very high level of GDP, but very large numbers of Americans (as a group and individually) have a very small share of that largesse. A lot of Americans are both relatively and actually poor, so the correlation holds between poverty and religiosity.

The information is presented on a capita basis in order to compare it to other nations, but as you indicate it can be skewed. Pew found no hard correlation between the level of income and religiosity, but in general the poorer the nation the more likely it is religious, except for the US.

As presented 53% of US population said religion is very important in their lives, the poverty level in US is 14.3% of the population which means that the 38.7% of those who live above the poverty level in the US also believe that religion is very important in their lives.

Good point. Here's another good point... It doesn't have anything to do with anything--I just came across it in the New York Times review of a book about the several Warner brothers of Warner Brothers movie fame:

“Don’t rule this out as simple heresy, but America might have been happier without the pursuit of happiness.” Unattributed. Might be a Warner brother, might be the author of the book, might be the book reviewer. Don't know.

Nice graph. I do love me a nice curve. Thanks.

“Don’t rule this out as simple heresy, but America might have been happier without the pursuit of happiness.” Unattributed. Might be a Warner brother, might be the author of the book, might be the book reviewer. Don't know. — Bitter Crank

I think a relevant observation, by Schopenhauer, re the US in particular, in respect of this particular question, is this: 'Money is human happiness in the abstract'. Which explains how 'pursuit of happiness' came to be understood as the 'pursuit of money'; and that whatever impedes this pursuit is therefore seen as evil (e.g. government, taxes).

It is my understanding that when Thomas Jefferson was working on the Declaration of Independence, he had first written "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" (Locke's big three). I think it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested 'happiness' instead of property.

The pursuit of property, however, is what results-oriented fellows went for, 99 times out of 100.

It is my understanding that when Thomas Jefferson was working on the Declaration of Independence, he had first written "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" (Locke's big three). I think it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested 'happiness' instead of property.

Yes, that's also what I understand.

"Sell the sizzle and not the steak" is often attributed to Ben Franklin.

Here are the most salient of the 16 characteristics of sociopathy referenced in the Psychology Today article: (my emphasis)

Superficial charm and good intelligence
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations

In other words, evangelicals who display sociopathic features are not outright 'crazies'

These seem quite significant:

Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
Specific loss of insight
General poverty in major affective reactions
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame — Bitter Crank

Sounds like the depiction of the ancient Athenians in Thucydides. It has been among us for a very long time.

Franklin might have said sell the sizzle, but I kind of doubt it. First, Google Ngrams reports no use of 'sizzle' before 1840. That probably because nothing sizzled until about 1840. Sizzle has just gotten better and better since.

A blog at Freakonomics says...

Each week, I’ve been inviting readers to submit quotations whose origins they want me to try to trace, using my book, The Yale Book of Quotations, and my more recent researches. Here is the latest round.
Stan Hansen asked:
What about “Sell the Sizzle, not the Steak?” I have heard it many times but never have found where it came from.
The Yale Book of Quotations has this under the name of marketing expert Elmer Wheeler:
“Don’t Sell the Steak — _Sell the Sizzle!_”
Tested Sentences That Sell (1937) — Freakonomics

Yes, my point is he could have said it, meaning to sell the 'pursuit of happiness' as a way of life, the sizzle, instead of ownership of property, the steak.

Sorry about that. I can be a little dense sometimes. I must have had an attack of deadly literalism.

— Bitter Crank

I have not attended church regularly for more than 20 years. But before that I was active, from my earliest years as a teenager through graduating from high school, in a Southern Baptist church in a blue county (Obama got the majority here in '08 and '12; democrats always get the majority here in presidential elections) in a red state (Bush in '00 and '04; McCain in '08; Romney in '12; Trump in '16). I regularly interacted with some of the people you characterize as sociopaths, and they were from college-educated middle-class families, not families with little education and living in poverty.

Even when I have not attended church I have regularly interacted with some of those Evangelical Christians you would characterize as sociopaths. Again, middle class, college-educated people living and working in a county that always ends up on the electoral map in blue.

Although I have not regularly attended church in a long time, I have on a few occasions visited churches. Some of them are known for their strong conservative, anti-abortion, anti-same-sex-marriage evangelical credentials. Again, suburban mega-churches in an affluent city, and pews filled with affluent, educated, middle class people living the American Dream.

I think that the narrative about religion in the United States of America that has developed since the start of the culture wars in the 1970's grossly oversimplifies, stereotypes, and distorts social reality.

I have also interacted with a lot of Christians who have aligned themselves with left/liberal/progressive positions and who give as much love to the conservative evangelical Christians as the conservative evangelical Christians give to their enemies. Neither group is nice. I would not wish life with either group on anybody.

But there are also the secular humanists, anti-theists, etc. in that aforementioned narrative. They are not nice people either. I would not wish life with them on anybody either.

I do not have a PhD in psychology, but my subjective experience and anecdotal evidence tells me that no group has a monopoly on sociopathy.

I would say that the difference is in how organized, well-funded, visible, etc. each group is. The secularists humanists, anti-theists, etc. are a small minority in the U.S., I think it is safe to say.

That barely scratches the surface. I could write for several more hours about all of the oversimplification, prejudice, stereotyping, etc. that that increasingly popular narrative contains. Look at this essay titled Blinded by the Right? How hippie Christians begat evangelical conservatives.

If a belief system can be "sociopathic" (the term applies to persons) it's for providing a strong incentive to disassociate herself from her gay son. She's a homo-hater, encouraged by her religion. I get that she may be hurt and disappointed in her son -- at least as hurt and disappointed as her son is in her. — Bitter Crank

I wouldn't say she's exactly a homo-hater.

It has been said that in marriage, the pain and stress of divorce is greater than even the pain of losing a spouse to death. I believe the same can be said of breaking ties with your child. Unless one has experienced this kind of loss and grief, they cannot fully understand the depth of pain experienced by a parent.
Someone may ask, “Why would anyone break ties with her own child?” The answer is, “loyalty to Jesus.” Being a disciple of Jesus demands our relationship to him be greater than our relationship to our own family, even our own children (Matthew 10:37).
I pray that you never have to make such a sacrifice, but I also pray that you love the Lord enough to choose Him over your children. This is where we find ourselves. This is our life. Our oldest son has turned his back on the Lord, and in spite of all our attempts, he refuses to repent. Consequently, our relationship has changed. It cannot remain the same and be loyal to Jesus (2 Thessalonians 3:6,14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Our contact with our son is now limited to attempts at restoration. We have no fellowship. We used to share holidays, regular phone calls and texts, family events, etc. but now, all that is gone. Our son has completely turned his back on everything he ever believed. He has no respect for the Lord or His church. He has chosen a life of sin rather than the hope of salvation. And because of his rebellion against God, we as parents must make a choice. Do we overlook his practice of sin and maintain our relationship, or do we withdraw ourselves from him as the Lord instructs?
I believe that the blood of Christ is more important that the physical flesh and blood that I share with my son. Unfortunately, my husband and I know the pain of “giving our child to the Devil.” Those words are sharp, shocking and grim, just as Paul intended them to be when he wrote them (1 Corinthians 5:5). Perhaps I am writing this is for myself more than for those who are reading. I have not seen my son in nearly two and a half years now and there are days that the pain is just as fresh as ever. Until now, I have kept this pain inside and shared with only a couple of my closest friends. I am not sure that a day has gone by that I have not shed tears. Sometimes it is a single tear and other days are gut wrenching cries of despair. I have pulled into my driveway with tears blinding my eyes, only to find myself literally screaming and wailing in grief. I’m devastated by our loss; his loss.
I feel desperation and hopelessness. I’m scared. What probably began as harmless flirtation with sin has now become a quicksand that pulls my son deeper and deeper toward Hell. Sometimes I feel jealous of other parents who have close, loving relationships with all their grown children. I feel embarrassed by what my son has done.
The fact is, I don’t know this person that I once thought I knew so well. Was I blind to things that I should have seen? I believed our relationship was so close. I adored this child. Was the love our son expressed to us all a lie? How does one go from being a respectful obedient child to flagrantly disregarding everything we taught him and everything that we stand for?
A full night’s sleep…what is that? While I am able to fall asleep easily, there is not a night that goes by that I sleep until morning. I awaken in the middle of the night, and the first thought in my mind is that I had just had a terrible dream, but I soon realize that it wasn’t a dream, it is reality; my reality.
I try to picture where my son is now and what he may be doing. I hurt. Sin is ugly. It is disgusting. It perverts. While I don’t want to know, I find myself drawn to his social media like watching two cars collide. I want to look away, but I can’t. I care too much.
Sometimes the hardest thing are the memories. Remembering the joy I felt in that plump baby who looked at me so adoringly. I remember when he sat on the kitchen counter helping peel potatoes or stir ingredients into the batter. I remember our home school days at the kitchen table and reading together on the couch. I remember singing harmony together in the kitchen. I remember the pride I felt when he led singing or gave a talk at young men’s night at church. Those memories are all I have left now. There are no more to make.
Occasionally, I may see a young man that looks like my son. Or, I may be cleaning out a closet and see a photograph. I may be asked by a well-meaning person, where my son is now. All these make me cry. He was such a handsome boy, an excellent student, a talented musician, so kind and thoughtful of others. He never gave us trouble while at home. He loved his siblings. I remember his “infectious laugh.”
Mother’s day and Father’s day are so hard. While we used to receive the most precious cards and notes of love and appreciation, now any correspondence from him are filled with anger, blame, hateful words. Even worse are the sarcastic and blasphemous words used toward his heavenly Father.
Self evaluation, guilt, despair, fear….I have felt all these emotions. Who is a perfect parent? Who doesn’t have something that they would change if they could go back. Even so, I know that we were good parents. We loved our son, spent time with him, encouraged him, and taught him God’s word.
I don’t know what the future holds for our son or our family. What I do know is that God is faithful (2 Thessalonians 3:3). He will do what is right (Genesis 18:25). He will reward those who diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6). More than I could have ever understood before, I long for the promises of heaven, namely that God will wipe away every tear…there will be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain (Revelation 21:4).
Heaven will be a place of great reunion with those who have gone on before. There is an old hymn that invites everyone to “come to the feast”. I just wish we didn’t have an empty chair at our table.

She evidently shows some degree of empathy for her son and feels pained by communicating less with him. It's true that she didn't handle the situation the best she could (I believe) but some element of alienation and separation is inevitable if people's views diverge so much.

Are evangelical Christians evil? What would it mean if they were? Don't listen to them, at the very least. Perhaps disband them. Lock them up? Burn them all? What kind of question is that? Particularly as a collective identity? Obviously, it being true is impossible, taken at face value. Only sociopaths can be guaranteed to be sociopathic as a collective.

It just sounds like a defaming non-serious question by something antagonistic to them to me. Are they not quite human? Are they criminal, evil?

To psychologize in reverse, I've heard that when someone disagrees with you, you think one of three things, in progressive fashion. Firstly, you're ignorant. Well, you just don't have the facts. Don't know what I know. But if I know that you do have the facts, then I think you must be stupid. Can't draw the proper conclusions from them, because you're just too fucking stupid. Only after I assume that you're informed, and also intelligent do I assume that you must be evil. As you know the truth, but you're still pretending it's not the truth for some reason... some evil reason...

Thankfully, the good anti-religious among us think that they're all just ignorant, or morons. We don't think enough of them to elevate them to the status of evil.

Her testimony convicts her and her church's teachers.

I believe that the blood of Christ is more important that the physical flesh and blood that I share with my son. Unfortunately, my husband and I know the pain of “giving our child to the Devil.” Those words are sharp, shocking and grim, just as Paul intended them to be when he wrote them (1 Corinthians 5:5).

They are certainly "sharp, shocking, and grim".

I do not doubt that she feels a great deal of pain. For the apportionment of blame, much goes to the organization to which she belongs, and some goes to her and her husband for cultivating their all-or-nothing, black and white, obedience or damnation version of morality. What she and her husband need is a large dose of 360º forgiveness (as recipient as well as donor). Unfortunately, generosity in forgiveness is incompatible with their kind of judgmental belief.

Their thinking is no different than the kind of savage theology practiced by Muslim fundamentalists -- cutting off the hands of thieves, killing women for shaming the family, or throwing homosexuals off the roofs of buildings.

The Bible lends itself to various kinds of thinking. Deist Thomas Jefferson had his Bible (he literally cut out the many passages he didn't like--probably 1 Corinthians 5 ended up on the cutting room floor), while Puritan Jonathan Edwards liked the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" Bible. Jefferson types do not end up in Edward's congregation, and Jonathan Edwards' people don't buy Jefferson's Bible.

People seem to be 'tilted' toward one direction of belief or another (not beliefs specifically, just the flavor--severity or liberality--of the beliefs). The 'tilt' can be exaggerated by skillful (and perhaps quite sociopathic) teachers and leaders. It isn't unique to evangelical Christians, of course. Roman Catholics have their own variety of severe, unbending beliefs.

I wouldn't say she's exactly a homo-hater. — Agustino

Well, what would you call her? A "not-enthusiastic about homos"? A "hetero-preferer"? "Homo annoyed"?

Look, if you are willing to slam the door on your own gay son, you probably are going to feel something similarly hateful when you see two guys kissing.

People disown members of their families for lots of petty reasons. Sometimes for no reason at all, and don't give it much of a second thought, because you're attention demanding, and they're too self-centered for that. People that get hit hard by that suggestion annoy me. They must have come from some tv family.

I could write for several more hours about all of the oversimplification, prejudice, stereotyping, etc. that that increasingly popular narrative contains. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Couldn't we all!!!

I was an active Methodist up until about 1966 (I was about 20 then). Nothing dramatic happened; I was active in the campus Wesley Foundation in my freshman year, not very active in my sophomore year, then not at all. Just lost interest. Ten years later I got involved in Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a non-denominational evangelical ministry of, by, and for gay people. I was active in that for several years--it was a way of reconciling "gay" and "Christian". About that time (1982-83) I started moving leftward politically and religiously, got involved with atheistic socialists, and have pretty much stayed there.

MCC is an odd mix of evangelical music, theological salad (bits of everything), informal/formal liturgical practice, and friendship. MCC is international, but mostly in the US. It's an odd liberal/conservative evangelical group, camped on what is for most evangelicals the sharp picket fence of homosexuality. There are something like 225 MCC congregations in the US, some of them fairly large.

In its earlier days (1970s), MCC was decidedly a counter-culture Jesus group. Not exactly hippies (that was over). At the same time homophile groups had organized within the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches. These groups could be campy, but adhered somewhat, at least, to their denominational practice. Most of these groups are still in business too, though reduced by way of success. Dignity was kicked off the property of the Catholic Church (by the two previous popes), but many parishes are now accepting of gay members.

Evangelical worship style has infested many mainline churches, regardless of theological differences.