|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is there hope for the Bible Belt?
|
Macx
Shipmate
# 14532
|
Posted
Thanks Bullfrog.
In attempting to speak for my culture, What I hope to convey is that tolerance is a two way street. I am willing to come here and hear what this collection of predominantly liberal folk have to say, I am not here to convert or destroy, I am here to exchange ideas, and to beat out the value of my own thoughts on the anvil of alternate points of view. There can be none of that if the Bible Belt is turned into a slur, its advocates derided as backwoods, inbred, uneducated quasi-cavemen.
As an anarchist, hegemony in any flavor worries me. Hegemony weaks the species, dulls the brain, yet we as people are drawn to our own kind. Enclaves form as a result & I am inclined to believe the enclaves are a happy medium that allow both costal liberals and Bible belt fundamentalists to coexist without anyone being exterminated. If no one ever left their enclave, they'd be missing out on the exchange of ideas and that would be sad (no sarcasm, it would be sad). It is healthy and a good thing to go into other cultures and exchange ideas, it is not unrealistic to think that one may become uncomfortable with some of another cultures values. The worst thing I ever ate was a delicacy in Uganda, but I have a passionate love for their culture . . . it took three days and I stopped counting how many teeth brushings to get that flavor out of my mouth. Not everything in a different culture is going to be palitable. The OP's statement quote:
And if so, will it eventually go the way of the Eastern seaboard and the Pacific coast and become more liberal, more secularised or more pluralist?
conveyed to me that it is a goal to force coastal liberalism until they decide they like the horrific delicacy. The OP's post sounded like quote:
Some are heroically bearing witness to other ways of doing things. And I take my hat off to them.
these people are missionaries trying to erradicate the native religion. That is what got me bristling. It sounded to me like the same intolerance that sparked hundreds of years of religious war in Europe (which ironically started the enlightenment and the liberal theologians it spawned).
When I was about to go seminary, my Bishop gave me a choice between two schools. I chose the school I'd be least comfortable in. I didn't think the purpose of going to seminary was to be reinforced in the ideas and preferances I already had. It was painful at times, the incessant praise and worship music, the lack of hymns, incense, and chant. I was lucky to score the one high Anglo-Catholic parish to do my field ed. in and valued it as a little island of respite, I don't think I would have made it without that relief. Privately I railed against the snake belly low evangelicals, but I think I learned alot. It was uncomfortable and it did force me to grow. I don't want to see that opportunity disappear. I am inclined to believe that the fertile soil does allow other flowers to bloom and perhaps more brightly, but would caution against clear-cutting the field for the benefit of one odd flower. We as humans are only beautiful in diversity.
--------------------
Ghosts are always faster in the corners.
Your shipmate,
Macx
Posts: 457 | From: Whittier, Twin Cities, MN | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Thanks, Maxc, you have explained where you are coming from better than before.
However, there are things that can well bother a yankee about the Bible Belt, thinking particularly about its most characteristic religion, i.e. the Southern Baptist Convention. Ought we to let these concerns go simply on the grounds that there are so many millions of them, or that they are part of a rather long-standing and characteristic regional subculture?
I won't dwell on the fact that the very identity of this group is due originally to its arguably unChristian taste for racial segregation, of which enough vestiges remained some 150 years later to provoke a former President of the U.S. to leave it as a matter of conscience. Since then they've apologized for it, at least on paper, so maybe we should be good Americans and bury that hatchet in the history books. What bothers me more has happened in the past thirty years: the unabashed power-grabs, centralization, whip-cracking, and hurling of anathemas in a denomination that had supposedly always been noted for the autonomy of congregations and the independent stature of every believer. Are these developments a novelty, or are they the manifestation of yet another hypocrisy that had been maintained in this denomination for a long time? In either case, it is a rather dazzling display of schizophrenia. Will the real Baptist in the South please stand up?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macx:
What I hope to convey is that tolerance is a two way street.
But not to liberals.......
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Well, I think that on an individual, person to person basis, most "liberals" probably accept persons in their life space who would be deemed "conservative". However, I would say it's true that as a political programme, both sides understandably want to advance the practical expression of their respective ideologies. Is that intolerance? And if intolerance, is it perhaps justifiable and inevitable?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Originally posted by New Yorker: quote:
But not to liberals...
Not to be extended to liberals, did you mean? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[edited for clarity]
[ 30. April 2009, 20:00: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
No, I think New Yorker meant that liberals are intolerant of those who hold conservative views. Hence, my response that I don't believe that to be true at the level of individual relationships (hell, I have friends who are way conservative Republican types), but that perhaps tolerance isn't something that we can talk about in the same way in respect to the political programme that each side tries, understandably, to advance. In that sense, perhaps culture wars are inevitable and all we can do is try to keep them as polite and civilised as possible.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, I think that on an individual, person to person basis, most "liberals" probably accept persons in their life space who would be deemed "conservative".
I could say the same of most conservatives I've known vis a vis liberals.
Granted, I've met members of both parties who, while they could "tolerate" anyone, would be visibly less respectful to people who disagreed with them.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macx
Shipmate
# 14532
|
Posted
I certainly didn't say that. I wouldn't be hanging around here if I was intolerant of liberals. If my bishop would have given me the choice, I would have gone to Sewanee.
I am resistant to some of the ideas, of course I find the whole "making believe homosexual acts (as distinguished from the preference) is not sin" to require leaps from logic that I am not willing to make. Sin, is sin, I have mine they have theirs we all need redemption. I am not a very good person and even if I was it wouldn't be good enough to get me through the pearly gates except for the grace of Christ. . . I don't go making believe that my sins aren't really sins, and building elaborate sets of Biblical "scholarship" to support how I wish the Book read. I am sure my point of view on this topic is not in agreement with all or even most of the folks on this forum. We both benefit from the dialogue.
I have at times wondered if the militant straight bashing that goes on is a form of compensating for an intellectually weak position on the part of liberals. Perhaps the idea that they could be wrong is what leads the liberal coasts to try and eradicate the Bible Belt ... the weaker the position the greater the intollerance perhaps?
Of course I am picking perspectives on homosexuality because it is a topic with well defined trenches in the cultural conflict. There are of course corresponding weaknesses like the topic of abortion which the Bible Belt right, tends to be very militant because they are wrong. Both sides have issues that could use some fixing, but neither switching sides nor erradicating the alternate view point is a viable cure. It'll take people willing to stretch and grow, it'll take tolerance mixed with exposure, but both systems of ideology could and should co-exist.
--------------------
Ghosts are always faster in the corners.
Your shipmate,
Macx
Posts: 457 | From: Whittier, Twin Cities, MN | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whoa ... look what I've started. The US Civil War all over again ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Let's back up a bit. And let's not forgot that Victorian Britain almost intervened on the Southern Side ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Firstly, I need to expand a bit on the OP. I can understand how its tone has upset some Southerners. But I'd be perfectly happy to start another thread entitled 'Is there hope for secularised, post-Christian Western Europe?'
Or 'Is there hope for the gospel-amnesiac UK?'
I'm not necessarily saying that a more secularised or pluralistic culture is a good thing as far as religious observance or being nice to other people and holding doors open for them etc is concerned. I'd be more than happy to visit other parts of the US as well as New York.
And, for the record, whilst I might differ from them in some respects, I've never met a US (mostly southern or mid-western) evangelical over here in the UK (trying to convert us to their culture, Macx ) that I haven't liked. As people I'm sure they're lovely.
Nor do I subscribe to the caricature that all Southerners are troglodytes. I was being somewhat hyperbolic in the OP in order to get the ball rolling and to encourage debate.
It's not my fault if your guys aren't always good at irony (apart from Lutheranchik, Mousethief and a small number of others ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
Anyway ... I suppose what I'm interested in is what sort of societies are conducive to religious growth and development.
Another thread, maybe?
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Apologies for the double-post but here's a bit more for Macx:
You wrote:
'The OP's statement
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if so, will it eventually go the way of the Eastern seaboard and the Pacific coast and become more liberal, more secularised or more pluralist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conveyed to me that it is a goal to force coastal liberalism until they decide they like the horrific delicacy. The OP's post sounded like
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some are heroically bearing witness to other ways of doing things. And I take my hat off to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these people are missionaries trying to erradicate the native religion.'
For the record, I wasn't talking about carpet-baggers or people moving into the benighted Southern States in order to liberalise them. No. I was alluding to several of the shipmates here who live in the Bible Belt and are trying to pursue other ways of being Christian to what's generally on the menu.
I was wondering whether the religious hot-house atmosphere of Bible Belt type cultures could encourage other flowers to bloom. Or whether the delicate orchids and exotic blooms would be choked out by the more quickly propagating growths. Are we talking religious biodiversity or a monoculture?
It sounds like there are nuances and gradations ... like everywhere else.
I'm not a liberal theologically speaking ... and I know that many liberals can be pretty illiberal in practice. We've all come across that.
I'm sure it's a question of scale here. From this side of the Pond, US religion in general can seem a lot more polarised than the prevailing trends (such as they are) over here. For instance, the fundies and evangelicals are more fundamentalist and evangelical than ours tend to be ... or appear that way. And equally, the more way-out forms of liberalism seem, well ... more way out.
I'm not sure this is the reality, but it is a perception. I'd be interested if you were to return the favour and I turned the other cheek to allow you to share your perception of the religious scene over here in the UK.
I might react angrily. I might nod my head in agreement. Try it out.
Go ahead, punk, make my day ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
Mechtilde has an interesting post on another thread. Not in response to this thread but to this type of attitude. And yes all people need to know that there are multiple sides.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macx
Shipmate
# 14532
|
Posted
Well, I am learning about the UK religious scene in part in this environment. I have noticed what you say about the liberals and concervatives of the UK seeming more mild, or at least less rabid. It seems to be true both religiously and politically (of course I am very envious of your multi-party system) and kind of wonder if the political structure might be the influence on the religious. Perhaps it is that everything here is democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, where neither communist of libertarian is taken seriously and vast ammounts of cash are spent trying to polarize the centrists and we anarchists on the opposite side of them are completely ignored. It seems like a multi-party system would allow things to be discussed with more variation and tolerance for other ideas. . . . this difference, I'm postulating is why you are exactly right in saying: quote:
I'm sure it's a question of scale here. From this side of the Pond, US religion in general can seem a lot more polarised than the prevailing trends (such as they are) over here. For instance, the fundies and evangelicals are more fundamentalist and evangelical than ours tend to be ... or appear that way. And equally, the more way-out forms of liberalism seem, well ... more way out.
This sentence baffled me a bit quote:
I'd be interested if you were to return the favour and I turned the other cheek to allow you to share your perception of the religious scene over here in the UK.
I'd rather ask than misunderstand, so, what did you mean by that?
I have only spent about 18 hours in London, saw a mugger stab a man, but didn't get to do much checking out the UK religious scene. I of course would like to. I may be an outcast Anglican, but the Church still has a place in my heart and of course I can't have Anglicanism without the UK. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ghosts are always faster in the corners.
Your shipmate,
Macx
Posts: 457 | From: Whittier, Twin Cities, MN | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
LSK: Yes, I had understood New Yorker's meaning, thank you. Recalibrate, irony, etc.
Macx: If it helps, I've been to the UK twice and never saw anybody stab anybody else.
This discussion has illuminated for me the fact that both the whack-a-doodle extremes of liberal and conservative accuse each other of "tolerating the intolerable". Depends on your definition of intolerable, doesn't it? Liberal accusation: "You tolerate violence, exclusion, greed and ignorance." Conservative accusation: "You tolerate sexual sins, abortion and secularism." Hmmm... which form of self-righteous finger-pointing would Jesus like better?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macx:
If my bishop would have given me the choice, I would have gone to Sewanee.
Thank God for your bishop!
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No, I think New Yorker meant that liberals are intolerant of those who hold conservative views.
Yes, but it was also meant to be humor. Oh well.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoa ... look what I've started. The US Civil War all over again
Oh, goody. Maybe we'll win this time!
(Just joking!)
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I've got to say, as a southerner and a Catholic, that I've heard far more insulting things said about southerners than about Catholics. Though to certain people both groups are equally contemptible, since (as Flannery O'Connor always saw) they have a certain affinity for each other. After all, Catholics and Southerners seem to be the only two groups in the US who think "because we've always done it that way" is a pretty reason for doing something.
Of course, now I've gone to college and I can quote Alasdair MacIntyre on the rationality of traditions in support of such a view.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
One aspect of the South that seems different from elsewhere is how public one's religion is. "Where do you go to church" is not an uncommon question. "Are you saved" is not that uncommon either. I may be wrong, but elsewhere in the world these questions are not as frequently asked. Such questions may be considered invasive but I think underlying them is a sincere concern for others.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
That's interesting (NY's last observation), because on a North Carolina thread on another forum, someone said that when you first move into the neighborhood it's common to be asked "Have you found a church yet?" The writer of the particular post said that responding "we're not really looking for one" (in his case) was enough to end such enquiries. I took that to be an example of expressing concern that a newcomer was settling in comfortably and feeling welcome, rather than a nosy or necessarily evangelising question. It also illustrates how apparently central to one's existance church membership is traditionally considered in the South. I must say that I never ran onto such questions in the cities of Texas as an adult (apart from encounters with Baptist seminarians in Ft Worth), unless I'd already made my Christianity and church-going clear to someone in a conversation. However, that only serves to further illustrate the point, because this topic was entirely fair game for public viewing, whereas in England I never discussed such things outside my church community, unless it was occasionally with Poles, Slovaks, or Muslims!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, I think that on an individual, person to person basis, most "liberals" probably accept persons in their life space who would be deemed "conservative".
I could be considered passionately "liberal" on some issues and just as passionately "conservative" on others. Some of my friends would blanch at being called conservative on any issue and some use "liberal" as an epithet, but they are friends because we share some vital common ground or other. Actually, I believe that when liberalism and conservatism are properly understood, they fit together hand in glove as often as not.
Here's an example: My most outspoken and sometimes dazzlingly well-informed conservative friend has gone on and on about the fact that "Obamanation's" degree at Harvard Law School was in "critical law," which he associates with post-modernism, as if this were a crime. Perhaps someone here can enlarge my slender understanding of what critical law is. He claims that according to critical law, when a poor black person is on trial, the facts of the case are not so important as what it feels like to be a poor black person. What my friend doesn't appreciate (and I intend to discuss this with him next time we meet) is that this principle goes all the way back to Magna Carta, according to which defendants are to be tried before a jury of one's peers; and this jury, as people who share the defendant's position in society, should consider the appropriateness of the charge as well as who did what when. Why else would we Anglo-Americans go to the considerable bother of using citizen juries, instead of leaving verdicts up to expert fact-finders as in continental Europe? This time-honored principle, rather peculiar to us, included in our Bill of Rights (and I'd argue, its crown jewel) and deserving of jealous preservation, has been under attack in the U.S. in recent decades. A conservative, therefore, will come to its defense. If that means, or sounds like, a sympathy with "liberal" critical law, so what? In general, it seems to me that, while a mind formed by critical law might not be the greatest for an attorney general, it's an excellent qualification for a diplomat, and therefore for a President of the United States, who often needs to get inside the heads of various people with very alien traditions and mentalities whether we like them or not.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And let's not forgot that Victorian Britain almost intervened on the Southern Side ...
That is simply not true. There were no serious plans to get involved at all. The Briish people tended to support the North, quite strongly, so no government is likely to have been in a position to help the South anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, I think that on an individual, person to person basis, most "liberals" probably accept persons in their life space who would be deemed "conservative".
Yes, but the same is true the other way round as well. In practice, whether they like it or not, most politically conservative people manage to deal with others who aren't. And the same I guess is true with religiously conservative people.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for the comments and questions, Macx.
You wrote:
'This sentence baffled me a bit
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be interested if you were to return the favour and I turned the other cheek to allow you to share your perception of the religious scene over here in the UK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd rather ask than misunderstand, so, what did you mean by that?
I have only spent about 18 hours in London, saw a mugger stab a man, but didn't get to do much checking out the UK religious scene. I of course would like to. '
Ok ... all I meant was seeing as how I've taken it upon myself to pontificate about US religion, I'd like to return the compliment and allow you to pontificate on what your perceptions are of the state of Christendom (and faith in general) over here in the UK.
I'm quite willing to be put right where I misjudge or get things wrong. For instance, whilst I had heard that the ' burned over' district was in upper New York State my ignorance of US geography is such that I assumed that this was part of New England ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I'm sure I'm not alone over here in the vague apprehension that anywhere on the Eastern Seaboard that's sort of North East constitutes New England. Maine, New Jersey, Boston and all that. Mea culpa.
I think it's generally true to say, though, that most Brits have some inkling that more Americans go to church than we do. They'd may generally think of more evangelical, 'born again' forms of Christianity as more American in tone ... despite there being a long Puritan/Wesleyan evangelical tradition here in the UK.
It's probably less well known over here that the RC church is numerically strong in the US. Most people, I suspect, would associate US Christianity with Elmer Gantry style TV evangelism, hucksterism and extreme Creationist views. Those of us who're involved with church would tend to have a more nuanced view - mainly through personal contacts as there's a lot of interaction between US and UK religious groups across the spectrum.
But even there we'd probably be prone to a more stereotypical view than is actually the case.
I'm interested to see whether the reverse is true. Whether you have a stereotypical view of what the average UK parish or non-conformist congregation is like ... bearing in mind the spread of different churchmanships etc.etc.
On the poor chap getting stabbed by a mugger in London. It happens. Just as we have shootings over here as well - but on nowhere near the same scale as you have in the US (and I know there are regional differences there too).
I didn't see anyone mugged, stabbed or shot during my visit to New York. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And don't tempt me to start another Dead Horse thread about different viewpoints on the citizen's right to bear arms and all that ... I've got plenty of bruises on my forehead arguing that particular point with US shipmates who pack heat ... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Is that clear enough?
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok Ken ... I was being a tad flippant with my offhand comment about possible UK intervention on the Confederate side. It's probably true that the bulk of public opinion probably lay with the North - but I'm not sure the issue was that clear cut. There were a number of reactionary gits whose sympathies lay with the South ... but whether they were in a position to influence policy is a case in point.
And then there was the 'Trent' incident where the damned Yankees seized a British vessel on the high seas in order to arrest some Confederate passengers. That sparked off a serious diplomatic incident. And 11,000 troops were sent to Canada to reinforce the British garrisons there. Why would they have done that if they weren't expecting Yankee incursions or there was an outside chance of intervention on the Southern side?
All that said, the Manchester cotton workers heroically boycotted Southern cotton to show solidarity with the anti-slavery aspects of the Civil War. And suffered greatly through hunger and privation as a result.
You know more history than I do, you smug git, but I'd suggest that the UK position was more ambivalent than might be supposed.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And at the risk of being labeled "Borg" I will tell you some characteristics I observe, here in the jackpines, among my fundamentalist/biblical-literalist neighbors:
1. Lack of education and/or lack of exposure to a diversity of people and ideas. (We have two middle-sized state universities and two community colleges within a 50-mile radius, so it's conceivable -- actually more than that; I know many people like this -- that one may have a college degree and yet have a very provincial experience of education and of life in general.)
2. White, and especially white male, and especially white Christian male, sense of lost privilege. The people in question seem to live in a zero-sum world where granting other people equitable rights and social respect somehow diminishes their own.
3. Faux sentimentality for the fantasy America of the 1950's -- contented workers with ample savings; happy housewives dandling babies on one knee while darning their husband's socks; happy, obedient children cut from the pages of Dick and Jane Go to School; annoying minorities of various kinds safely out of sight/out of mind; simple expectations for one's life.
4. An intolerance for the ambiguous, the nuanced, the equivocal, the ironic. "Just tell me what to believe." "Just tell me what to do." "Why can't you just give me a straight answer to my question?"
5. At least grudging admiration for the rich ,unlike the class resentment one finds in other classes and in other cultures -- "They must be doing something right"; either a total inability to make a connection between the misdeeds and excesses of the rich and the economic hardships of the working and underclass, or else a resignation that, yeah, they're bastards, but they're the bastards who sign my paycheck...I wish I could be a bastard too...
I think that mainline churches have a great difficulty reaching out to people with this mindset, while at the same time fundamentalist churches are quite skilled at playing into this population's self-perceptions, fears and preferences.
This is very close to my perceptions, too; especially #3. The 50's sentimentality really grates on my nerves, frankly; it's pretty prevalent in my current church.
I live in the Southeastern US but I'm a "Yankee." Actually, I'm originally from Ohio, which is technically "Midwestern," but it's Yankee enough for them. My accent (even after 25 years of living here) is still distinctly Cleveland, Ohio. Anyway, this is to make the point that the suspicion that Macx communicated is real: I am seen as a carpetbagger and, because I often have a different point of view (plus a postgraduate degree from a so-called liberal university), I'm somehow suspected of moving in and forcing change on things that people hold very dear.
Some things I don't like (like flying, wearing, or putting over your truck grill, the Dixie flag) but I *try* to accept that there are still people who are still harboring the grudge that they lost the Civil War, were forced to free their slaves, then forced to end segregation. I don't understand the grudge, but I accept that it's there.
Now, as for me and my church: we serve the Lord. Will I allow people to give a (American) patriotic presentation? Yes, because it's important to them in a way I don't understand and it does no harm that I can see. Every time I have the chance, however, I issue the caveat, "As long as it's not done in a way that makes it look like you have to be American to be Christian and you have to be Christian if you're American."
But back to the OP - will it change? Probably; everything changes. Will it change into a more MOTR place? I can't predict that, but I do think there is a thaw among the younger generation: they seem to have had more experience with diversity than their parents. Every region has its culture; we all know that.
My personal beef is the way Southerners are stereotyped and painted with a brush so broad I can hardly imagine how its owner held it in his/her hand. Any time someone, for play or disparagingly, wants to act dumb, they affect a Southern accent. "Sesame Street," the most politically correct children's show ever has one character with a Southern accent. His name? Forgetful Jones.
OK, mind dump over.
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macx
Shipmate
# 14532
|
Posted
Awesome thanks.
By way of American sterotype of UK church going, I think many of us suspect that there is no church in the U.K. that isn't Church of England or .. . a mosque. Also, that your mosques are more well attended that the increasingly sparse Christian churches. Conservatives tend to think of the C of E as overrun by liberals and often use the dying churches of England as "see what will happen to our churches if we let the liberals ___________".
I of course an not extending any of that as fact, but rather as "this is the party line" from the Bible Belt point of view.
I tell the mugger story in this context only to communicate that my extremely limited time in London was also limited in the scope of things we saw. There was no time to be terribly touristy and what we did see, we saw briefly. Er, another way to phrase that would be: My friends and I are fond of the internet abreviation INAL or IANAL . . I am not a lawyer, when discussing law (one of our hobbies). In this case, I am not an expert on things English and really know very little about you folks besides your history.
I am enjoying learning more, and hope to keep this and other dialogues rolling so I can continue to learn by exposure.
Funny you should mention the bearing arms thing as between my keyboard and my screen there is a row: a 7.62x54R round, a magazine full of .40S&W some loose .40 FMJ's, a 9x18, a row of .40 hollowpoint, a match grade .223 and a .45 Long Colt +P, a garrote, a combat knife and a holstered pistol. It is of course one of my favorite dead horses.
--------------------
Ghosts are always faster in the corners.
Your shipmate,
Macx
Posts: 457 | From: Whittier, Twin Cities, MN | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Originally posted by Macx: quote:
Funny you should mention the bearing arms thing as between my keyboard and my screen there is a row: a 7.62x54R round, a magazine full of .40S&W some loose .40 FMJ's, a 9x18, a row of .40 hollowpoint, a match grade .223 and a .45 Long Colt +P, a garrote, a combat knife and a holstered pistol. It is of course one of my favorite dead horses.
At least we don't have to wonder how the horse died.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hermes66
Shipmate
# 12156
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Originally posted by Macx: quote:
Funny you should mention the bearing arms thing as between my keyboard and my screen there is a row: a 7.62x54R round, a magazine full of .40S&W some loose .40 FMJ's, a 9x18, a row of .40 hollowpoint, a match grade .223 and a .45 Long Colt +P, a garrote, a combat knife and a holstered pistol. It is of course one of my favorite dead horses.
At least we don't have to wonder how the horse died.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
There are two very positive things I think of when I think of The South. One is the Civil Rights movement, which is absolutely inspiring. The other is Memphis, which gave the world Stax Records and Elvis Presley. Pretty positive things, in my book.
--------------------
Actually on a real ship but not all at sea
Posts: 523 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macx
Shipmate
# 14532
|
Posted
You must have never had cheese grits or sweet tea.
--------------------
Ghosts are always faster in the corners.
Your shipmate,
Macx
Posts: 457 | From: Whittier, Twin Cities, MN | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
2. The people in question seem to live in a zero-sum world...
5. either a total inability to make a connection between the misdeeds and excesses of the rich and the economic hardships of the working and underclass...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macx:
You must have never had cheese grits or sweet tea.
Now I am hungry.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
I'm a native of the Virgen de Guadalupe belt myself, but from what I've seen of the Bible Belt, I'd say that there's very little hope. I'm surprised that Arkansas made it on to anybody's list of more moderate Bible Belt States, for it is anything but. I have a friend from Little Rock, who says that, outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, the State is more or less a no-go area for non-Rednecks and that, even in Little Rock, he was the only student at his academically high achieving non-sectarian independent school to believe in evolution by natural selection. He also says that, among other things, he was the only one not to sign his schools abstinence pledge (because it didn't have a specified endpoint, he thought that it was ridiculous to ask students to state that they would refrain from drinking or having sex, apparently for perpetuity) and that he felt like most people thought he wasn't a 'Real Christian' because he was, and is, a liberal Anglo-Catholic.
I'd say the single defining feature of the Bible Belt is a distrust of sophistication. It is the sort of place where many people would actually find that Stephen Colbert's 'truthiness' is how they view the world, not from the head, but from the gut. Biblical literalism doesn't require a sophisticated education or, indeed, any thought whatsoever. It is the symptom, not the cause, of a greater cultural malaise.
And yes, there are things I like about the South. Fried Chicken is one of them. My extended family isn't.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Bill Clinton somehow managed to get elected governor of Arkansas twice. The state seems to breed a form of political populism that doesn't fit the George Wallace or Lester Maddox mold.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Gamaliel in the first post said about
quote:
dispensationalism, a pro-Zionist stance on Israel
I dont know what that means, please anyone explain?
I was wondering if someone wouldnt mind pointing me to the website of a Bible Belt church so I get a feel of what its about.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Bill Clinton somehow managed to get elected governor of Arkansas twice. The state seems to breed a form of political populism that doesn't fit the George Wallace or Lester Maddox mold.
But wasn't Bill's mentor (can't recall his name) a noted segregationist?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
I have a friend from Little Rock, who says that, outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, the State is more or less a no-go area for non-Rednecks and that, even in Little Rock
Gosh, maybe if your friend did not refer to such people as "rednecks" s/he might get a more welcoming reception. It's like me saying West Baltimore is a no-go area for non-n----rs.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Macx
Interesting how you folks see us ...
I remember seeing a TV programme where a somewhat sophisticated (smug?) and ironic UK TV journalist spent some time with a TV evangelist in Dallas. At that time we didn't have any such thing on our air-waves ... a situation that seemed to amaze and appall both the evangelist and his flock. They're couldn't conceive of such a thing.
Which was the cue for us to have a good laugh at their expense ...
Now I know how well armed you are, Macx, I think I'd better stop ...
Laetare: others will be able to explain dispensationalism better than I can. It's essentially a particular fundamentalist form of biblical interpretation that divides history into particular 'dispensations' or epochs. It was popularised by Schofield and the 'Schofield Bible' and has tended to be associated with many fundamentalist teaching institutions in the Southern US ... although it's not unknown elsewhere.
A 'pro-Zionist stance on Israel' tends to be a way of seeing Israel as the focus of God's end-time plan and leads to a fairly black-and-white Israel = the goodies, Arabs = the baddies view of the world.
Others can explain more. If you google you'll find plenty of material.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
+ Irl Gladfelter
Shipmate
# 14732
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Uh yes, you're a Methodist I see.
Methodist church I attend has the USA flag prominently up front and celebrates every veterans day and memorial day by asking those who served in the USA military to stand and state where and when they served.
I hate it, the USA military has nothing to do with Christianity, any more or less than working in an accounting firm or repairing sewers.
If we are going to twice a year honor those who ever held some particular job, how about school teachers, or those who worked for non-profits?
Perhaps I am a bit biased, being a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel with some 24 years of service, more than 20 years of those being on active duty, but those who chose to serve our nation in its armed forces have made many, many personal sacrifices while protecting our country, its constitution, laws, and our freedoms. They deserve to be publicly honored, and the Church is one place where honoring them is, IMHO, highly appropriate.
You simply cannot compare the sacrifices made by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen with those made by teachers and accountants. Their lives were never on the line. Those of the military were - even during stateside training.
I do not know whether you are a pacifist or not, or simply oppose recent U.S. Foreign policy, but the last time I checked, pacifism is not an inherent, obligate part of Christianity. Christianity is not pacifist (outside the short list of "Peace Churches.")
Nor is it appropriate to blame soldiers, sailors, etc., for bravely obeying their orders and serving honorably. In our voluntary military, the men and women of our armed forces chose to give up many of their freedoms and put their lives on the line so that the freedoms enjoyed by the rest of us may continue to be enjoyed.
Criticize those who made the policies and started the conflicts if you will, but honor our military and our veterans.
--------------------
Blessings,
Irl
Posts: 74 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
+ Irl Gladfelter
Shipmate
# 14732
|
Posted
Gameliel, there are solid geopolitical and (military) strategic reasons for the U. S. guaranteeing the continued existence of the (Jewish) State of Israel which have nothing to do with fundamentalist religion.
--------------------
Blessings,
Irl
Posts: 74 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I agree that the military service of our soldiers, airmen, and sailors and marines eminently deserves public recognition. I'm just not sure that it's best done in context of a normal church service. OTOH, in regard to commemorating the war dead, I think the two minutes silence before the start of the liturgy on Remembrance/Armistice/Veterans Day or the Sunday closest thereto is highly appropriate, with the inclusion of relevant prayers at the appropriate time in the liturgy.
[ 02. May 2009, 18:09: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
A tangent but it'd help me.
Gamaliel says:
quote:
dispensationalism better than I can. It's essentially a particular fundamentalist form of biblical interpretation that divides history into particular 'dispensations' or epochs. It was popularised by Schofield and the 'Schofield Bible' and has tended to be associated with many fundamentalist teaching institutions in the Southern US ... although it's not unknown elsewhere.
A 'pro-Zionist stance on Israel' tends to be a way of seeing Israel as the focus of God's end-time plan and leads to a fairly black-and-white Israel = the goodies, Arabs = the baddies view of the world.
Are their dispensationalists and pro-Zionist churches in the UK and if so which guys?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoa ... look what I've started. The US Civil War all over again ...
For most of us, it never ended.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoa ... look what I've started. The US Civil War all over again ...
For most of us, it never ended.
Don't know whether to ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
or to ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoa ... look what I've started. The US Civil War all over again ...
For most of us, it never ended.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
I have a friend from Little Rock, who says that, outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, the State is more or less a no-go area for non-Rednecks and that, even in Little Rock
Gosh, maybe if your friend did not refer to such people as "rednecks" s/he might get a more welcoming reception. It's like me saying West Baltimore is a no-go area for non-n----rs.
Not really, no. First of all, lots of rednecks call themselves rednecks and take great if inexplicable pride in their subcultural affiliation. Of course, it could be argued that many African Americans refer to themselves as 'niggers' and take pride in that appellation, but the history of that term makes such use rather more contentious and even African Americans who refer to themselves as such would be less than entirely happy with a White person who did the same.
On a more basic level, one can chose not to be a redneck, being a redneck is a choice in a way that being African American isn't. Even the much maligned 'chavs' here in the U.K. have less choice about their identity than the rednecks of the Southern United States. The hoodies and track bottoms much beloved by chavs are harmless*, the bigotry of American rednecks isn't. Some might claim that it is possible to be a redneck without being a bigot, but I find this doubtful. Certainly, there are are now rednecks who are not openly racist, but I have never met one who wasn't both homophobic and xenophobic. This is not to mention the religion, which is always a narrow-minded sect with some vestigial resemblances to Christianity, but which would be utterly alien to Jesus of Nazareth and Erasmus alike.
LSK mentioned Bill Clinton, who was a bizarre case anyway one looks at, a man whose life's story mingled farce and tragedy perfectly against the backdrop of the American dream write large. George W Bush was the President of choice for America's rednecks, in no small part because he was a pseudo-redneck himself, although nobody outside of Europe was entirely fooled by his act. Despite his background, however, Mr Bush's repeated election owed more to the redneck wing of the party than the William F. Buckley wing, largely because the latter has no shrunk to the point where even the late Mr Buckley's son voted for Mr Obama.
—————————————————————————————
*The same cannot, of course, be said for the behaviour frequently ascribed to them, which New Labour, in fantastic example of Orwellian phraseology has designated 'anti-social', but then, chavs have no monopoly on being obnoxious, a trait shared by other groups, such as Home Secretaries, and, frankly, the latter do far more damage.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
I'm a native of the Virgen de Guadalupe belt myself, but from what I've seen of the Bible Belt, I'd say that there's very little hope. I'm surprised that Arkansas made it on to anybody's list of more moderate Bible Belt States, for it is anything but. I have a friend from Little Rock, who says that, outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, the State is more or less a no-go area for non-Rednecks and that, even in Little Rock, he was the only student at his academically high achieving non-sectarian independent school to believe in evolution by natural selection. He also says that, among other things, he was the only one not to sign his schools abstinence pledge (because it didn't have a specified endpoint, he thought that it was ridiculous to ask students to state that they would refrain from drinking or having sex, apparently for perpetuity) and that he felt like most people thought he wasn't a 'Real Christian' because he was, and is, a liberal Anglo-Catholic.
My uncle and his family live outside of Fort Smith, Arkansas. They and their church are very liberal. And surprisingly enough none of them believe in creationism.
quote:
I'd say the single defining feature of the Bible Belt is a distrust of sophistication. It is the sort of place where many people would actually find that Stephen Colbert's 'truthiness' is how they view the world, not from the head, but from the gut. Biblical literalism doesn't require a sophisticated education or, indeed, any thought whatsoever. It is the symptom, not the cause, of a greater cultural malaise.
And yes, there are things I like about the South. Fried Chicken is one of them. My extended family isn't.
I have seen sophistication and it is not all it is cracked up to be.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by + Irl Gladfelter:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[qb] Christianity is not pacifist (outside the short list of "Peace Churches.")
No, it isn't, but from the very beginning, Christians have either been pacifists or adhered, in theory if not always in practice, to very strict criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello . It would, for instance, be almost entirely impossible to support either the old war in Viet Nam or the current one in Iraq whilst also remaining true to the traditions of Christian thought on the issue of what constitutes a just war. Of course, neither war could be justified under the Powell Doctrine either.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
Some might claim that it is possible to be a redneck without being a bigot, but I find this doubtful. Certainly, there are are now rednecks who are not openly racist, but I have never met one who wasn't both homophobic and xenophobic. This is not to mention the religion, which is always a narrow-minded sect with some vestigial resemblances to Christianity, but which would be utterly alien to Jesus of Nazareth and Erasmus alike.
Hello, my name is rugasaw. Would you like to define red-neck for me? A question, how many people would go get into knee deep mud to help get you unstuck even through they have never met you nor even knew who you were? You would have a better chance of getting help from a red-neck than a sophisticated gentleman. Now I wonder who practices the Christianity that Jesus of Nazareth would recognize?
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick the LEss Saintly:
Some might claim that it is possible to be a redneck without being a bigot, but I find this doubtful. Certainly, there are are now rednecks who are not openly racist, but I have never met one who wasn't both homophobic and xenophobic.
I have. Then again, I grew up in Appalachia. Go figure.
ETA: I've also never heard anyone use the word "redneck" as an insult who knew what they were talking about.
[ 02. May 2009, 19:25: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Among field workers, so I understand from friends from Louisiana, there are classes:
Flop-hats: These are field workers who have enough money to buy wide-brimmed, floppy hats to protect their necks from the burning rays of the sun.
Red-necks: Those who do not have enough money to buy floppy hats to protect their necks from the burning rays of the sun.
That is the totality of my knowledge (?) on that subject. I suspect that most such field workers have by now been subsumed into the "trailer-park" socioeconomic grouping.
Mary
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The phrase comes from people having a dark neck and arms from working outdoors. Jeff Foxworthy defines it as a total lack of sophistication. Generally, it refers to the rural working class and their culture.
Is it a derogatory term? It depends on how it is used. If you use it the way Patrick used it, then I would say yes.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Matins, that actually was the only neutral definition I could think of -- Southern working class, originally rural (the thing is, I think with urbanisation, you could have urban rednecks). I was pressing to see what people would come up with. I wonder if anyone else will wade in now.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
