Where is the Bible Belt exactly?

[haha]

YouTube - The Stanley Brothers - Somebody touched me.

[RedHawk]

Quote:

Liberal "tendencies"? Love the South? Sounds like you would feel right at home in New Orleans.

I thought the New Orleans area (minus inner-city) was pretty conservative.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREdreamer Not really. I have to know people pretty well before I feel comfortable sharing my religious or political views with them. So, even if I shared the majority's beliefs, I would still exercise much caution while confiding in someone I did not know personally. But when pressed for an answer, I just say catholic (I grew up in a catholic family, went through Sunday schools and all the necessary confirmations as a kid, so I consider myself catholic even if I don't practice anymore). Not great, but one step up from devil worshiper as far as lots of people down here are concerned . Add to that a French sounding name and some liberal "tendencies", and it makes many people question my choice of residence. But I love the South...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire Catholic? French sounding name? Liberal "tendencies"? Love the South? Sounds like you would feel right at home in New Orleans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjpatt I thought the New Orleans area (minus inner-city) was pretty conservative.

The City of New Orleans (Orleans Parish) had a population of 450,000 before Katrina, and around 300,000 now, is racially diverse, votes Democratic, and is generally much more liberal than the surrounding and contiguous suburbs that make up most of the New Orleans metro area. The French Quarter, in particular, is known for its acceptance and embrace of nonconformist, hippie, artist, street musician, and gay lifestyles among others. We not only have Mardi Gras, we also welcome and host other absolutely huge festivals such as Southern Decadence celebrating gays and the Essence Festival which is mainly attended by blacks. And then we have art festivals such as White Linen Night on Julia Street, and music festivals such as Jazzfest. New Orleans is well known for its predominant Catholicism and for our usage of French. Many of our residents are of French Creole ancestry and bear French names. And New Orleans is deeply proud of its southern roots. The huge statue of Robert E. Lee in Lee Circle is a New Orleans landmark, and Confederate flags are very commonly displayed on mansions and hovels alike.

Come visit sometimes.

[CuppaJoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kumquat Please don't take offence, but back when I travelled throughout the US courtesy of mega-corp, I always thought that the 'Bible-Belt' started at the 49th parallel. Anything south was Bible-Belt.

None taken here. I've been unable to read much of this thread but was thinking about my experiences in a state that borders Canada. The small hometown had numerous churches and there came a time when my city parents had to found it advantageous to join a church and tithe.... Then I moved to the state capital and got close to some folks who happened to be fundamentalist; very nice people but we have been skirting the religious issue for 44 years. They moved to a sun belt area which is also loaded with fundamentalist churches and their daughter and family moved to an area that is unarguably "bible belt."

So what's the scoop in Canada?

[RedHawk]

Quote:

The City of New Orleans (Orleans Parish) had a population of 450,000 before Katrina, and around 300,000 now, is racially diverse, votes Democratic, and is generally much more liberal than the surrounding and contiguous suburbs that make up most of the New Orleans metro area. The French Quarter, in particular, is known for its acceptance and embrace of nonconformist, hippie, artist, street musician, and gay lifestyles among others. We not only have Mardi Gras, we also welcome and host other absolutely huge festivals such as Southern Decadence celebrating gays and the Essence Festival which is mainly attended by blacks. And then we have art festivals such as White Linen Night on Julia Street, and music festivals such as Jazzfest. New Orleans is well known for its predominant Catholicism and for our usage of French. Many of our residents are of French Creole ancestry and bear French names. And New Orleans is deeply proud of its southern roots. The huge statue of Robert E. Lee in Lee Circle is a New Orleans landmark, and Confederate flags are very commonly displayed on mansions and hovels alike.

I grew up in one of the suburbs of New Orleans and as you said it was much more conservative than the downtown/French Quarter area. Also I went to one of the many Catholic schools/high schools so I was around a pretty conservative bunch most the time.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjpatt I grew up in one of the suburbs of New Orleans.

Well, then I am sure that if that was not too terribly long ago, then you know that what I posted in answering your question is factual. Your suburb was different, but I guess that is another topic. A lot of us living in the older suburbs feel like we live in New Orleans; I know I do and probably you did too. Which high school did you attend? Frank is Catholic but happened to attend a non-Catholic school. But just about everybody at my work sends their kids to Catholic school, whether they are Catholic or not, for various reasons. Frank was born and raised in the French Quarter, though I am a transplant. This is my second decade living here, and before that I lived in Baton Rouge. Like your suburb, Baton Rouge is very different, as well.

[ScooterGuy]

If you see, "Convert, Jew, or die!" "The Bible said it, I believe it and that settles it!" "I believe everything that Jesus said, in the language he spoke ... King James English" ... on the same car bumper, you're probably in the Bible Belt.

Then turn on your car radio, to the AM band. Count the number of screaming, shrieking men who are cursing you for being a sinner, to burn eternally in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone if you don't send them large amounts of money immediately. If you get more than 12, it's a good bet you're in the Bible belt.

I was a professor at a small university for 2 years there (Abilene, Texas -- The Buckle on the Bible Belt) and, to this day, I'm not sure why I got the job ... how I survived the 1st year ... and why they renewed me for the 2nd year.

[Orchidflower]

I couldn't stand it. When Lakewood Church bought the huge Summit aka Compaq Center in the middle of Houston close to where my home in Bellaire (like a mile away near the Houston Galleria), I knew it was time to get the heck out of there. Just was too much for me. (FYI: Bellaire is in the middle of Houston. Houston built around Bellaire. It's by the Galleria where the main shopping is in Houston. Don't ask..very strange situation down there.)
Something like 20% of Americans are non-believers now isn't it?

[kumquat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe So what's the scoop in Canada?

I think Canada is fairly secular. While we have our share of religious people, religion is not the first thing people talk about. In fact, it's about the last thing people talk about. Our politicians don't have to make a show of church attendance at election time, although there are those who run to impose their religious views on society as a whole. Fortunately most do not get elected. Unfortunately, those who do, live near me.

We do get the LDS and JW on our doorsteps though.

[FUEGO]

An interesting example of the public opinion on atheism in the south can be seen in North Carolina's senatorial race of 2008 between Kay Hagan and the incumbent Elizabeth Dole (Bob Dole's DW).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists:

Quote:

In late October 2008, incumbent North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole released a controversial television ad attacking one of her opponents, Kay Hagan, for reportedly attending fundraisers held by and taking donations from individuals involved in the Godless Americans PAC. The ad also included a voice saying, "There is no God." The Dole campaign said the ad correctly shows who Hagan will associate with in order to raise campaign funds, and on November 1, Dole's husband Bob Dole also defended it, asserting that "it never questions her faith," and that "the issue is why she was there. There's no question about her faith. I think it's [the ad's] fair game." Hagan, who is a lifelong member of First Presbyterian Church of Greensboro and a former Sunday school teacher, condemned the ad as "fabricated and pathetic." Hagan also filed a lawsuit in Wake County, North Carolina Superior Court accusing Dole of defamation and libel. The ad has met exceptionally strong criticism from the public as well as many local and several national media outlets. CNN's Campbell Brown said about the ad: "[A]mid all the attack ads on the airwaves competing to out-ugly one another, we think we've found a winner." The ad has been described as "ridiculously outrageous," "indecent," a "gross misrepresentation," "worse than dishonest" and "beyond the bounds of acceptable political disagreement," among other harsh criticism. Another ad issued by the Dole campaign in mid-October 2008 was described by The Fayetteville Observer as "[setting] the low mark in negative political campaigning." Dole lost by a wider-than-expected margin, taking only 44% of the vote to Hagan's 53% – the widest margin for a Senate race in North Carolina in 30 years, and the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator in the 2008 cycle. It has been speculated that the outcry over the "Godless" ad contributed to Dole's loss.

Here's the Atheist Ethicist blogger's take on it, which parallels my thinking. What is interesting is the politically expedient manner in which Hagan responds to attacks that says she associates with atheist groups. She doesn't take the moral high ground and say that atheists are citizens of North Carolina and deserve equal representation along with people of all faiths, beliefs, and non-beliefs. Instead she accuses her opponent Dole of defamation and libel because clearly associating with people who don't believe in the concept of god is something that is harmful to one's reputation.

[haha]

IMO atheists are on indefensible ground. They positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god.

If an atheist were to to live eternally and experience every possibility that the universe might offer, he would still be wrong to make this assertion; as how would he know that god was not just around the corner?

Ha

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScooterGuy Then turn on your car radio, to the AM band. Count the number of screaming, shrieking men who are cursing you for being a sinner, to burn eternally in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone if you don't send them large amounts of money immediately. If you get more than 12, it's a good bet you're in the Bible belt.

I was a DJ at a small town radio station in the rural midwest, circa 1973. Sunday morning programming featured various pentacostal churches doing "live" sermons, along with some good, old gospel singing. It was a real hoot...

Luckily, once I got each segment started, I could turn down the sound, and listen to satanic rock and roll on the studio monitors...

[FUEGO]

Ha,

I'm sure most intelligent atheists are technically very slightly agnostic. I mean, we really don't know for sure that god does or does not exist. With the right amount of proof, I'd believe. So I'm technically agnostic. But aren't all of us technically agnostic?

Atheism, construed broadly, doesn't conclusively make a positive assertion that god does not exist. Rather that the empirical evidence doesn't point to the existence of any deities. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. There are clearly logical problems with making conclusive statements like "god does not exist". I could no sooner prove it conclusively than I could prove that there exists nowhere in the ever-expanding universe a teapot labeled "Haha" on the bottom.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO Ha, I'm sure most intelligent atheists are technically very slightly agnostic. I mean, we really don't know for sure that god does or does not exist. With the right amount of proof, I'd believe. So I'm technically agnostic. Atheism, construed broadly, doesn't conclusively make a positive assertion that god does not exist. Rather that the empirical evidence doesn't point to the existence of any deities. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. There are clearly logical problems with making conclusive statements like "god does not exist". I could no sooner prove it conclusively than I could prove that there exists nowhere in the ever-expanding universe a teapot labeled "Haha" on the bottom.

Fuego, I guess I was wrong. I have never been very interested in the topic, but it was always explained to me that what you are describing is called agnosticism. In your paradigm, how is an atheist different from an agnostic?

Here is a recent book from Richard Dawkins, a scientist who has become kind of a poster boy for atheism. Pretty strong title for someone who is not making a positive assertion that god does not exist: Amazon.com: The God Delusion: Richard Dawkins: Books



Ha

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Here is a recent book from Richard Dawkins, a scientist who has become kind of a poster boy for atheism. Pretty strong title for someone who is not making a positive assertion that god does not exist: Amazon.com: The God Delusion: Richard Dawkins: Books

I'm not making the assertion that no atheist has ever asserted that god does not exist without a doubt. I'm sure some have.

In regards to Mr. Dawkins book that you referenced, he actually outlines in the book the continuum of belief in god on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being completely a faithful believer and 7 being a complete atheist (or I may have the 7 and 1 reversed). Mr. Dawkins says in this book that he is technically an agnostic (something like a 6.99), since one can never truly conclusively know for 100% certain that god does not exist. He allows the possibility, with strong enough evidence, that god exists. Basically the same beliefs that I have. With incredible claims should come irrefutable evidence.

The God Delusion was actually a great, well written book. Very interesting if you are into theology, religion, or apologetics (and on either side of the debate). This particular book was a good, easy, quick read, unlike some of Mr. Dawkins' other works focused more on evolutionary biology that were pretty heavy on the science and info (yet interesting and rewarding once read). It comes highly recommended regardless of religious affiliation. But you probably won't agree with everything he says (I don't either).


If someone told me they were an agnostic, I would assume that their mind is not made up whether they believe in god. They are unsure. They have reviewed the evidence in support of the existence of god and cannot come to a conclusion as to whether to believe or disbelieve. Contrast that with the atheist that does not express a belief in god. I'm sure many claim agnosticism out of convenience. It doesn't sound as harsh as "atheist". They can always say to the evangelist "well, you might be right".

From my point of view, god either exists or he doesn't exist. My (or your or anyone's) subjective belief in god doesn't alter the reality of his existence or nonexistence.

And arguing about the existence or nonexistence of god does not address the question of whether good things can come from religion.

Back to your statement from an earlier post: "[Atheists] positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god."

I think the response there is that the atheist sees no proof in favor of the hypothesis that there is a god (clearly great minds have disagreed over this point). And in the absence of any evidence to believe that there is a god, one must logically reject the hypothesis that there is a god based on the evidence. The rejection of the hypothesis of god could always be reexamined in light of new evidence, which is why I think all intelligent atheists are technically agnostic, if ever so slightly.

[alvarezg]

Atheism strikes me as being just a negative: "I don't believe what they believe". It begs the question: What then are your convictions? The answer should be much more interesting than just hearing the negative stand.

Some people profess to be secular humanists, which seems to be a reasonable alternative to ethics by fear of the supernatural. For some reason, those seem to be few and far between.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvarezg Some people profess to be secular humanists, which seems to be a reasonable alternative to ethics by fear of the supernatural. For some reason, those seem to be few and far between.

Objectively, you would call me a secular humanist. I don't really feel the need to resort to labels personally though. Maybe some day.

From the Council for Secular Humanism:

Quote:

What Is Secular Humanism? Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles: A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Note that liberal Christian churches would largely agree with most tenets of secular humanism (excepting faith in a higher power and denomination specific dogmas of course). Much as many secular humanists would agree with the tenets of many liberal churches, excepting the faith and religious dogmas, of course.

[kumquat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuppaJoe So what's the scoop in Canada?

I had to go digging for this. I think it defines Canada's beliefs.

The United Church of Canada is the largest protestant denomination in Canada and it may have more members than the Roman Catholic Church.

Interesting what its leader thinks.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO I'm not making the assertion that no atheist has ever asserted that god does not exist without a doubt. I'm sure some have. In regards to Mr. Dawkins book that you referenced, he actually outlines in the book the continuum of belief in god on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being completely a faithful believer and 7 being a complete atheist (or I may have the 7 and 1 reversed). Mr. Dawkins says in this book that he is technically an agnostic (something like a 6.99), since one can never truly conclusively know for 100% certain that god does not exist. He allows the possibility, with strong enough evidence, that god exists. Basically the same beliefs that I have. With incredible claims should come irrefutable evidence. The God Delusion was actually a great, well written book. Very interesting if you are into theology, religion, or apologetics (and on either side of the debate). This particular book was a good, easy, quick read, unlike some of Mr. Dawkins' other works focused more on evolutionary biology that were pretty heavy on the science and info (yet interesting and rewarding once read). It comes highly recommended regardless of religious affiliation. But you probably won't agree with everything he says (I don't either). If someone told me they were an agnostic, I would assume that their mind is not made up whether they believe in god. They are unsure. They have reviewed the evidence in support of the existence of god and cannot come to a conclusion as to whether to believe or disbelieve. Contrast that with the atheist that does not express a belief in god. I'm sure many claim agnosticism out of convenience. It doesn't sound as harsh as "atheist". They can always say to the evangelist "well, you might be right". From my point of view, god either exists or he doesn't exist. My (or your or anyone's) subjective belief in god doesn't alter the reality of his existence or nonexistence. And arguing about the existence or nonexistence of god does not address the question of whether good things can come from religion. Back to your statement from an earlier post: "[Atheists] positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god." I think the response there is that the atheist sees no proof in favor of the hypothesis that there is a god (clearly great minds have disagreed over this point). And in the absence of any evidence to believe that there is a god, one must logically reject the hypothesis that there is a god based on the evidence. The rejection of the hypothesis of god could always be reexamined in light of new evidence, which is why I think all intelligent atheists are technically agnostic, if ever so slightly.

Yours is a very well written piece, Fuego. I actually like Dawkins' evolutionary work. I tend to have a practical mind that more or less stays away from what might be called speculative philosophy.

I do think that if what you say about atheism is correct, atheist should throw out the term atheism and call it what it would then be- agnosticism.

Ha

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha IMO atheists are on indefensible ground. They positively assert that there is no god, not that there is no proof that there is a god. If an atheist were to to live eternally and experience every possibility that the universe might offer, he would still be wrong to make this assertion; as how would he know that god was not just around the corner? Ha

Science is a journey. It builds on itself. Once in a while it is wrong and the theories are modified. Most often it is just incomplete. For example, Newtonian physics isn't wrong, it was just incomplete. Atheists look at the theories in support of a claim of a God and then show that those theories are inconsistent with scientific evidence. They also look at what a god would have to be like to be consistent with what we know about the world, the universe, and people. At that point they draw the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that there is a god. I suggest reading Quantum Gods, which not only goes through the Christian philosophies (as he did in more detail in a prior book) but also the more eastern and other god philosophies that are currently popular.