'Jesusland', there's a serious point in there if you look

Remember the 'Jesusland' map?



.....I wonder how many twigged that it is the, er, shall we say more 'backward, poor and basically crappy areas of the USA that are the 'Jesusland' bits?

(Yes, ok, accepting neither is totally 100% one or the other etc etc).

How come (what with all the positive stuff meant to come from living with God etc etc)?

[edit on 11-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Because they voted for Republicans and the Republican's ideas are more in tune with the bible than Democrats (such as on Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc). So they all are deemed to be Religious fanatics and would love to name the nation Jesusland.

Actaully I was thinking that the more 'Christian fundamentalist' an area the less better off the area.

(and as I said who said anything about 'all'?)

I've proberly misunderstood what you've said, but i got that the poor areas of America are Christian areas...

could you clarify a bit....

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I've proberly misunderstood what you've said, but i got that the poor areas of America are Christian areas...

could you clarify a bit....

- Not 'Christian' as such Wizard but the more fundamentalist bits. (Despite what they might claim 'evangelical fundamentalist Christian' is hardly the only version of 'Christian' going.)
There's a correlation in there that seems to be being missed IMO.

Wow...that origianl post sure seemed a little prejudiced...I mean, I haven't done my share of praising the south, but saying that the places contained in Jesusland are "backwards, poor and crappy" is a little biting.

The south is not, persay, "backwards." The south is comprised of generally less or different manufactirung and industrialization than the north. Saying that these people are poor and backwards because of that is almost racist.

Southerners have alot of pride, mind you, in their traditions. Unfortunately for many of us, extreme Christian fundamentalism hapens to be one of them. But taking Republican states into account that they are in their rutt because of their "Godliness" is entirely unbacked.

Maybe I just totally missed the point.

Originally posted by Scat
Wow...that origianl post sure seemed a little prejudiced.

- It's a provocative enough idea, I grant you.

..I mean, I haven't done my share of praising the south, but saying that the places contained in Jesusland are "backwards, poor and crappy" is a little biting.

The south is not, persay, "backwards." The south is comprised of generally less or different manufactirung and industrialization than the north. Saying that these people are poor and backwards because of that is almost racist.

- Well I was making the point relatively speaking. I wasn't claiming huge swathes of the USA are on a par with say, Sudan or anything.

....and my comment could hardly be based on 'race' what different 'race' is meant to populate 'Jesusland' then?

Southerners have alot of pride, mind you, in their traditions. Unfortunately for many of us, extreme Christian fundamentalism hapens to be one of them. But taking Republican states into account that they are in their rutt because of their "Godliness" is entirely unbacked.

Maybe I just totally missed the point.

- No I think you're more or less there. I accept some people mightn't see it, mightn't want to see it or just don't like the idea.

I'm saying the more fundamentalist the area the less well off it is.......and that isn't something that is just confined to Muslims it's there for all to see in the USA itself.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Race is not a criteria based on skin color alone. Splitting up the North from the SOuth is segregation no matter how you twist it. Thus, 2 different American races are born.

And I really don't think your idea is provocative, I think it's downright ignorant. I'm not trying o be offensive, but the context to which you labeled a group of people who happen to live in the South as backwards and crappy is a completely biased, racist, and ignorant comment.

The new prejudice of this generation is not one of skin color, it lies within religion and nationality. To me, what you said proves that.

I don't get along with Christian fundamentalists on many subjects. Do I find these people "backwards and crappy"? No. If you could at least elaborated on your point or somehow backed up that opinion I wouldn't be so upset, but labeling these people with titles such as that shows that you are no less backwards than they are.

And what you say with some people might not wanting to see it...Oh I see it. Much of the South is spoken for by bigots and religious zealots. But with the comments you've made about their location as a whole, you've looped yourself into that same class.

Originally posted by Scat
Race is not a criteria based on skin color alone.

- It might surprise you to know that I don't accept there is any existant race other than our one single human race of homo sapiens ever since the neanderthals died out.

I find the whole concept of racism therefore grossly stupid. I realise some attempt to utilise the miniscule differences between the peoples of different geographical locations as the basis of claiming different race but they are quite wrong .....and to then go on to develope a superiority complex about one slight difference over another is just absurd IMO.

Sorry you see raqcism in any of my comments but that was not my intention at all and I am saying it was not my meaning, fair enough?

Splitting up the North from the SOuth is segregation no matter how you twist it. Thus, 2 different American races are born.

- I haven't split anything up.
It's a comment based on the actual recent US voting patterns and broad-brush observations of US society.

And I really don't think your idea is provocative, I think it's downright ignorant.

- You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

I'm not trying o be offensive, but the context to which you labeled a group of people who happen to live in the South as backwards and crappy is a completely biased, racist, and ignorant comment.

- It's not a racist comment. That is just ridiculous. 'Jesusland' Americans are not a separate "race" from the rest of the US....no matter how you twist it, huh?

You might find the rest ignorant, but that is your right too.

The new prejudice of this generation is not one of skin color, it lies within religion and nationality. To me, what you said proves that.

I don't get along with Christian fundamentalists on many subjects. Do I find these people "backwards and crappy"? No. If you could at least elaborated on your point or somehow backed up that opinion I wouldn't be so upset, but labeling these people with titles such as that shows that you are no less backwards than they are.

- Are you able to deny that the more fundamentalist an area the less likely it is top be at the forefront of the country in terms of wealth, business acivity, employment, low crime, the arts etc etc?

I suggest this is very much the case.

"backwards and crappy" may have been a tad harsh but I do not accept there is not a grain - or several - of truth in there.

And what you say with some people might not wanting to see it...Oh I see it. Much of the South is spoken for by bigots and religious zealots.

- Well it at least appears there's something we can agree on.

But with the comments you've made about their location as a whole, you've looped yourself into that same class.

- If you say so; sorry you see it like that.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

I live a Red & Southern state (Georgia), and I find you sir highly offensive. I was not born in Atlanta; I was born in a Blue state, Chicago, Illinois population 10 million. Good size city. A bit smaller than the largest city in the UK, but only the third largest city in America.

With all due respect stick to the UK when making stupid formulations.

For your information the fastest growing states population size and economically are red states.(1)
The states with the greatest depreciation economically and population size are predominantly Blue.(2)
Additionally the states with the best work force training programs are Red.(3) Best cities in America for unemployment are mostly red states.(4)

I said mostly because they were a majority. 16 out of 25 cities with the worst unemployment rates were blue state cities. Out of those 16, 10 were in California alone. 8 of the 10 California cities had rates in the double digits. 18 out of the top 25 cities for the best employment rates were in red states...oh and no cities from California made that list.

Now as far as crime is concerned: Red states do have the reputation of having higher crime rates (5). One interesting thing about the difference between the cities listed on the highest and lowest crime rates table is the size of the cities. The combined size of the cities with the highest crime rates is around 16 million. The combined size of the cities with the lowest rates is 30 million. The article clearly states, at the top, that these figures do not take into account the suburban and metro counties.
Notice my Hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. Our metro population is around 4 million. But the city is show as 426,511. This represents only 1/10 of the metro area. If you have ever lived in Atlanta, it comes as no surprise that the city of Atlanta would have such a high crime rate.
A majority of major population center in the south are relatively new growth areas. These areas tend to be highly upwardly mobile middle class sectors and their low levels of crime are not factored into these statistics.

The one area that is lacking in many southern states is education. The Midwest and Western Red states though have some of the best educationally systems in the nation, but it seems the Northeast is the best region for schools.(6) For the past 3-4 years there has been much debate in the Atlanta area over this. As for me I do not know. California is near the bottom of the list and New York is near the top both states throw immense amount of money into their school systems. I do know that one complaint is that not all states are required to give every school records. In some states they are allowed to collect representative samples from each school district.

I know you have distaste for our President. So I guess it should come as no surprise that that hate would overflow to the sates that elected him. But do you need to resort to such bigotry?

Funny how you began this thread discussing how backwards and economically disadvantaged the Red states are; How advanced and wealthy the Blue states are.....

(1): www.usatoday.com...
(2):
www.censusscope.org...
(3): www.expansionmanagement.com...
(4):
money.cnn.com...
(5):
money.cnn.com...
(6):
www.morganquitno.com...
_cities/

*edited for spelling error*


[edit on 20-1-2005 by Imperium Americana]

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
I find you sir highly offensive.

- Well I'm sorry you do. You'll get over it I'm sure.

I know you have distaste for our President. So I guess it should come as no surprise that that hate would overflow to the sates that elected him. But do you need to resort to such bigotry?

- "Hate"?
"Bigotry"?
I don't think so. Sorry you do.

Funny how you began this thread discussing how backwards and economically disadvantaged the Red states are; How advanced and wealthy the Blue states are.....

- There are statistics and there are statistics.

Statistics? Facts? WTF do you think you are talking about? "JesusLand" is religous, meaning facts and statistics mean nothing if not backed by the bible. Sure the stats may be.....right, but if not backed by the bible "JesusLand" isn't going to listen. Sure the bible belt is the land of rednecks, hillbillies, incest, so forth, but that just cause they got shafted by the religons. The north was lucky enough to become advanced, have technology, not deem everything satan like the car, jazz, airplane, radio, tv, so forth, and not be ran by religon. The north is ran by money, power, and technology while the south was being ran by religon, corruption, hate, racism, and more religon. Thankfully they have eliminated hate, racism, and corruption.(well, as much as anyone can, cause not like people in power in the north aren't corrupt)

Anyways, sucks to be a red state, wait, in one, damn it, I don't want to "know" the earth is 6,000 years old, I have to marry my sister, and that god will bitchslap anyone not rich white heterosexual republican male.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
I find you sir highly offensive.

- Well I'm sorry you do. You'll get over it I'm sure.

I know you have distaste for our President. So I guess it should come as no surprise that that hate would overflow to the sates that elected him. But do you need to resort to such bigotry?

- "Hate"?
"Bigotry"?
I don't think so. Sorry you do.

Funny how you began this thread discussing how backwards and economically disadvantaged the Red states are; How advanced and wealthy the Blue states are.....

- There are statistics and there are statistics.

Wow....insulting and a coward.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Statistics? Facts? WTF do you think you are talking about? "JesusLand" is religous, meaning facts and statistics mean nothing if not backed by the bible. Sure the stats may be.....right, but if not backed by the bible "JesusLand" isn't going to listen. Sure the bible belt is the land of rednecks, hillbillies, incest, so forth, but that just cause they got shafted by the religons. The north was lucky enough to become advanced, have technology, not deem everything satan like the car, jazz, airplane, radio, tv, so forth, and not be ran by religon. The north is ran by money, power, and technology while the south was being ran by religon, corruption, hate, racism, and more religon. Thankfully they have eliminated hate, racism, and corruption.(well, as much as anyone can, cause not like people in power in the north aren't corrupt)

James the lesser, do you even live in the South? I have for all my life and I really must say that you have the South all wrong! Where I have lived were centers of technology and improvement. I have even worked for cutting edge companies trying to make our life better. Racism, corruption- need I remind you of New Jersey and it governor? I think you post words like you did just to get a reaction. By the way, I am sorry that you hate the South and especially Southern Christians. (Southern Christians- that should put me on the same level as Hitler, Stalin, etc...)

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Wow....insulting and a coward.

- Insulting? to you personally? How, exactly?

You wish to feel offended on behalf of the patch of land you live on or an observable tendancy within the society in which you live?
Sorry but I find all that rather ridiculous and sad.

(A bit like when fundy's' feel outraged on God's behalf. The idea is absurd.)

My point was not that every part of the 'red states' and all the people within them were in any way less than those in the blue but that the more 'fundamentalist' an area the more likely that area to lag behind the rest.

You see it differently.
Good for you, you're not alone in your opinion - just as I am not.

Now, rather than slug it out with a shed-load of selective statistics which we can each produce (simply looking around this site will provide ample) I am happy to leave things at that.

I don't agree I have been in any way 'racist' - since when were southern Americans a different 'race' to northern and I fail to see how any of this equates to any kind of 'cowardice'.

"Grow up" is the phrase that most readily comes to mind.

Sminkeypinkey,
If I was to insult the UK and call people who live there various asortments of names, wouldn't you be offended? I have to believe you would.

In who's opinion is the South "lagging" behind. Who are we supposed to "lag" behind? The UK? Europe? Japan? The Middle East? Why is it that when we vote for someone one don't like, we are obviously backward and rednecks.

Is this the same way you feel about the Irish? Are they a backward people? Are they lagging behind the UK?

Originally posted by knights5629
Sminkeypinkey,
If I was to insult the UK and call people who live there various asortments of names, wouldn't you be offended? I have to believe you would.

- Why?
I doubt it.
I would be interested in why you were saying that and I may then agree or disagree but would I personally feel great offence?

You're kidding, right?

If not I'd suggest some serious relaxation therapy; this is all just 2d text on a screen.
Facts, ideas, opinions and thoughts from people almost all, if not actually all, of whom you do not really 'know' and probably never will.

What the hell would anyone want to go getting genuinely offended about when that is the context?

In who's opinion is the South "lagging" behind. Who are we supposed to "lag" behind? The UK? Europe? Japan? The Middle East?

- The comparison has been with the rest of the USA.
Like I said the more fundamentalist and less open-thinking the area the less likely it is to be front-runner in the given societies' pecking order.

Why is it that when we vote for someone one don't like, we are obviously backward and rednecks.

- Oh come on. This has everything to do with the creeping malign influence of evangelical fundamentalism, in the USA, right into the corridors of power. Begining in Reagans day (possibly sparked with Nixon's 'silent majority' nonsense) and culminating - mightily - in the current Presidency.

Does 'end of days' religio-politics sound healthy to you; do vast 'church-complexes' (you know the kind, the ones that shackle 'their people' to the tied banking, insurance etc etd) sound healty, with political-ministries......really?

The fact that Bush mk2 can barely string 2 words together, is a disasterous President, has his country behaving like an over-grown adolescent and all the rest is just compounding the tragedy.

Is this the same way you feel about the Irish? Are they a backward people? Are they lagging behind the UK?

- Why would I think that?
The republic of Ireland is a very progressive, open minded, multi-cultural and metropolitan country these days - and doing very very nicely economically too thank you very much.

The EU has done wonders for the Irish economy taking the RoI from the position of net recipient of structural aid funding to being a net contributor to others in the EU; a remarkable and very welcome turn-around.

But ok, yes, actually, in the days when it was practically run by the RC Church it was, comparitively speaking, very retarded behind the rest of Europe, not just Britain, in all sorts of ways. This would have been particularly evident post WW2 - 1970's.

In Northern Ireland the impact of the evangelical fundy's on one 'side' with hard-line RC on the other was to assist in retarding both 'sides' of society in NI too, so, fine, I'm fairly happy with that characterisation as I think it fits events and the situation quite well, actually.

(now, if you wish to construe this too as indicating a 'racism' on my part 'against' Irish people I would like to simply point out that I have Irish blood, I consider myself British and Irish (as well as European) and find any such comment absurd - especially given the fact that there is but one human race)


[edit on 21-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Let me sum up what I understand as your thesis: "The Red states voted for Bush. Bush was elected by Christian Fundamentalist. Blue States voted for Kerry. Kerry voters are not Christian Fundamentalist. Blue States do better than Red states. Therefore Red states are backward because of their fundamentalism"

That is a classic Non Sequitur. You have not proven that religion was the sole motivator in the red vs. blue states. I will agree that religion was one of the important factors in this election, but to say that the reason for Red states' election of Bush was due to Fundamentalism is faulted logic. Every Blue state with a ballot initiative, such as allowing gay marriage, was shot down.

According to your logic, Blue states are not Christian Fundamentalist states, these ballot initiatives should have been close votes or landslide acceptance. They were not. Even in Washington State, a heavy liberal stronghold, gay marriage was defeated by a landslide. Why? Religion?

Many of the Red states are economically upwardly mobile. That played a huge part in this election. Kerry was seen as a typical "Tax & Spend Mass. Democrat". This has historically never been seen as favorable to America's heartlands. He was seen as soft on national defense, another strike with Middle-America. He was seen as lacking core principals, another strike. These all combined to defeat Kerry, not Religious Fundamentalism.

No you are not insulting me personally; rather you are insulting the intelligence of every member who views this thread with your over-reaching fallacious statements.

When given stats that combat your illogical assessment, what do you reply with?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Insulting? to you personally? How, exactly?

You wish to feel offended on behalf of the patch of land you live on or an observable tendancy within the society in which you live?
Sorry but I find all that rather ridiculous and sad.

(A bit like when fundy's' feel outraged on God's behalf. The idea is absurd.)

My point was not that every part of the 'red states' and all the people within them were in any way less than those in the blue but that the more 'fundamentalist' an area the more likely that area to lag behind the rest.

You see it differently.
Good for you, you're not alone in your opinion - just as I am not.

Now, rather than slug it out with a shed-load of selective statistics which we can each produce (simply looking around this site will provide ample) I am happy to leave things at that.

I don't agree I have been in any way 'racist' - since when were southern Americans a different 'race' to northern and I fail to see how any of this equates to any kind of 'cowardice'.

"Grow up" is the phrase that most readily comes to mind.

Incredible.... I never called you a racist. I called you a bigot.
Seeing as you do not know the difference; here is a link:
dictionary.reference.com...

And the charge of cowardice is an intellectual charge. When presented with counter-points you simply dismiss them.

Rather than erecting straw man arguements based on your summing up what you imagine I've said I'd suggest you maybe read what I have actually said.

I have not been 'absolute' in this observation at all.

I am well aware the red states are not 100% red and the blue states are not 100% blue....as I have said on several occassions now.

I have chosen not to repeat a host of articles and stats on the matter because I am sure people are quite familiar with them, they are all over this site for anyone who cares to look - especially in relation to the Americans here for whom much of this still rumbles on.

You find that "incredible"?
I just think it avoids a pointless shouting match, for a change.

By the way I did not say you called me a racist, I was making that point because of an earlier comment by Scat.

....which you'd know if you bothered to read what people have actually said here.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

LOL
Straw Man argument? Damn and to think I went out of my way to be succinct in my assessment. What part of my assessment was incorrect? My assessment was not built solely on your first post but a combination of all of your posts. You state there is a correlation between "jesusland" and red states. This show how little you know about red states. If you had said that there was correlation between the South and Christian Fundamentalism. I would have agreed. The problem with your assessment was that it was a Hasty Generalization combined with Confusing Cause and Effect. It is one big fallacy.

And as far as you not posting articles...well that is fine. If you want to be intellectually lazy then so be it. But I will not do your homework. If you propose something, prove it.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I don't agree I have been in any way 'racist' - since when were southern Americans a different 'race' to northern and I fail to see how any of this equates to any kind of 'cowardice'.

"Grow up" is the phrase that most readily comes to mind.

I never thought that to begin with. This was just tacked on to the end of your reply, so I responded.
I do read what people say here that is why I have engaged you. You do not read what is posted. Why else did you feel the need to bring up racist in your reply to me....? Did you think I, like scat, thought you were a racist, or did you simply not understand the definition of bigot?

You started this thread. You knew what would happen, so why do you try and dodge the debate? Or is Appeal to Ridicule all the quivers all you have left?