It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
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?


- The part where you either say or imply that I have made comments claiming 'they are all' or '100% of x,y or z are....' when I have done no such thing.


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.


- I disagree. I believe there is a correlation between not only the south and fundamentalism but the red states generally.
It isn't absolute and it's not the black and white you are trying to claim I am saying (despite my repeated specific statements to the contrary).

Check out the theocracywatch link. They're not there yet but the religious right are making inroads into the republican party across the board; they are engaged in trying to take over the party IMHO.


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.


- I didn't see the point in posting up a slew of articles and references because they are so easy for anyone to find if they cared.

I was certainly not asking you to do any 'leg-work' for me.

But seeing as you are obviously one of those who rather tediously need every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed.

Here are some -

www.counterbias.com...

[url]http://www.charm.net/~profpan/2004/11/welcome-to-jesusland.html

thewitness.org...

www....#thesouth.com/

www.kenlayne.com...

www.theocracywatch.org...


I never thought that to begin with. This was just tacked on to the end of your reply, so I responded.


- Fair enough, it's an inherent limitation of the whole board system. It's not like this is just a direct conversation between 2.


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?


- I will happily talk over the premise, as I have done.

I do find misrepresentation and petty quibbling a bore though - and yes, knowing some of those on the right here, it was fully expected to happen.

You hold your view and I hold mine. You are not alone in seeing things the way you do and neither am I - hence the almost 50/50 split in the US - although the rest of the world seems a hell of a lot more on my side of this.


[edit on 21-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
What statistics do you have that states that the "red" states are lagging behind the "blue" states? Are we lagging behind in technology, economy, population, etc...?

So your premise is that Churches and Religion keep people from achieving their true potential in a society? What are you saying? Its obvious that you and I disagree. I am not a redneck, etc...., and I have always lived in the South.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629
What statistics do you have that states that the "red" states are lagging behind the "blue" states? Are we lagging behind in technology, economy, population, etc...?


- I think you'll find my links show overall higher levels of social disfunction in the 'red states' and certainly the 'middle American rust-belt' and many parts of the south lag behind economically.

Like I said if you are going to try and make out that I have been saying this is a 100% black and white issue then we have no dialogue.
I am well aware many parts of 'Jesusland' are not poor, crappy or backward, I have actually never claimed otherwise.
Equally many are - more so than in 'Liberal-land'.


So your premise is that Churches and Religion keep people from achieving their true potential in a society?


- I guess thats a large part of it.
Fundamentalism, what ever vehicle (ie religion or political 'creed') it 'uses' to enforce it's intollerence and closed-ness, inevitably and invariably retards the society (or that part of the society) within which it is found,
whether 'Islamic' or 'Christian' fundamentalism - and the manner in which each 'brand' of fundamentalism attempts to crowd out or shout down other alternate types of that faith is pretty similar too.
Fundamentalist Muslims talk as if theirs is the only 'true' or 'valid' version of Islam as do fundamentalist evangelical 'Christians' in regard to the rest of Christianity.


What are you saying? Its obvious that you and I disagree. I am not a redneck, etc...., and I have always lived in the South.


- Glad to hear it.....but I did not ever say you were.

You cannot deny that many of your compatriots are though, right?
S'ok, we go a version of them here too, there's no shame in it, just a little tragedy.



[edit on 24-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I do find misrepresentation and petty quibbling a bore though - and yes, knowing some of those on the right here, it was fully expected to happen.


I hope that was in reference to others. To be fair the same could be said about many on the left as well, present company excluded of course.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I disagree. I believe there is a correlation between not only the south and fundamentalism but the red states generally.
It isn't absolute and it's not the black and white you are trying to claim I am saying (despite my repeated specific statements to the contrary).

Check out the theocracywatch link. They're not there yet but the religious right are making inroads into the republican party across the board; they are engaged in trying to take over the party IMHO.


I have had this discussion with quite a few friends since election. Now understand that a majority of the people I engaged in this discussion with are at least Graduate level students, in fields of study ranging from international finance to neurophysiology. We are talking about people who are far smarter than I am. Quite a few had similar opinion as you. As a Christian, and a Republican, I would not be offended if your premise is: Fundamentalism being the cause of Red state voting patterns. You would be wrong, but there would be nothing that I would call "offensive".
Your supposition was not that. Do I think that you were 100 % proposing that Red states are Fundamentalist states and therefore are the lowest ranking socio-economically speaking? No but you would have not started this thread if you at some level, did not believe this. Example:


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
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.

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


To throw around concepts that even imply that there is a lack of education, economic capability, or any other abilities in Red states due to a high saturation of certain religious beliefs is prejudicial. What if I were to imply that Africa is in its present state because the population is overwhelmingly Black? Not only would that statement be factually in error but would be pseudo racist. In a sense that is what you have said or that was the gist. That makes the very premise suspect.

There is a great study done by the City University of New York concerning religious identification.
www.gc.cuny.edu...

I would direct your attention to Exhibit 14:
www.gc.cuny.edu...

I agree with your final statement:


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
You hold your view and I hold mine. You are not alone in seeing things the way you do and neither am I - hence the almost 50/50 split in the US - although the rest of the world seems a hell of a lot more on my side of this.


Although it has been my experience that a majority opinion does not always mean a correct one. Of course neither does a minority. LOL

Once I entered into this debate, I labored to logically show that your theory was in error. I then challenged you to show facts that back up your claim. You finally post a few links and they are at best suspect and at worst biased. I could find many links that were biased for my cause, but yet I avoided them in the quest for intellectual honesty. I deliberately chose neutral third party links that support my assessment. This is to help the integrity of my discourse. That is the most frustrating part of this debate. I persevere in this thread only because I feel that you are very intelligent. If I thought you were a dolt, I would have never replied.

Now here is my token biased link LOL:
www.amconmag.com...

While I do not fully agree with the assessment the author makes. It is an interesting read on some of the sociological reasons behind the Red vs. Blue states argument. The quest for why the 2000 & 2004 election splits occurred is a very complex one. I believe there is no single answer. Factors such as: gay marriage, taxes, morality, terrorism, Iraq, the economy, UN, and political bias figured heavily in 2004, but most of the 2004 factors were not the same as the factors in 2000. Underlying all of the “factors” is a basic philosophical difference. If you could pin that down, you would go along way to understanding not just the Republican voters but the Democratic ones as well.

A couple of quick questions. You do not have to answer them, but they are sidebar and really for my own piece of mind:
1. Have you ever been to the States and if so where?
2. How do you feel about religion?
3. Have you ever know someone who was a Christian Fundamentalist and if so how long?
These questions are not a “trap” so you if you want to reply via a U2U that is fine. If you do not want to answer these questions, that is acceptable as well.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
To be fair the same could be said about many on the left as well, present company excluded of course.


- You're too kind.



As a Christian, and a Republican, I would not be offended if your premise is: Fundamentalism being the cause of Red state voting patterns.


- My premise is not about being 'anti-Christian', it is about the damaging effects of so-called 'Bible-believing evangelical fundamentalists', the 'litteralists'.

Many of whom - although they tend not to broadcast the fact outside of their circles - do not actually consider any other Christian group actually 'Christian' at all.


To throw around concepts that even imply that there is a lack of education, economic capability, or any other abilities in Red states due to a high saturation of certain religious beliefs is prejudicial.


- Well if you think it is mere prejudice I say you are wrong. It is fundamentally rooted in the fact that the kind of 'Christian fundamentalists', the litteral 'Bible-believing' kind, I am referring to are indeed anti-education and anti-science.

This is well demonstrated by the entire idea of teaching evolution as a mere theory and giving equal validity to 'creationism' and especially the latest absurd idea of the YEC (young earth creationism) nonsense.

This is a cumlative process and they are not done yet. Their effect will continue to grow regardless of legal victories along the way (the latest being the 'sticker' decision in court) as the governing party is subverted to their agenda.


What if I were to imply that Africa is in its present state because the population is overwhelmingly Black? Not only would that statement be factually in error but would be pseudo racist.


- Yes, that would be a completely 'racist' comment as well as an obviously ridiculous one.

Sorry but I see no parallel.

My comment is about what people are being trained and led to believe not what they are.


In a sense that is what you have said or that was the gist. That makes the very premise suspect.


- Well, as I say I disagree.


Although it has been my experience that a majority opinion does not always mean a correct one. Of course neither does a minority. LOL


- Well we can at least agree on that.



I persevere in this thread only because I feel that you are very intelligent. If I thought you were a dolt, I would have never replied.


- You're very kind, some might disagree with you but.....


Hopefully there are few 'real' idiots around this site.


1. Have you ever been to the States and if so where?


- No, not personally.

I have always refrained from going to countries where they have what I consider repressive human rights records.

Sorry if it sounds odd to you but I will not go to and spend my money in a country where they have the death penalty.
It's only recently that things have changed and I can now go to Turkey if I choose (they abolished the DP as part of bringing their law into line wityh European practice in the hope of getting EU membership. We don't have it in the EU.)

Several members of my immediate family have, one goes often on business and some have lived in the USA for several years.
They have been mostly down the entire east coast, several parts of Texas, several places in Nevada, New Orleans, Seattle and several places in California.


2. How do you feel about religion?


- I have my personal and private beliefs and feel everyone should be free to keep whatever faith they like - although when it comes to informing the public legislature or executive beyond broad 'humanist' principles I think it should be actively kept out.

I believe 'religion' in government down the centuries has done far more harm than good.


3.Have you ever know someone who was a Christian Fundamentalist and if so how long?


- Yes, for several years.
I have known members of a few 'Bible-believing' fundamentalist churches here in the UK and found them to be personally nice people but actually quite frighteningly restrictive of the childrens' education and behaviour.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

3.Have you ever know someone who was a Christian Fundamentalist and if so how long?

-Yes, for several years.
I have known members of a few 'Bible-believing' fundamentalist churches here in the UK and found them to be personally nice people but actually quite frighteningly restrictive of the childrens' education and behaviour.


In exactly how are "Bible-believing " fundamentalist churches restrictive of their children's education and behaviour? What are we comparing? Is it your assumption, that these people are less educated then you?

Are you a scientist, by the way? You talked about how you believed that Christian "scientists", if they believe in something else, are less educated? (Sorry if I misquoted you, I trying to work from memory on what you said. Me being less educated than you.) Let me ask you a simple question- is it good to question the establishment? I believe that any good scientist, Christian or non-Christian, questions what they see, what they have been taught, and what others believe. In fact, I have just read a good article about a man in the UK who believes that we (humans) can live to be up to 5000 years old. Every one else believes other wise. Is he less educated or is he questioning everything that he has been taught about human life expectancy? Questioning something will do one of two things for science- 1) it will change what we believe or 2) it will confirm what we believe. If evolution is correct, then only by questioning it will it become stronger. And vice versa.

I do not consider myself as a less educated person; I could probably hold any sort of conversation with you at any time. I am well read, well studied Bible Believing Christian. And I would love to have a debate with you.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629
In exactly how are "Bible-believing " fundamentalist churches restrictive of their children's education and behaviour?


- Because any time secular educational values and standards bump into "what the Bible says" they (fundamentalist literal Bible-believers) choose the Bible despite the ability of experiment, observation, logic and reason to say otherwise.

Even to the point of suggesting (with a totally straight face) that either 'God' or 'the devil' placed fossils in the ground to test faith.....and no doubt that kind of 'arguement' runs everytime whenever fact gets in the way of 'faith'.


What are we comparing? Is it your assumption, that these people are less educated then you?


- No, of course not - at least not so much the present generation.
What they choose to educate their kids about though has me very worried for them in the future and yes, I think many of those kids will develop to a lower educational standard than those not raised on a literal Bible belief.


Are you a scientist, by the way?


- No.


You talked about how you believed that Christian "scientists", if they believe in something else, are less educated?


- Errr, no, I don't think I did.
Many scientists the world over would describe themselves as 'Christian' to some degree, very very few would describe themselves as 'literal Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians' though.


(Sorry if I misquoted you, I trying to work from memory on what you said. Me being less educated than you.)


- Oh pleeeaaassse.
Who said that?
Is this really the level of silly nonsense you want to degrade this to?


Let me ask you a simple question- is it good to question the establishment?


- I think it would be accurate to say that I think a literal Bible-belief is probably the ultimate in unquestioning behaviour.

But on the point generally, yes, of course.
That is one the greatest values of 'science' it does not cast it's thinking in stone and is always open to, and indeed positively invites, new theory and interpretation; totally unlike a literal belief in the Bible.


I believe that any good scientist, Christian or non-Christian, questions what they see, what they have been taught, and what others believe.


- Yes, I have no problem with that statement, it seems good sense to me.

But I have to say, quite how this fits in with a fundamentalist literal view of the Bible is beyond me.


In fact, I have just read a good article about a man in the UK who believes that we (humans) can live to be up to 5000 years old. Every one else believes other wise. Is he less educated or is he questioning everything that he has been taught about human life expectancy?


- Maximum theoretical potential is one thing but one has to say this guy does seem to be running alone against the weight of modern experience!

His level of education has little to do with his idea or claim and maybe a lot more to do with a paperback book deal, in which case, given the public's appetite for that kind of thing, I'd say his education is serving him pretty well, probably!



Questioning something will do one of two things for science- 1) it will change what we believe or 2) it will confirm what we believe. If evolution is correct, then only by questioning it will it become stronger. And vice versa.


- Once again I am in agreement.....

.....and once again I have to ask how any kind of "questioning" is relevant in a fundamentalist Bible-believing setting?
In such a 'church' the Bible - usually the King James Version - goes utterly unquestioned and is not subject to any kind of 'testing' akin to how scientists test their ideas and theories....even alternative translations are frowned upon heavily if not completely rejected.


I do not consider myself as a less educated person


- Neither do I; the thought hadn't even crossed my mind.


I could probably hold any sort of conversation with you at any time.


- Eeeer, well, you are, right now, in a manner of speaking.


I am well read, well studied Bible Believing Christian. And I would love to have a debate with you.


- .....um, again; you are, right now.

I just want to clear this up.
When I say 'Bible-believing' I am referring to the fundamentalist evangelical type Churches, the literalists.

All other churches and their members of course would claim to be 'Bible-believing' but it has a different meaning with the evangelical fundamentalists, they believe every word absolutely literally.
It's not a story, it's not to illustrate, it is to them absolutely the literal word of God and beyond any question.

One may study the Word but not question it (exactly as Islamic fundamentalists view the Koran).

Hence the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) who claim the world is no more than 6000yrs old.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I am a literalist! I believe in the Bible literally. But you state, generally, that most literal Bible believing people don't question what they are told?

So if we can get back on topic of the thread, you tend to believe that generally literal Bible believing people are like sheep, just doing what they have been told, without question. Am I correct in that statement?

If you agree with the above statement, that means the Red States, ones that have a great percentage of literal Bible believing people, were told in their churches to vote for Bush and not to vote for Kerry. And in general, those literal Bible believing people did. Is that what you meant by lagging behind, redneck, uneducated, etc....?

I, personally, think that humans beings are like sheep. The vast majority of people never question what they have been told, never search for what they believe to be the truth, they except it blindly. Not just literal Bible believing people. I bet I could make the same generality about people who voted for Kerry. Most people just voted for who they were told to vote for, never questioning him or his positions.

So I think that you "Jesusland" comparison, should be more acuately described as which party, Republican or Democrat, had the better turnout in terms of the vote. In the Red states, Republican voters can out more and in the Blue states Democratic voters can out more.

Although I don't know why you feel the way you do about literal Bible Believing people, I just hope that I have entertained you enough. By the way, I am a scientist, and I do believe in Creation, and I still question both theories every time I can. I figured that I need to know as much as I can to make a conscience decision. To help you understand my position as a creationist, I can recommend some books that are very well written,researched, and footnoted.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629
I am a literalist! I believe in the Bible literally. But you state, generally, that most literal Bible believing people don't question what they are told?


- No, please stop trying to paraphrase my words and concentrate on what I am saying, we'll get along much better that way.

I am stating that the fundamentalist literal Bible-believing people might consider the meaning of the Bible but not actually question it as they believe it to be the actual literal 'Word of God'.


So if we can get back on topic of the thread, you tend to believe that generally literal Bible believing people are like sheep, just doing what they have been told, without question. Am I correct in that statement?


- To have a literal belief in the Bible of the manner I am describing is hardly symptomatic of an enquiring and progressing mind.


If you agree with the above statement, that means the Red States, ones that have a great percentage of literal Bible believing people, were told in their churches to vote for Bush and not to vote for Kerry.


- Er, no it doesn't. How does that logically follow?
I have no idea how many people found their churches discussing how they should vote.

It is true that in some cases that happened specifically and by inference when those 'Pastors' that did discuss politics with their congregations talked about the policy differences especially in relation to the hysteria over possible homosexual's rights and abortion.


And in general, those literal Bible believing people did. Is that what you meant by lagging behind, redneck, uneducated, etc....?


- No. Sorry you are trying to pin something on me I didn't actually say.

I have made observations of social and economic disfunction associated (generally) with the 'red states' and I think this is related to an increasing 'Christian fundamentalism' which is encouraging closed minds and a conformist belief that authority (but only if of the approved of political 'colour') is to be obeyed. Something unhealthy and regressive IMO.


I, personally, think that humans beings are like sheep.


- Oh dear. I'm sorry to hear that.
I don't.
I think people have the most amazing potential and that that should be encouraged to benefit us all, because when it is it invariably does.


The vast majority of people never question what they have been told, never search for what they believe to be the truth, they except it blindly.


- ....or alternately they have poor educational standards and/or such busy lives that they concentrate on them and take little time to sit considering everything they get told along the way too much.


Not just literal Bible believing people.


- So, you're calling calling "literal Bible believing people" "sheep" too, eh?
You're at least consistant, I'll give you that.


I bet I could make the same generality about people who voted for Kerry. Most people just voted for who they were told to vote for, never questioning him or his positions.


- Well you are entitled to your opinions. I cannot say I share them.


So I think that you "Jesusland" comparison, should be more acuately described as which party, Republican or Democrat, had the better turnout in terms of the vote.


- Well so we are led to believe.


In the Red states, Republican voters can out more and in the Blue states Democratic voters can out more.


- Yeah, that's the accepted version so it seems.
Personally I think your election has so many questions hanging over it that I doubt the legitimacy of the result, again.


Although I don't know why you feel the way you do about literal Bible Believing people, I just hope that I have entertained you enough.


- It's been interesting.
I'm always up for a debate.


By the way, I am a scientist, and I do believe in Creation, and I still question both theories every time I can.


- Then you are one of a relative few.

.... and if you have formal widely accepted and advanced qualifications in science and obtained those widely accepted formal advanced qualifications when you were a 'literal Bible believing fundamentalist Christian' then you are one of an even rarer handful.


I figured that I need to know as much as I can to make a conscience decision. To help you understand my position as a creationist, I can recommend some books that are very well written,researched, and footnoted.


- I'm sorry but I have to say I am deeply sceptical about this stuff.

I will not accept the Earth is around 6000yrs old along with a whole host of objections about the supposed 'literal' Word of God.
Leviticus and Exodos, for example, provide many examples of 'commandments' that would get one locked up for life or sentenced to death in your country if one took them literally.

I have found the proponents of Creationism so far to be charlatans of the worst order.

The 'creationist scientist' Kent Hovind is an excellent example (unlike many in this area he did not get his credentials first and then convert but simply has a rather dodgy qualification.....a rather unusual and amazing thesis he is, so he says, apparantly, adding to all the time!

Whereas anyone who knows anything about such things knows that with a genuine and internationally recognised qualification they are written and finished as part of the qualification).

The man has set a long-standing superficially plausible 'challenge' that is actually so dishonest and incapable of being met within the terms he has set it is laughable yet he uses it's not being met as 'proof' of his point of view.


[edit on 27-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
What an interesting conversation. Sorry that I got a little sidetracked on the Evolution issue, I know that this is not part of this thread.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that people make decision every day on things that they hear or are told or are seen with out making a serious effort to find the information. Republican do that with their canidates. Even though I voted for Bush, I have had some serious discussions with Republicans about some of the very bad decisions that Bush had made. Some people just can't believe that their canidate has some very serious flaws.

I know you hate to generalize, so here is a very specific question. Do you think that the majority of Bush supporters voted with out question? and Do you think that the majority of Kerry supporters voted with out question? If not, why?

Do you have proof that the election was flawed? Do proof on something that I haven't seen and that hasn't been discussed lately? If you don't, then drop the issue about the election. Bush was re-elected whether you like it or not.

By the way, on the area of Bush, election, voter fraud, it sure doesn't sound like you have an open, questioning, critical mind. You sure sound like a sheeple to me! You are just spouting the same tired old rheteric that I have heard many times by lots of people. Try to get something new this time.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by knights5629
What an interesting conversation.


- It is, isn't it? Nice.


The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that people make decision every day on things that they hear or are told or are seen with out making a serious effort to find the information.


- Of course; this is true to some degree, afterall a life spent verifying every bit of information we ever heard or substantiating every thing we 'know' would leave little time for much else.

That's what we have academics for!



Republican do that with their canidates. Even though I voted for Bush, I have had some serious discussions with Republicans about some of the very bad decisions that Bush had made. Some people just can't believe that their canidate has some very serious flaws.


- Yes, of course. It would be illogical to a high degree to attempt to convey the idea that one's favoured political choice could be above question.

One bases ones' decisions on a spread of fact and information and hopefully not on black and white caricatures.


I know you hate to generalize, so here is a very specific question. Do you think that the majority of Bush supporters voted with out question? and Do you think that the majority of Kerry supporters voted with out question? If not, why?


- Some, but I doubt a majority.
We have this question arising here in the UK too. Family voting patterns have been thought to remain fairly constant through the generations but I am not convinced that holds true.

I think Bush & Co have been successful at mobilising their support, I think there is little question of that but I also think they bent every rule and have pulled every dirty trick in the book getting the result they wanted doing it too.


Do you have proof that the election was flawed? Do proof on something that I haven't seen and that hasn't been discussed lately? If you don't, then drop the issue about the election. Bush was re-elected whether you like it or not.


- Oh I am well aware he will be your President regardless for the next 4yrs or so (unless he 'does a Nixon') but I think there are huge questions that will hang over this result for good.

I could talk about the number of voting stations in likely Bush areas versus likely Kerry areas, or the exit polls only really being 'out' in the machine voting areas etc etc.

The very fact that the poll is in large areas (and surprise surprise those are the very places vital to the result) unverifiable should raise alarm bells regardless of your political leanings.

Here's hoping you don't find yourself on the wrong end of it one day, hmmm?
Still no matter what I might think or say, the world knows it. Again.
But chin up, 'your side' got the result you wanted. That's the only thing that really counts, right?


By the way, on the area of Bush, election, voter fraud, it sure doesn't sound like you have an open, questioning, critical mind.


- If I had seen a poll where the Bush crowd had moved to maximise the franchise at every point rather than obstruct, challenge and foot-drag at every various point possible I would have a more open mind on the topic; as it is they didn't and I do not believe the poll was to a standard the US itself, no less, expects in countries around the world that wish to call themselves 'democratic'.


You sure sound like a sheeple to me!


- Awwwww, now you're just spoiling things.


You are just spouting the same tired old rheteric that I have heard many times by lots of people. Try to get something new this time.


- Sorry if it bores you but this is what people the world over think.
You call it tired I call it how it is.

Why would I "get something new"?
The point remains that Bush is a 2-time Pres by the most dubious and questionable means possible.
The whole world knows it and he will suffer an utter lack of respect world-wide because of it, again, not to mention the more general compounding effect of this perceived illigitimacy and the deep contempt - pretty unique for any US President since WW2 - and hostility to his political 'ideology'.

Sadly that's how it is for at least 4yrs, hopefully it'll be better next time.


[edit on 28-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Quote: ""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."



HA, HA, HA - That was GOLDEN! Great Post "JamestheLesser" - I needed that! I believe that what you Posted is in fact what is actually going on in America Today! You Nailed It! Sorry to hear that you live in a "Red State" - you can always try to Move however!

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Isn't mildly ironic that the *south* also possesses, maintains, and engineers the following infrastructures:
Nuclear power (majority of plants are in the south)
Information Tech
Vehicular/Aircraft/Spacecraft design and construction
Microelectronics (quartz crystals are amazingly common as well as silicon)
The south also has 3 of the most sophisticated Meteorlogical Labs in the world.(weather is awfully weird around here)
There is probably more, but this is off the top of my head..



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

- 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.


*snort* You can be both a true christian fundamentalist and a open-minded free-thinking person. That is the whole goal of truely fundamental christians, not just those who claim to be fundamentalists. Those truely looking and are actually hardcore are often being that after much study both in and outside the text. Often they WANT to see where they are wrong. (Do you not know that to prove that a god exists out there, you have to accept the chance that he may not? To accept that the bible is the only authority under which to live and breathe, it takes the idea that maybe it isn't THE one and only way to live, and you are going to have to look in and outside the text.)

I find that most who claim to be free thinkers, not matter their religious or political leanings, are idiots, anyway. I've found Democrats that haven't got a braincell in their head call the Republicans and the fundamentalists absolute idiots (thinks about the 6 in my family alone who are of a 130-180 IQ range, no matter the test, who are both republican and fundamentalists, who all research what's going on in the media, yet still wind up voting with republican, christian-fundamentalist beleifs, 4 at least of which are willing to start from scratch to decide a decision). I've met republicans so dumb that I wonder how they managed to find the polling booth. I have 1 intelligent democratic friend (hates Christianity, as it is today, IQ about 140) and 1 Independant friend (curious about every religion under the sun, around 135 IQ?). They are willing to think things through. Intelligence and the ability to think outside the box are not squashed into zones, nor are all the outcomes going to be the same based on all assumed parameters.

The south used to vote Democrat...and may well vote Democrat on the next election...as long as the Democrat running is a good one, they will. ....unless the dems keep calling them backwater hicks and get them all mad.

And I hate the idea that just because they are church members, that means that they are allowing that to influence how they vote. I look at all the non-practicing Catholics who never set foot through the door once they were baptized and went through Catchecism (however this thing is spelled)..and vote pro-life beause they jsut don't like the thought of what their momma could have done to them, if this was an issue when they were a child? Ooooooo they are christians so they voted this way. Sometimes, things coincide without actually HAVING a relationship, meaning no cause and effect. How do you count those in churches who have changed their political views almost completely around while never changing in their religous beliefs? Or how about those who keep their political leanings but change through several diffrent religions? They get slapped with the no-brainer hick thing all the time. This type of thing happens a lot. IT is rediculous.

I also love the idea that it's only me and my way that is right, lol.... Most people who call names like that, in EITHER area do so because they cannot fathom themselves being wrong. *shakes head* If you can't admit to the possibility of being wrong, you don't stand much chance on being open anything.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Quote: "Fundamentalists are Open-Minded Free-Thinking person."
= CONTRADICTION in TERMS!!!!

I have had quite a bit of discussion with Fundamentalists on ATS & they are not really that Open Minded! They seem to be fond of Spewing Propaganda all over the Web! The Motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance" - but not much of that seems to be going on at all!


You are FREE my Fellow Americans now Worship Exactly in the Way We Tell you to & Vote in the Way We Tell you to - Think & Believe in the Way we Tell You to - OR ELSE!!!! Sorry but I don't Buy it - nice try!



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
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.


1) The Bible does not say how old the earth is. For all we know, it could be anything, from 5,500 at the minimum IMO to like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

2) The Bible specifically says that incest is a sin.

3) God does not care if you are rich, or white, or republican, or male. He does not want anybody to be a homosexual, and the bible says that it is an abominaton, and if you dont change and repent, you will go to hell. However, God does not want people to go to hell, they just go there on their own, following Satan.

Your argument is unintelligent, offensive, and full of stereotypes that are very untrue.

I was born in Illinois, lived there for 5 years, moved to arkansas for 2, lived in Indiana for 3 months, moved back to arkansas for 3 years, moved to illinois for 2 years, and lived in arizona for a bit more than 2 years. Therefore, I have lived in red states most of my life. I am proud to have lived in a place someone calls Jesusland for most of my life.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Only 26 percent of all Americans define themselves as evangelical Christians (fundamentalists). Only 37 percent of Americans define themselves as born again Christians. (source)

Not exactly a mandate. I'd identify myself as born again, just not practicing. Or voting Republican. So that in itself is also a misleading number, in my opinion.

Being a Christian and a Republican, or even a conservative doesn't always go hand in hand. It is a much higher percentage, but not a universal truth.

On top of that is the more accurate purple map:



The country is NOT that divided. Click on the bottom link of my signature for a much better explanation of that then I could ever do. Essentially it's split 50-50 down the middle. So in theory, if Bush would have lost the Christians could have cried about the "non-religious" who voted for Kerry. It's just a weak argument in attempt to either piss of Christians, or show how "stupid" they are.

I live in a blue county in a blue state. I know a lot of ill-educated rednecks, and obviously not Christians. Pennsylvania has a lot of them, yet went for Kerry. The same thing can be said for the state of New York.

I've seen people on this board speak with great disdain for the "red states" yet #ing live in one. It's just such a ridiculous, pointless idea that further adds to the divisive climate that permeates ATS, yet not the rest of the nation.

It's quite amazing to me whenever I see someone that isn't from the US trying to prove how unintelligent the American populace is by who they voted for President, or what faith they are, or by some statistics found on the internet.

Hell, I know a couple gay dudes that voted for Bush. You can't pigeonhole a nation you've never lived in or at least traveled around quite a bit by this kind of stuff.

Anyway, I have to go. I have the sniffles, so I'm off to the hospital. My healthcare entitlements due to my residence in the Province of Pennsylvania, Soviet Canuckistan allow me to do that.



[edit on (3/25/0505 by PistolPete]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Quote: "Essentially it's split 50-50 down the middle."

OK - you know the other map pretty much points out the same thing! I think the point that is trying to be made is that there are NO MORE MODERATES anymore (I personally still try to be as Centrist as Possible)!

Speaking of MSNBC - Chris Matthews was recently quoted as saying "As it currently stands - It seems like people are only either HARD Right or HARD Left" - to the point of Wacko Insanity he added - I personally agree! There are not many people left in the Middle or even trying to weigh both sides of the Issues anymore - I feel that this is Bad for the Country - it is TEARING US ("U.S.") APART!

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Sminkleypinkley, your observations are not only sorely incorrect, but inflammatory, and to carry the stench of liberal elitist snobbery.

Your assumption that the red states are somehow more backward or more stagnant in their growth is totally untrue. As has been stated, the fastes growing economies in states are almost all in red states.

True many aprts of the south are a bit backwards. I have lived down south, and yes, its a bit stagnant down there in most areas, but not all, and the south comprises only one portion of the red zone. The pther red states, the western states, are growing rapidly in population and economy.

Also calling it "Jesusland" is pretty ignorant and shows you really do not know much about American regionalism and culture. The only areas where there is a strong Christian Fundementalist presence is in some of the southern states. They bark the loudest, but in the western states, you will find religon plays little if any part in peoples opinions.

I was born and raised in a blue state, California, and it is one of the worst places to live. It is blue in many aspects. The state government dumps tons of money into education and public health. It is perhaps the most racially diverse state, with whites making up only about 1/3 of the total population. It has strict gun control laws, high taxes everywhere.

Yet it has perhaps the highest dropout rate in the country, with an average of only 49% of high school seniors graduating. In my senior class, only 1/3 of my fellow students graduated, despite lower educational standards.

Crime, especially gun crime, is super high, despite all the ridiculous gun laws. I have been mugged and attacked and shot at a few times in my life, and every incident took place in my home state. Hell, I was safer in the middle east when I was in the army than I was back home.

California also has perhaps the most racial tensions Ive seen anywhere. California is where the Aryan Brothethood started. California has a heavy skinhead and KKK presence, the likes of which Ive not seen elsewhere. Then you have the Mexican racists, like La Raza and a couple other Brown supremecist groups. Then you have all the black racist groups like the Panthers, and of course, the Asians openly hate everyone.

And public healthcare sucks. Its terrible, yet its one of the few states in the country that has a public health care system as big as it has.

And despite taxes and environmental laws, I could not and still cant breathe the air down there.

As for the Northeastern Blue states, they have always had a high standard of living compared to the rest of the country because thats where our rich elites and liberal snobs have always lived. Its super gentrification up there. If you aint got money and a Harvard degree and lots of "hip" friends, you simply do not live there.

The other western red states, like Montana, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado are NOT Jesusland states. Just because they voted for Bush does not mean they are religous nuts or even like Bush. The above mentioned states are part of the American west, and tend to have populations of very rugged, individualistic and fiericely independant people who are not paticularly religous. They simply dont want New England snob Democrats trying to but in and force a bunch of unwanted policy on them. Hell, many of those states are extremely tolerant to different religons, as their opinions tend to be, I do my thing, you do yours, and thats that, we dont care. They simply do not like government interference and force political correctness.

By contrast, the poorest states, the highest crime states with the lowest educational results tend to be blue. Washington DC, a red city, has the highest murder rate in the country. Chicago, a blue city, is virtually a slum.

And I can say all this with great confidence, because I have lived from one time or another in the above mentioned places.

I take offense at lumping all the red states as Jesus freaks simply because they voted for Bush. Its pure ignorance and snobbery. You simply do not know as much as you like to think about American society and culture, you only know what you were taught to know, and whatever fits your own personal scheme in life.

I hate Jesus Freaks and Fundie whack jobs, yet at least I can tell the difference between who is what and why they voted, and just how backwards certain places are.

And for the record, my current state of residence, Washington, and our neighbor, Oregon, both blue states, for the past 4 years have suffered some of the highest unemployment rates, and during the dark years of 2001-2003, we had double digit unemployment, the nations highest.

Blue/left wing/liberal does not mean equality, economic growth, good education, good health, or opportunity for the poor anymore than red/right wing/conservative means better defense, lower taxes, or common sense.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join