Religious & political disparity between north and south

[SailingCyclops]

The present religious, social, economic, and cultural disparity between the American North and South is stunning. As a for-instance, recent polls show over 50% of southern voters don’t believe in evolution, over 60% don’t believe in a centralized fed, and a vast majority put more weight on their religious and social views than on the constitution! There are many other examples. Theocrat Rick Santorum’s popularity in the south is recent proof, as is the fact that recent polls reveal that about 50% of southern working women support Santorum’s social conservative positions including his anti birth control and abortion stances. It seems clear that the north is moving towards a more secular, liberal, and open society, while the south is moving towards a more socially conservative, closed, and theocratic one.

It is becoming more clear, at least to me, that a single federal government can’t govern over such a wide and profound conflict of fundamental views, politics, and beliefs in a fair and equitable manner. I have always believed that the wrong side won the civil war. Apart from the slavery issue (which would have been settled without civil war as it has in the rest of the world), the right to secede from the union and form another federal state acceptable to southern thought, politics, and religiosity, to me, is a no-brainer.

Questions for debate:

1) Why should/shouldn’t the south be allowed, and even encouraged, to form a confederate union, and implement whatever theocracy, and social/political conservative country they wish?

2) Wouldn’t the formation of such a state relieve the tensions and conflicts between northern and southern populations, between theocracy and democracy, between liberal and conservative? Wouldn’t such a dissolution give the two peoples a government closer to the one they each desire, without forcing the other to comply with theirs?

I for one, would be relieved to see the south disconnected from the United States, either by consent or by force. Why not give Rick Perry, and his ilk, their wish, and finally settle the greatest unsolved conflict of the civil war? What do ya’ll think?

Bob

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

...
What a disgraceful bunch living below the Mason Dixon line. Sorry, I have little pity for the few down there who are not evil. Get out while you can.

HELL NO!

I love the great state of Georgia, warts and all, and could care less what someone who doesn't live within, or has likely spent little time within, thinks about how I should go about considerin' my fellow Georgians.

Like all families, we have our bunch we ain't proud of, and I mean we got a bunch of 'em, we cringe when it comes reunion time, but we damned sure WON'T ABANDON THEM. We will continue to try to teach them the errors of their ways. Because that's the right thing to do!

You would have escaped Germany when it began to fall into fascism, what's the difference now?

Do you s'pose all Southerners are cowards who ain't willing to fight a system they reject?

You expect me to just tuck tail and run in the face of adversity? I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a skinning knife than leave the bigots among me to win.

I like ya dude, but you're sorely misinformed, and playing off the same sorts of stereotypes you accuse or imply others of holding.

Y'all might do well to consider Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are the current front-runners in the GOP primaries.

What does that say about the "North"?

Would you 'preciate my judging you based on what them two have to allow?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
Secession of the south would eliminate the above from having an effect on the future of America. They are not Americans, they are confederates, and they deserve to have their own nation, one detached from the civilized north.

You mean like...

[youtube][/youtube]

Or how 'bout...

(jump to 1:00, couldn't get timestamp to work)
[youtube][/youtube]

And let's not forget...

[youtube][/youtube]

Yeah, it's only us in the South with all the knucke-heads

[WinePusher]

I think the purpose of my post was lost on you, but you brought up some good points for debate that I want to address.

That way, you can marry whoever the hell you want, whether they be animal or human, male or female, kid or adult.

Who is advocating marriage with animals OR children? Neither has the legal capacity to enter into a contract. When you look up "strawman" in the dictionary, that's example #1.

If marriage lacks a definition, what would prohibit someone from marrying an animal or a child. Giving marriage a definition and abiding by that definition is something the gay marriage crowd is opposed to, so I don't know why you think that's a strawman. The 'traditional marriage' crowd has been very clear, the definition of marriage has been and should continue to be a contractual union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. If one of these criterias is violated, it is not considered marriage. If there are more than two people, if one of the individuals is not an adult, if both the individuals are of the same sex, the union is not considered marriage.

That way, you can have the government dictating your life decisions since you apparently aren't able to make those decisions yourself.

Can't imagine what that's about. Health insurance, maybe? This is the only nation in the civilized, industrialized world where people fear their medical bills and go bankrupt and become homeless because of them. Perhaps that actually deserves a bit of thought, as opposed to knee-jerk let-'em-croak dollar-worship.

So what would you like to do about healthcare costs? Get the government in there to articifically lower them? The reason why healthcare costs are rising enourmously, especially when compared to other markets in the economy, is because the market lacks competition and is plagued by things like occupational licensure, limited competition and messed up torts. Along with that, we have one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world. We pay more, and we get more. I'm sure you would prefer to pay absolutely nothing and receive crappy healthcare as opposed to actually paying the costs and receiving high quality care, but alot of other people don't.

]That way, you can pay for people like Sandra Fluke to have sex.

Sweet; endorsing the worst example of misogynistic smear and gratuitous insult in recent memory. Ms. Fluke was actually speaking for a friend who needed birth-control pills for a medical condition unrelated to sexual activity, but let's not let either compassion or the facts get in the way of a good, nasty, humiliating insult. Let the free market decide: Rush is losing sponsors every day, seems to have about 2 left. They'll probably bail too... and that's not censorship, it's the free market. It's also shooting yourself in the mouth. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

It's not surprising that you translate any criticism of the left's birth control poster child, Sandra Fluke, into a misogynistic smear and gratuitious insult. Limabugh called her a slut, and he suffered the consequences for using that type of language. When Ed Schulz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a slut people weren't raging like they are now. I wonder why calling a liberal feminist a slut sparks more outrage amoung people like you than calling a conservative women a slut does. And I'll tell you what the actual facts are cnorman. Fluke is is upset because Georgetown, a Catholic institution, doesn't cover birth control in their student health plans. Who's forcing to go to Georgetown? She couldn't settle for a less elite and prestigious law school that does cover birth control, like UCLA law or University of Michigan law? The same goes for her friend, if she wants birth control covered go find a law school that covers birth control. And besides, why couldn't her friend get birth control. Why don't you answer that question. Birth control is one of the most accessible drugs in the market. There is nothing inaccessible about birth control. The way you and people like Fluke reason is that if something is not subsidized by the government and the taxpayer, aka: if something isn't free, it's not accessible. I cosnider that messed up logic.

And since people like you don't give a damn about the border, you and your ilk should migrate down there and deal with the criminals, rapists and murderers yourself.

Ah. All Mexicans are criminals, rapists and murderers. Nicely done.

Thank you, I think I succinctly described the situation that occurs on the border between the United States and Mexico. A large portion of Mexicans who illegal cross the border are rapists and murderers. All Mexicans who illegally cross into the United States are criminals because they broke the law, that's the dictionary of what a criminal is. I can't help it if the truth offends you.

Hey, you left out the outlawing of the teaching of evolution -- and the reinstitution of government-mandated prayer and religious instruction in the public schools, in exclusively Christian terms of course. Don't forget those.

I left these things out cause I probably agree with you. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, I think Evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it's a vital part of Biology. And I don't believe in government mandated prayer in schools. I believe if a schools wishes to allocate time in the day dedicated to a moment of silence, they should be allowed to do so. But no, I don't believe in government mandated christian prayer.

[WinePusher]

I think the purpose of my post was lost on you, but you brought up some good points for debate that I want to address.

That way, you can marry whoever the hell you want, whether they be animal or human, male or female, kid or adult.

Who is advocating marriage with animals OR children? Neither has the legal capacity to enter into a contract. When you look up "strawman" in the dictionary, that's example #1.

If marriage lacks a definition, what would prohibit someone from marrying an animal or a child. Giving marriage a definition and abiding by that definition is something the gay marriage crowd is opposed to, so I don't know why you think that's a strawman. The 'traditional marriage' crowd has been very clear, the definition of marriage has been and should continue to be a contractual union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. If one of these criterias is violated, it is not considered marriage. If there are more than two people, if one of the individuals is not an adult, if both the individuals are of the same sex, the union is not considered marriage.

That way, you can have the government dictating your life decisions since you apparently aren't able to make those decisions yourself.

Can't imagine what that's about. Health insurance, maybe? This is the only nation in the civilized, industrialized world where people fear their medical bills and go bankrupt and become homeless because of them. Perhaps that actually deserves a bit of thought, as opposed to knee-jerk let-'em-croak dollar-worship.

So what would you like to do about healthcare costs? Get the government in there to articifically lower them? The reason why healthcare costs are rising enourmously, especially when compared to other markets in the economy, is because the market lacks competition and is plagued by things like occupational licensure, limited competition and messed up torts. Along with that, we have one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world. We pay more, and we get more. I'm sure you would prefer to pay absolutely nothing and receive crappy healthcare as opposed to actually paying the costs and receiving high quality care, but alot of other people don't.

]That way, you can pay for people like Sandra Fluke to have sex.

Sweet; endorsing the worst example of misogynistic smear and gratuitous insult in recent memory. Ms. Fluke was actually speaking for a friend who needed birth-control pills for a medical condition unrelated to sexual activity, but let's not let either compassion or the facts get in the way of a good, nasty, humiliating insult. Let the free market decide: Rush is losing sponsors every day, seems to have about 2 left. They'll probably bail too... and that's not censorship, it's the free market. It's also shooting yourself in the mouth. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

It's not surprising that you translate any criticism of the left's birth control poster child, Sandra Fluke, into a misogynistic smear and gratuitious insult. Limabugh called her a slut, and he suffered the consequences for using that type of language. When Ed Schulz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a slut people weren't raging like they are now. I wonder why calling a liberal feminist a slut sparks more outrage amoung people like you than calling a conservative women a slut does. And I'll tell you what the actual facts are cnorman. Fluke is upset because Georgetown, a Catholic institution, doesn't cover birth control in their student health plans. Who's forcing her to go to Georgetown? She couldn't settle for a less elite and prestigious law school that does cover birth control, like UCLA law or University of Michigan law? The same goes for her friend, if she wants birth control covered go find a law school that covers birth control. And besides, why couldn't her friend get birth control. Why don't you answer that question. Birth control is one of the most accessible drugs in the market. There is nothing inaccessible about birth control. The way you and people like Fluke reason is that if something is not subsidized by the government and the taxpayer, aka: if something isn't free, it's not accessible. I consider that messed up logic.

And since people like you don't give a damn about the border, you and your ilk should migrate down there and deal with the criminals, rapists and murderers yourself.

Ah. All Mexicans are criminals, rapists and murderers. Nicely done.

Thank you, I think I succinctly described the situation that occurs on the border between the United States and Mexico. A large portion of Mexicans who illegal cross the border are rapists and murderers. All Mexicans who illegally cross into the United States are criminals because they broke the law, that's the dictionary definiton of what a criminal is. I can't help it if the truth offends you.

Hey, you left out the outlawing of the teaching of evolution -- and the reinstitution of government-mandated prayer and religious instruction in the public schools, in exclusively Christian terms of course. Don't forget those.

I left these things out cause I probably agree with you. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, I think Evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it's a vital part of Biology. And I don't believe in government mandated prayer in schools. I believe if a schools wishes to allocate time in the day dedicated to a moment of silence, they should be allowed to do so. But no, I don't believe in government mandated christian prayer.

[cnorman18]

I think the purpose of my post was lost on you, but you brought up some good points for debate that I want to address.

I note that you failed to address a single one of my points, merely substituting words you put in my mouth and addressing THOSE.

Nothing here I'd care to reply to; I don't defend positions I don't hold.

I left these things out cause I probably agree with you. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, I think Evolution should continue to be taught in schools because it's a vital part of Biology. And I don't believe in government mandated prayer in schools. I believe if a schools wishes to allocate time in the day dedicated to a moment of silence, they should be allowed to do so. But no, I don't believe in government mandated christian prayer.

Yes, on those we are agreed; I do confess to having wrongly assumed that you hold those positions because many on the Right do, in fact, hold them.

You do realize, of course, that you have similarly attributed beliefs and positions to me because you perceive that many on the Left hold them as well?

Whether they actually do hold them or not doesn't seem to matter, apparently; e.g., as I said, NO ONE is advocating marriage with underage children or animals.

[99percentatheism]

The present religious, social, economic, and cultural disparity between the American North and South is stunning. As a for-instance, recent polls show over 50% of southern voters don’t believe in evolution, over 60% don’t believe in a centralized fed, and a vast majority put more weight on their religious and social views than on the constitution! There are many other examples. Theocrat Rick Santorum’s popularity in the south is recent proof, as is the fact that recent polls reveal that about 50% of southern working women support Santorum’s social conservative positions including his anti birth control and abortion stances. It seems clear that the north is moving towards a more secular, liberal, and open society, while the south is moving towards a more socially conservative, closed, and theocratic one.

Sounds correct to me too. The amount of Evangelical Mega Churches in the South, coupled with a growing apologetics movement within The Church, and the South will be a great nation indeed. Secularism has brought us pure horror on the big city social and moral level. Ofcourse though, that big city immorality (called fad) has poisoned millions of youth in the suburbs and rural areas too.

It is becoming more clear, at least to me, that a single federal government can’t govern over such a wide and profound conflict of fundamental views, politics, and beliefs in a fair and equitable manner.

You have learned well from history. Most unlike the common secular progressive/liberal (materialist) of this age.

I have always believed that the wrong side won the civil war.

When in the course of human events . . . !

Apart from the slavery issue (which would have been settled without civil war as it has in the rest of the world), the right to secede from the union and form another federal state acceptable to southern thought, politics, and religiosity, to me, is a no-brainer.

The intense hatred between Blacks and Whites right now, shows that Slavery in the South wouldn't have been ended in a nice manner.

Questions for debate:

1) Why should/shouldn’t the south be allowed, and even encouraged, to form a confederate union, and implement whatever theocracy, and social/political conservative country they wish?

They should be able to. I'd move there in a heart beat. Drinking a mint Julip while watching the North continue to become Sodom and Gomorrah.

2) Wouldn’t the formation of such a state relieve the tensions and conflicts between northern and southern populations, between theocracy and democracy, between liberal and conservative?

The Theocracy in Democrat-Black Churches and White Liberals would still drive along a healthy animosity in the North. Black Churches do not support gay sexuality.

Wouldn’t such a dissolution give the two peoples a government closer to the one they each desire, without forcing the other to comply with theirs?

Hollywood would still be beaming debauchery and calling for their brand of pederasty in the United Southern States. There would still be strife.

I for one, would be relieved to see the south disconnected from the United States, either by consent or by force. Why not give Rick Perry, and his ilk, their wish, and finally settle the greatest unsolved conflict of the civil war? What do ya’ll think?

Bob

I would love to see the First Amendment put in its place when it comes to secularists using it to peddle porn and materialist propaganda to our captive children in humanist public schools.

I'm all for a split. Peaceful or otherwise.

It is far past the course of human events to rid ourselves of what the USA has become.

[cnorman18]

A somewhat more balanced view:

GLEN BROWDER: Is the South a Nation of Toothless, Ignorant, Racist Rednecks?