Talk:Bible Belt

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

I also have friends that grew up near Sherman who can confirm that the fundamentalism runs deep there. Thankfully, I currently live and study in Austin, a nice enclave of non-fundies (though "non-fundy" does not necessarily equate with "rational"). OneForLogic 13:29, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I’ve compared Slave states with the Bible Belt and there’s no question that they’re connected. I can’t prove or disprove the claim that no morality except sexual morality counted in the Bible Belt.
First, the true believer must have an unquestioning faith in the religious teachihngs of their church, usually expressed as an unquestioning adherence to the Bible as most helpfully interpreted by that Christian church, even if that unquestioning faith required one to suspend his willingness to reason and his ability to accept reality and facts. Second, morality was solely defined as (women's) sexual fidelity, augmented at times with an injunction for men to support their wives and children, in return, of course, for their unconditionaly obedience. As always, the rich and powerful were exempt from both of these rules. [1]

They certainly attack enthusiastically a wide range of sins today. Proxima Centauri 15:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Not sure what you are going on about, but that "reference" is just someone's essay. And it's full of typos. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Rewrite Needed[edit]

Low-quality snark - Snark spread irregularly, giving a disjointed feeling - Statements lacking citations - Information laid out badly - - - - I may attempt a rewrite soon but I'm a newbie (to editing) and could use help. Madattak (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article does not come close to meeting the standards for something called a "rational wiki". If the author is so ignorant he is unaware of the Ecological Fallacy, which is what his stupid inferences are based on, he should not be writing here. If you want to know if fundamentalist Christians have a higher divorce rate than the mean for the country, you would need to look at divorce rates for fundamentalist Christians, not try to make an inference based on aggregate state-level divorce statistics for states where fundamentalist Christians are more common than elsewhere. You would also need to be rigorous in your definition of what constitutes a fundamentalist Christian, say distinguishing persons who attend church regularly and live their faith from people who, when asked, just say "I'm a Baptist" because they were brought up in a Baptist family. And if you are really interested in the differential effect, you would need a multivariate model to excise variance caused by being an observant Christian from other variables that contribute to divorce. But given that this whole Wiki is obviously written by liberal arts dufuses, I have no real expectation such a thing would be done. 151.151.109.19 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This argument smacks of moving the goalposts; basic but valid analysis shows that religiosity is correlated with divorce, so your reply is "do moar analysis". No, you want to counter it, you put in the work. CorruptUser (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not bronze-worthy[edit]

This entire article has some serious issues. If no one objects, I am going to remove the bronzebrain pending a full rewrite. PACODOGwoof, bitches 13:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate real quick? ТyTalk. 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC) You have my support. Some of it is a bit silly. I think RW is now mature enough to do these articles in serious detail.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It is silly, and I agree to the rewrite. I just wanted to know what he is planning. ТyTalk. 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on anything too major; the article just seems poorly written in general IMO. Maybe it's just me. I see a few typos and cheap conservapedia-like ad hominem cheap shots that could be worded better at least. I can work on it when I get behind a real computer (I'm on my phone now). PACODOGwoof, bitches 13:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Telling graphics[edit]

Unfortunately it's off imgur, so I'm not certain of the original site and I'm too lazy to look it up right now without a plan to add it to the article. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Redefining the Bible Belt[edit]

Huffington Post has an interesting article today about the concentration of Christian identification in the United States...which suggests the Bible Belt actually goes through the center of the country rather than over the The South (here's the exact graphic). The fact that it somewhat follows the NAFTA Superhighway is interesting, but probably not related. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't get something. the rates for Christian adherence are highr in the cities than in the states as a whole, but you'd really expect the reverse, with religious identity being stronger in rural than urban areas. Have they collated their statistics the same way for each list? SophieWilder 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I only took a quick peek, but given that the article from which the graphic is drawn is titled "Most And Least Christian Cities In America," I imagine the "urban bias" (to quote a term from a completely different field) is built into the study. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Which bible[edit]

... does the BB use? (Ambiguity intended)

Given the variant number of component books, and variant readings there will be problems ahead (but no music and no dance) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The King James Bible appears to be the most favored. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
So they can be bible-bashed with 'assorted variant canons' (if not the 3Groschen-Opera Canon Song). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I swear my county is a mini Bible Belt[edit]

If you happen to be in Mid-Michigan, then you know what I am talking about. So many damn Christian churches. Hell, the nearest non-Christian center of worship is about 20 miles away from where I live (and it is a Mosque) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessarily Condescending[edit]

I understand that the wiki here isn't necessarily meant to be 100% neutral, but the language in this article goes beyond snark or sarcasm. Critiquing the ideology of US protestants is one thing, but critiquing an entire region with millions of people as if it is completely homogeneous is another. Additionally, the mocking of people in the South for having high crime and/or divorce rates is pretty cruel when you consider those factors are highly correlated with poverty. And to be frank, the intro is a gross exaggeration. 25 February, 2018 — Unsigned, by: Greenesttomato / talk / contribs