One of the persistent and stark differences between the traditional South and the Northeast is the religious divide between the two regions and cultures. The South is well-known today as the ‘Bible Belt‘ while the Northeast is famous as a bastion of secularism and liberal Christianity (for instance, Mississippi is rated the most religious State while Vermont is rated the least religious). This was not always the case. In fact, in the early colonial era it was the Northeast that was fanatically religious while the South was comparatively moderate. Wikipedia provides the following summary:
The Bible Belt is an informal term for a region in the southeastern and south-central United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism is a significant part of the culture and Christian church attendance across the denominations is generally higher than the nation’s [sic] average. The Bible Belt consists of much of the Southern United States extending west into Texas and Oklahoma. During the colonial period (1607–1776), the South was a stronghold of the Anglican church. Its transition to a stronghold of non-Anglican Protestantism occurred gradually over the next century as a series of religious revival movements, many associated with the Baptist denomination, gained great popularity in the region.
Author Frank Conner explains this in greater detail and how things changed in the following excerpt taken from pages 75-76 of his book The South Under Siege 1830-2000:
Prior to the Second Great Awakening, the people of the Northeast had been known as devout Christians, while the Southerners conspicuously had not. In the 18th century, the South had been lightly populated. There were no big cities as such (those were strictly a Northern phenomenon); and when there was a church within travelling distance, the Southerners attended it on Sundays as much to socialize and conduct business as to worship God. Visitors to the region complained frequently that the Southern ministers were of low quality and were lightly regarded by their congregations. This was in sharp contrast to such Northerners as the Congregationalists of New England and the Quakers of Pennsylvania – who approached religion soberly and intensely.
The South’s attitude toward Christianity changed abruptly and permanently early in the 19th century. Then – during the Second Great Awakening – Baptist and Methodist circuit riders brought their versions of Christianity to the small towns and the hinterlands. This religion had been shorn of pomp and layers of arbitrary ecclesiastic bureaucracy, and was now a personal matter of faith between the believer and God, without mediators. This type of Christianity appealed strongly to most Southerners; and thereafter it changed their lives drastically. Its priorities emphasized Christ as Lord, personal honor, marriage, family, and community – in that order. many Southerners now lived their Christian faith; most of the rest were at least careful to observe the forms.
The Southerners were now regarded as the bedrock Christians, and the Northerners less so as Calvinism receded – although liberalized Christianity remained strong in the North.
Also see: Mississippi & Vermont on opposite ends of religious spectrum
It will be interesting to see how long the South continues to connect with Christianity. The churches, across denominations, have suffered scandal after scandal over the past several decades. In addition, many churches have introduced new unofficial doctrines of state and military worship and encourage its members to pledge their allegiance to an idol (the “Christian” flag).
I, foresee a much better outcome for Southern culture, as history has demonstrated, religions come and go, but the culture seems to persist.
“I, foresee a much better outcome for Southern culture, as history has demonstrated, religions come and go, but the culture seems to persist.”
If you are suggesting, sir, that the culture of the Old South can survive without the particular religion that brought it into being and sustained it through many dark years, I would urge you to think again. We have seen Europe decoupled from Christianity. Don’t imagine that the fate of the South would be any different.
I hear the same kind of nonsense spouted by the neopagan “Nouvelle Droite” types: Europe can be great again, especially so if Christianity is consigned to the dustbin of history. They are morons. Paganism by itself never worked out well for Europeans, as the histories of Rome — and most recently Nazi Germany — attest. If the South loses Christ — as the Yankees lost Christ — then the South can only hope for the Yankees’ fate. This is something that Southern Nationalist writer Mac Aston argues with eloquence in his book Yankee Babylon. If you haven’t read that book I strongly encourage you to do so.
“Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists.”
Joseph De Maistre
Snaggle-Tooth Jones,
Southern culture existed well before the people of the South found “christianity” and their culture can flourish regardless of just how “christian” its people may or may not be. Southerners were certainly not near as devout as their Puritan christian neighbors to the north.
In fact much of the Southern culture, from story telling, hunting, fishing, cattle herders, music style, independent thinking, etc are all cultural customs that are from Southerners’ Pagan ancestors. I see little of these customs changing based on the peoples’ religious flavor of the moment. After all, the christian faith is foreign religion to people of western European decent that was forced upon their ancestors (especially in France, Scotland, Ireland, Wales etc) on pain of death.
And what pagan ancestors would those be? The culture of the American South is separated from those ancestors by both a millennium and a half and an ocean. Virginia and South Carolina were colonized by Anglicans. The Scots-Irish wave of immigrants that came later were largely Presbyterians and various kinds nonconformist Christians. There was hardly a pagan among them.
As James Webb writes in Born Fighting, Southrons can be bold sinners, but devout they always have been and are today, largely speaking, contrary to your assertion. That’s precisely why the South is even today known as the “Bible Belt”, and not the “Pagan Belt”. Ask your typical Southerner about, say, Samhein, and note the blank look on his face.
It is in your last comment that you tip your hand: you’re one of those “Nouvelle Droite” types, hankering for the supposed glories of Europe’s old pagan faith. Which is merely an indication that you really don’t know much about that old faith, or why Christianity so easily supplanted it. It was ugly, brutal and fatalistic, contrary to your half-educated and romantic notions about it. And this “pain of death” nonsense is precisely that: nonsense, and simplistic in the extreme. My suggestion is that you bracket whatever “knowledge” you’ve gleaned from high school, Hollywood and half-educated neopagans, and read a reputable church history or two.
The Southern heritage organizations with which I am associated — League of the South and Sons of Confederate Veterans — understand the key role the Christian faith has played in the formation of Southern culture, and they seek to hand down that legacy, each in their own unique way. Your neopagan perspective is that of an outsider, however. There’s not anything truly Southron about it.
I see both sides of it— But in reality, Christianity breaks down into three main groups (orthodox, protestant, catholic). And these really do seem to reference the pre-christianites that came before.
The South is markedly protestant. In many early constitutions, one had to affirm protestantism in order to hold offices. By contrast to catholicism (the other christianity the protestants were most aware of, not having been deeply exposed to Orthodoxy), the southern faith is de-centralized (just like the state’s rights they support), nonhierarchical, with the average person (the lay person) having a voice (both in government and church matters), with church having elected officials, who are on a same level spiritually with the congregation (as opposed to the catholic world’s hierarchies, visible money, overlap of high priests and Big Money movers and shakers —like the Borgias and Medicis producing many popes, that kind of thing— the “need to know basis” sort of thinking (not thinking for yourself.). And much more. The catholic mind was much better suited to the Industrial Revolution in some ways (the clock punching, efficiency, corportism, hierarchy, “org charts” (lol), being “initiated” in the corporation (“promotions”), and so on.
It is a very different culture from the culture of agriculture— a different sense of advancement, values, time, a person’s reason for being and worth.
So—- the catholic faith really does channel something prior that is different, and creates a very different christian culture overall. The Northern European/ Southern and protestant breaks down along this religious line— and is better suited for pioneering, thinking for oneself, valuing creativity, self-sufficiency, (all of which comes out in religious terms, as mentioned with elected offices, no confession to a “grand priest”, direct prayer to God, a relationship with God, no saints of endless mediation, often very non-visibly wealthy churches (no gold and gowns, pomp, no statues, even stain glass, etc.—the opposite of so many catholic spaces).
There’s much more to say on the matter—- but the bottom line is that the three main christianities also seem to carry the folkways of the people, evident in how they interpreted the bible, how they live in accordance with it.
Catholicism often produces people who are more prone to “The Cult of Experts” (they are raised in a religion that has “Experts” (the hierarchy of popes, priests), which is more than “elders” or “respected co-congregants” of the protestants. It seems insupportable (like when one reads about the popes from The Borgias? Medicis and so on, lol. d
The consciousness that arises from the different christianities (the “sensibilities” that emerge) are different, indeed.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones,
“And what pagan ancestors would those be?” History answers this simply enough… Western European include the Celts, Normans, Saxons, etc, who all happened to be pagan. Those who immigrated to settle the South were the descendants of these pagans. It is well documented that many of the pagan cultural and traditional customs survived the forced conversion to christianity of the Southern peoples’ ancestors. These traditions and customs that survived into the modern South include generous hospitality, hunting, fishing, martial prowess (I noted many of these earlier).
Remember, we are talking about the survival of the pagan culture into the modern era, not the pagan religions. The christians were sure to wipe out the old pagan cultures through violence, torture and bloodshed… after all you couldn’t have freedom of religious worship interfere with the profiteering of the church.
“Southrons can be bold sinners” On this point I agree with you… a lot of Southerners have absolutely no intention of living by their church’s doctrines. “
“but devout they always have been and are today” I must disagree on this point because attending church services or giving lip service has nothing to do with being devout to the teachings of Christ. Many churches in the “Bible Belt” are at best social clubs, at worst propagandist for the US military and government. This does not make the Christian faith wrong or immoral; there is just simply no reason to dress it up beyond what it is. If people are happy worshiping In these type of environments, more power to them.
“Ask your typical Southerner about, say, Samhein, and note the blank look on his face” I absolutely agree with you on this point today most Southerners would recognize this holiday as Halloween or All Saints Day.
Your third paragraph is full of many assumptions. I have never claimed that the old pagan religions were glorious, that is a completely falsified statement on your part. The old pagan religions of Western Europe were simply nature worship. Their religion followed the natural cycle of the seasons, life, death etc. There is scant to no academic evidence that the pagan religions were “ugly” as you stated.
“contrary to your half-educated and romantic notions about it. And this “pain of death” nonsense is precisely that: nonsense, and simplistic in the extreme. My suggestion is that you bracket whatever “knowledge” you’ve gleaned from high school, Hollywood and half-educated neopagans, and read a reputable church history or two.”
This entire paragraph is completely false. I was educated at a private Christian university, was never taught about Western European pagan religions in high school and rarely watch any Hollywood movies or tv programs at all much less ones (if they even exist) that give an in depth educational lesson on pagan religions.
As far as your last paragraph it has absolutely no bearing onto whether or not the cultural traditions of customs of the Western European pagans can be documented in Southern society today. After all, there has never been, to my knowledge, a dispute to the claim that most Southerners claim christianity as their religion.
By making several false statements in your post it really makes it difficult to take your position seriously.
oh–
The above are obviously sweeping generalizations— with protestants out there who follow experts, and catholics who value de-centralization (actionably, in a real way). In the u.s., this is in part due to the wasps (especially southern wasps, but now also rural mid-weset/ westerns socialized into the way the country became after the War between the States (Industrialist-Corporatist-militarist –the real definition of fascism). —but the “gains” made by “the left” (especially in the real of academic thinking about population controls, were integrated into that System, so it’s a “left-right hybrid,” (in which the Constitutional America (who references colonizing not industrializing, has virtually no voice).
— and disagree that the Northeast is necessarily “secular.” It is frequently controlled by catholics and jews. (NYC is 4% protestant, as are other major cities now— in other words they do not exist in the major cities). There’s a secular, humanist strain— but really, it’s more controled by the left (atheist materialist). Organizational jews (genuinely political ones) working on Israel, and the catholics on Romanizing the country (not average people going to mass, but political catholics). Why else would they vote to open the south border of the country against the will of the people, as was done in 1965? Why else attack “The Bilbe Belt”— and the south, which are synonymous with “wasp?”
In a sense, there may be no real secularism—- scratch the surface long enough, and people will pick a tribe. It might be ideological (communism in all its variants, or a theocracy of some kind), or their kin. And really, the “theocrats” really fall on ethnic lines.
It’s a shame that this discussion turns into a debate about ‘paganism’, which is for the most part a recently invented system cobbled together based on hearsay or fantasized notions about the good old pre-Christian days of Europe. The truth is, nobody really knows how the pre-Christian Europeans worshipped, apart from some sketchy details from the writings of Roman historians, etc.
I need proof of this assertion by Chad that the European peoples were ”forced” into Christianity on pain of death. I’ve seen this asserted on many ‘new right’ or ‘Nouvelle Droite’-oriented forums and I’d like evidence to back it up. Recently-concocted histories don’t count.
The European peoples have been Christians for what, 1700 years and all the evidence is that they fully embraced it, and it formed the core of their culture. Look at all the great art from Christian Europe; they were not half-hearted Christians, but their faith was the heart of their culture. The cathedrals, the visual arts, music, etc. are all pay testimony to that.
The South would not BE the South as we know it without Christianity. It’s impossible even to imagine such a thing. Our forebears were Christians for dozens of generations back.
-VA
VA
“I need proof of this assertion by Chad that the European peoples were ”forced” into Christianity on pain of death.”
This is actually very well documented, I am surprised that you are unaware of the persecutions that pagans suffered by the early christians.
One of the best documented instances of using the “pain of death” threat against practicing pagans was made by Constantius II. The early christians also began to forcibly close all pagan temples.
“Saint” Ambrose further agitated and advocated violence and bloodshed against under the infamous “Theodosian Decree”. Laws were continued to be passed that included the death penalty to those who attended or participated in a pagan ritual. Laws were also used to steal buildings and temples owned by the pagans and then award these buildings to the Christians.
Pope Gregory I ordered that all sacred lands that were for the worship by the pagans were to be confiscated and to appropriated to the christians for building temples and alters to the christian god.
The historical documentation of christians violence and bloodshed against pagans is extensive. There are several good historic books out there about the subject, if you are interested in the subject.
“Look at all the great art from Christian Europe; they were not half-hearted Christians”
There are numerous examples of pagan imagery and symbols in the Christians churches in Europe. Many of the pagan symbols and imagery are actually engraved into the churches themselves. There are also several books that document what churches have these pagan symbols and images carved into their buildings.
“The South would not BE the South as we know it without Christianity. It’s impossible even to imagine such a thing”
This has never even been a question on this forum… and appears to be almost a strawman argument… with you giving support to a fact that does not conflict, support or hurt the fact that pagan culture exists in the South today. Even as Christianity continues to diminish in the South, it is likely that much of Southern culture and customs will continue to persist.
Christianity influence on the South is also well documented. However, just because it has had an influence on the South does not take away from the cultural traditions we maintain from out pagan ancestors.
Christianity is more a nuisance at this point. Originally it was pretty much an all White/European faith. Once it came to the new world it started trying to convert anybody and everybody. The modern churches are nothing more than multiculturalism packaged into a sermon. Not to mention the aliens that are pouring across the Southern border can easily play the religion card. “We are Christians too, you rayciss!” I notice the Orthodox Christians in the East aren’t ate up with that PC malarky though. I don’t know much about the different Christian sects, but they seem a hell of alot more keen on keeping their founding stock the majority in the Orthodox nations.
I see Christianity as a part of White history but I’m an Atheist that can live a clean moral life without it. When it starts to endanger the people that were once its main followers then it is time for some serious changes. I don’t care about Christianity either way, but if you want to keep it a ‘white thing’ then you better get to work breaking it from the PC spell its under.
Also I’d rather live around a white Pagan than a black Christian. Race trumps religion every time for me.
Take it as you wish.
The word culture is derived from the Latin word “cultus” which basically means religion. It is from this we get our English word “cult” though when English-speaking people use it, they often mean it in a derogatory way. Nevertheless, culture derives primarily from cultus (religion), and specifically it is the way in which a religion interacts with various people in their environment and history.
European Paganism was a failure. It produced a culture of such extreme decadence that it ultimately imploded upon itself, much in the same way modern Secular culture threatens to do the same in the not-too-distant future. It was regected by Europeans within a few centuries of Christianity’s birth because it offered no hope to its adherents. It gave way to Christianity because the Christian faith offered the concept of free-will (something foreign to the “fates” of ancient Paganism) and a God who actually loves people and cares about them (something also foreign to the narcissistic gods of Paganism). Christianity offered a God who demands worship not for his own sake, but for the sake of his children, who were designed for this purpose and can only find fulfilment therein. I could go on about the reasons why Christianity conquered Paganism in the realm of ideas, but I digress. The fact that Paganism is today an obscure religion, with virtually no organised features outside of a rebellious subculture, demonstrates that it has been thoroughly defeated in the realm of ideas. It will always give way to either Christianity or Islam in the long run. Take your pick.
The Antebellum South was built almost exclusively on Western European Christianity. The only Pagans that existed were among the Native American tribes, many of whom voluntarily converted to Christianity eventually. The only Muslims that existed were among some of the slaves who were imported from Africa, but they gave way to Christianity within a generation or two. Of course, there was always a smattering of Jews in every culture, but they are always a tiny minority. Without question, Christianity created the dominant culture of the South, regardless of how well people practised it. The dominant form of Christianity in the Antebellum South was Anglican Protestantism (Protestant Episcopal Church USA), and if you investigate the trends of North American Anglican Protestantism in the late 1700s to early 1800s, you will find they were overwhelmingly Anglo-Catholic in practice and liturgy. The Anglo-Catholic movement was practically invented by the Protestant Episcopal Church USA after the American Revolution, and later spread to England where it became known as the Oxford Movement. The English contributed to the intellectual side of Anglo-Catholicism, while the Americans contributed to the practical side of it. The mindset of Anglo-Catholicism is what many referred to as the “third way” — or an organic bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism. Church services were highly liturgical, mirroring the Catholic mass in almost every way, with subtle changes in the wording of prayers to fit traditional Protestant theology. Anglicans (Episcopalians) were sympathetic to Catholic sensibilities, and while their devotion to Mary and the Saints was not nearly as profound as among Catholics, it did nevertheless exist in small forms. Visit any Episcopal Church of the time period, and this will be obvious in the iconography and architecture. This was the religion of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, as well as countless other Confederate fathers. Catholicism also played a significant role in the Antebellum South, especially in Louisiana, Texas and the urban portions of Atlanta, Charleston, Richmond and Baltimore. One simply cannot understand the Antebellum South without appreciating this religious influence on the culture of the period. Of course that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, far from it, but you do have to understand it and appreciate it. The War of Southern Independence (the Dixie-American War) brought with it radical changes in religion both during and after. Because of the horrors of battle, many soldiers and their families sought a religious message that offered them immediate comfort and a private relationship with God. The evangelical message of the Baptists fit the bill for the time, and later (in the 20th century) the Pentecostals expanded on this. That’s not to say you can’t find the same message within Anglicanism and Catholicism, you can, but it shows that the Baptists and Pentecostals did a much better job marketing it. That is indisputable. As we enter the 21st century, we are beginning to see a convergence of these two religious systems, especially in the South. The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church is moving back toward Catholicism as many of them take advantage of the pope’s ordinariate program. Meanwhile a growing number of Baptists have seen the advantages of practising Lent, and some congregations have formerly adopted the season starting with Ash Wednesday. There is also a small contingency of Pentecostals who have seen the advantages of Anglican liturgy, and have created for themselves the Charismatic-Episcopal Church. All of these movements are still in their infancy stage, but I see in them a great deal of hope, in that they recognise the advantages of both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic traditions, attempting to draw from the best of both worlds. I see something strikingly “Southern” in this mindset.
Dixiegirl, I must take friendly issue with your analysis of Catholicism and industrialisation. Catholicism basically rejects the Northern idea of industrialism and materialism. This is most clearly seen in Pope Leo XIII encyclical “Rerum Novarum” which flat out rejects Yankee (and English) Capitalism and the growing Marxist (Socialist) theories of the time. In response, the pope proposed the remedy of a return to rural self-sufficiency and cooperative (instead of corporate) industry — a very Antebellum Southern ideal. Since then, all social encyclicals of the popes have followed this model.
When it comes to the issue of Catholicism in general (something I happen to know a thing or two about), it is interesting to note that the Catholic Church in America follows the cultural trends of the North and South. In the North, Catholicism is in trouble, as Catholics embrace the liberal Yankee mentality, they move further and further away from Rome. Thus the Church is retreating in the North, as parishes are forced to close, parochial schools are shutting down, and dioceses are going bankrupt. This is not to mention the priest shortage in those regions. Meanwhile, the exact opposite is true in the South. Dioceses in the South are booming, as the prevailing culture in the South is more in line with traditional Catholic thinking. Instead of closing, new Catholic parishes are opening, and old ones are expanding with new building projects. Parochial schools are thriving in the South as well, just as they did in antebellum times. While priestly seminaries are busting at the seems, as well as convents and monasteries. Catholicism is finding a natural home in Dixie, just as it did before the War, and with the rise in Catholicism, the South will see the social teachings of the popes played out here, as rural independence and cooperative industry is encouraged by Catholic bishops and priests. In my opinion, Catholicism (authentic traditional Catholicism that is, not the Yankee Modernist version up North) will be the key to the cultural revival of the Antebellum South, and insofar as the convergence of Evangelicalism and Anglicanism goes, that will play a very big role too. Just my 2 cents anyway.
Wow—
says the Catholic Nationalist Poster: “….Catholicism is finding a natural home in Dixie, just as it did before the War, and with the rise in Catholicism, the South will see the social teachings of the popes played out here…”
Well, Catholic Nationalist (which is truly a “dual citizenship” status since your Pope created an embassy in our country)— I’m a Southern Episcopal (or was before the 60s Vatican Council and catholic creation of Liberation Theology in the 60s crashed our church).
In regards to this being your natural home— a truth of the early state constitutions is that many had to profess protestantism in order to hold offices and some required an open rejection of catholicism in order to do so.
Posts such as yours are of deep concern to many real Americans, who feel they have a home in their homeland, too, as well as your clear lack of regard for them, their families, their feelings, their sense of their own history.
Very much, this post encapsulates the latest spin that the pope has made as he makes inroads in Romanizing the u.s., something that is very clearly the cause of problems, not the solution to them. How you can dispute the catholic role in the industrial revolution, the politicizing of our borders to romanize the country, the hand in liberation theology and much more— is beyond me.
It is VERY TRUE what you say about the catholics “thriving” on the spoils of the Civil War. And yes, you do well now that it’s a Welfare-Warfare State. Is that something to be proud of? Doesn’t that just amount to theft?
Being confronted with arrogant people such as yourself who are now trying to be “The South’s Great Saviors” (lmao)— is genuinely sickening to me. —Although I have no doubt that —using southerners stolen money— you will do great wonders.
Nor do I feel AT ALL in line with the catholics who have moved in. They are “suited” to the area BECAUSE they are in corporations moved down en mass, or in the military—- they certainly aren’t much when it comes to reading (except to justify themselves— as you illustrate here). They also don’t have anything of the southern knack for music and storytelling— and frequently just don’t “get it.”
Many of the Southerners I know have moved to outskirts to get away from these “changes.”
I don’t know what would have happened before— had there not been Vatican II, and the degradation of “Anglos” (a catholic code word for protestant) throughout the Bible Belt. In the end, frankly, I think the catholic world will go where it has long trended—toward a couple “experts at the top” it grooms and masses of proles— it’s real gains are the third world and the kind of people who believe in blood-crying statues and the face of Jesus in pancakes.
An aside— to talk about things s/a the Baptists “marketing” better than others, which you say— really shows where your yankee head is located, lol.
On the level of dogma, the catholics SAY they reject materialism— but in reality, they are a system deeply tied to —and deeply inextricable from— the feudalism it always serves (or neo-fascism). No doubt, somebody s/a Rick Santorum actually thinks he’s a “catholic.”
What makes them dangerous —and really, in some ways, even more so than Jews— is the hierarchical thinking (totally non-suited to Americans (the northern european wasps who actually created everything people liked about the place), and the teachings about Genocide of heretics being good.
You will always have the horrible tendency to commit murders in the name of your God. This is because you are a group based in an Idea— a Catholic Nationalist— and to create group Cohesion, you will ALWAYS necessarily wind up killing people who do not agree with your idea of “being the only true path to God.”
A REALITY of the u.s. is that many who actually formed it came directly from families fleeing you (as well as Anglicans and others). For instance, Alex Hamilton. Catholics, due to the intensity of indoctrination, and fear (I think), have a hard time simply seeking truth. Rather, they “prove their point”
You use the topic— simply to make a case for why you are going to be THEE SOUTH. You are more suited to our home. You are going to revitalize us (even though many really can’t stand your religion or history, and certainly not the pope), and so on.
You’ve got the future of others ALL FIGURED OUT. And that’s a catholic yankee for you.
The fact that others exist, that they don’t want what you’re pandering, that they think it’s awful how you got it, that you seem incapable of remorse for that, that they don’t want to live under the tyranny of others.
We had a right, in the country WE CREATED, to reject you in our home. We had a right to our own space (which you are now parsing up the way you like, for your own ends).
Anyway— just read your own post.
It’s sad that you people have so little in you for the people from whom you have fed.
Finally— you’re clearly a Theocrat, why are you even on sites like this??? Your clear objective is nothing to do with the real south—- but only TAKING IT FOR YOUR PEOPLE. you are not allied with whites, europeans, nothing but Your Ideology.
Why not just go to France or Poland or anywhere in South America, lol— where all but the catholics were done away with, which is why they are catholic? Just live there. leave one STATE for Northern european wasps, lol.
The jews and catholics from the 1900 immigration (who came politically organized and immediately went into offices, etc.) turned the country into europe, into exactly what the colonists were trying to escape from.
Just briefly:
If you’re looking for a summation of the “New South” position (the yankee Northeast Takeover of the previous home of the Southland), this man’s post is it, imo.
You need go no further. He says everything they say. And after all the work of genocide, displacement, economic warfare, etc— he tries to make it like the Southern people were simply floundering… FOR NO REASON AT ALL, lol. It just sort of happened… but now the Catholic knights are going to come and WE’RE GOING TO BECOME a hybrid version of catholicism….
—– now, this poster tells us, the pope is going to “let us back in” through his ordinance deal—- (why didn’t he just leave us alone in the first place, instead of descending with the horror of Vat II, then the Kennedy boys who opened our border—- (one of my neighbors was murdered by one of those sweet people let in by your people, btw)…
Well, it might work—- the fat man in a dress certainly is rich enough, brutal enough, and he surely does work generationally enough, and has been committed to the Age of Chained Books enough, (i.e. hiding knowledge from the common man)— that you might get away with it.
But seriously— people have been very very clear over centuries about wanting to be separate. Catholic socialization is simply not something I would want my children around very much.
Shouldn’t that be my right as a parent? But you say no— how American is that!!!
A catholic south!—– why, that’s the “real” south. That is genocide.
One more thing—
READ YOUR POST—- it seems more to me then, that the catholics ATE UP the North you are saying— the saga of what they brought in 1900 has played out— they’ve done their Welfare Deal, driven up taxes, blamed the jews and protestants, taken over the supreme court, opened the borders for their criminal proxy fighters to wipe out “anglos” (incentivized to do so by Jesuit priests and their creation of Liberation Theology)…
NOW— where you see this groovy growth of yourself in the South— the Southerners see Nyc, and detroit happening to them in your wake— the infiltration of government offices, loss of voice, flash mobbing regions en masse, HUGE UPTICK in crime waves, corporatism and militarism (the way the south NOW gets money since the yankees came)—
The GEOGRAPHICAL CURE you say you are making— has already transformed the regions in a way many southerners find intolerable (do you even read this site before you post?— or League of the south???)
People are reacting to these changes you find so nifty— by saying it’s not even human to live there anymore.
UM—- OK, AFTER IT’S GOOD AND RUINED, then this idea that your priests will help: The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church is moving back toward Catholicism as many of them take advantage of the pope’s ordinariate program.
I mean—will you ever QUIT RUINING THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The Catholic machinations of the past years have been increasingly visible, and they have been about power. Your “church” is a POLITICAL COUNTRY.
And this: In the North, Catholicism is in trouble, as Catholics embrace the liberal Yankee mentality, they move further and further away from Rome. …
LOL— why don’t they read scripture and rely on God and maybe they would cease to be this wishy-washy, and maybe also realize that people watching them are no impressed by the way they handled themselves in the u.s..
Also—- I think it’s possible your group of people might get what you say—but only at such a cost that we’re already seeing in the country, as it drags down spirituality and creativity.
What you see as the “great new South” (the new traditional south suited to be transformed by catholics, as you say) IS ONE THAT THE colonial-identified Americans ARE RUNNING FROM. They aren’t liking it.
Wow Dixiegirl, I was wrong. You can’t be reasoned with. How very “know nothing” of you. I don’t think I’ve read a screed quite that hysterically anti-Catholic since the last time I picked up a Chick Tract. You neither know history nor Catholicism. BTW: I am a member of the League of the South, and many of the leaders in the League are Catholic as well — just FYI.
I suppose I’ll leave this one thought with you before I give up on you completely. Many of the supposed things you hate about Catholicism are not Catholic at all. Liberation Theology has been condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy. The Kennedy clan isn’t even allowed to received communion in the Church anymore because of their anti-Catholic Yankee ways. Just a little information you could probably care less about since it seems you’ve already made up your mind about a great so many things. Take care.
What I want to know is will this TCK guy side with the Mestizo invaders that share his faith, or white Southerners of opposite faith(or lack thereof) if something crazy goes down, such as a mass ethnic conflict? Would you launch a crusade against the Catholic Mestizo, TCK? Would you stand beside DixieGirl if she decided to launch a crusade against Catholic Mestizos? DixieGirl, would you stand beside, me, a white Atheist, or a black Protestant in a mass ethnic conflict?
These are the real questions. I know where my loyalties lay.
WhiteSouthron, TCK is definitely pro-South. Check out his podcasts on SNN. Or check out his site: The Catholic Knight.
Thank you Michael. As I was trying to explain to Dixiegirl above, there are thousands of people who hate the Catholic Church for what they mistakenly believe it is, but there are few who hate it for what it actually is. For if many of the things people mistakenly believed about the Church were true, I would hate it too. As for me I am a Southern Catholic and I know many Southern Catholics where I live. We also know many Protestants of good will who do not hate us for being Catholic. I know exactly where I stand. I stand with my people in my home town and in my home region of Dixie — and race is not an issue for me. If you embrace our Southern culture and values, I really don’t care what colour your skin is.
TCK, I would not say that race is not an issue just as I would not say it’s the only issue. However, there is no uniformity of opinion on this or any other issue within Southern nationalist ranks. As long as folks are pro-South I’m willing to work with them.
There are various expanding circles of relation: the individual, the family, the ethnic group, the race, the species, etc. All of these levels of relation are important, in my view. A quick review of history demonstrates this, I think, as well as the obvious inequality at all levels – and the result of trying to ignore nature. This always leads to disaster.
Agreed Michael. And I know there is no uniformity on the race issue in any real organic nationalist movement. There never is. When it comes to race, I have to speak on a personal level, based upon what my faith teaches me, and that’s about as far as I can go. I have always believed that it is okay to love your own kind, and I believe that is natural and ordained by our Creator God. However, the gospel teaches us not to hate others. So therefore, I am forced to conclude, personally, that while it is right and good for me to love my own kind, it is forbidden of me to hate other kinds. So that’s where I stand, and I believe this is consistent with the teachings of the Church on the matter. When it comes to Southern Nationalism (the Dixie Nation) I believe what makes us a nation is our common culture, language, history and values. Neither race nor religion are homogeneous in the South, they never have been. So when one comes across having racial issues, like above, I simply let them be, leaving them alone, preferring to do unto them as I would have them do unto me. That’s the Christian way and I think it’s very Southern. When it comes to religion, I may try to dialogue, as sometimes these can be due to misunderstandings, but if a person proves to be resistant to reason, as above, I’ll try to leave them alone too.
I just like questioning people on the race vs. religion topic. Mainly the PC Christians who espouse the ‘we’re all the same dogma’. I like finding out how people truely feel when faced with a situation where they have to choose one or the other.
A few years back I was in a conversation with an older white Christian man that I’ve known all my life pretty much. Like alot of the PC crowd he would always preach to me about how we’re all God’s children etc. I decided that I would see just how much of that PC malarky he actually believed. I struck up a conversation about his daughter. She was a gorgeous gal, slim, cute Southern accent, very easy on the eyes to say the least. I asked if she was available for dating at the moment. He responds with a light nod and a “yep”, “why do you ask?” I responded “Well sir, I’m not single myself, but I know this nice young Christian black man that might be interested.” You should of seen how red his face got. LOL
I just like seeing how many people actually believe what comes out of their mouthes. Very few actually live what they speak it seems. I find it easy to discuss race. I don’t know why so many people wish to hide their true feelings. It is quite cowardly especially when their people and entire civilization is at risk.
I think it’s only natural for people to love their own kind and inwardly want to preserve their family race/ethnicity/culture/religion. I can’t think of anything more natural actually. When confronted with a situation where it becomes apparent that one of these things will not be preserved in the next generation, I believe it’s only natural to have a negative gut reaction. That being said, this is where the gospel has to come in, because in the end, it’s the only thing that can help one deal with the situation. I think it’s okay for parents to teach their kids to discriminate their dating partners based on these things too, if they are so inclined, but of course not at the expense of treating others in an uncharitable way.
WhiteSouthron asked, ” Would you launch a crusade against the Catholic Mestizo, TCK? Would you stand beside DixieGirl if she decided to launch a crusade against Catholic Mestizos?”
My answer is “yes”. What the Mestizos are doing is illegal and can be considered an act of war. An act of war, aided and abetted by the Federal government I might add. WS, I agree the PC bullcrap is what is destroying many things and I hope it is one of the many pry bars that can be used to loosen the tyrannical grip the DC tyrants have on the Confederacy.
Would I stand by “Dixiegirl” if she were to launch a crusade against the Mestizos? In a general sense, the answer is “yes”. If they start shooting first I am there shooting back. The only caveat is that I would stand behind “Dixiegirl” instead of next to or in front of her because I firmly believe that once we achieve our victory the next shot would be from her into my back. That’s just her Puritan belief…
CP, the Anti-Catholic tirade launched by Dixiegirl really is something straight out of a Chick Tract, filled with historical inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations of Catholic teaching, but you know this already. Overall her argument sounds strikingly Puritan and I dare say Yankee in the old fashioned classical sense, before the onset of Modernism. It reminds me of the propaganda used by the Know Nothings in the 19th century, the KKK in the 20th century and Jack Chick Ministries in the 21st century. (I’m speaking of the 20th century Klan, not the 19th century original version started and eventually disbanded by the honourable Nathan Bedford Forrest.). The rabid anti-Catholicism displayed in her comments is very un-Southern and doesn’t in the least bit reflect the Dixie I know. Sure, there are plenty of people around these parts that don’t know anything about Catholic Christianity and don’t want to know anything about it. But at least they are friendly and cordial about it. It’s called civility and it’s the mark of civilised people. I’ve only known Yankees and Westerners to behave the way Dixiegirl did.
Most Southerners are unaware that the Vatican was the The South’s only true friend during the War, but when they learn this, and how much both Lee and Davis revered the pope of that time, they are pleased to hear it. Like I said, there is plenty of anti-Catholicism in Dixie, but Southerners have a reputation of being polite about it. I must respect their charity even if I disagree with their opinions. Again, it’s called civility, and unlike anti-Catholic Yankees and Westerners, Southerners are a civilised people who are usually able to temper their prejudice with charity.
Re: Chad on June 8, 2012 at 11:55 pm
“’And what pagan ancestors would those be?’ History answers this simply enough… Western European include the Celts, Normans, Saxons, etc, who all happened to be pagan. Those who immigrated to settle the South were the descendants of these pagans.”
I wonder if you could miss the point more dramatically. The point was that 1,500+ years and a big ocean separated those pagans from the Christians who colonized the South. Capiche?
“It is well documented that many of the pagan cultural and traditional customs survived the forced conversion to christianity of the Southern peoples’ ancestors.”
First, of all, most of the conversions weren’t “forced”. Check your facts. Secondly, the issue here is not whether many pagan cultural and traditional customs remained after these peoples converted. They did remain. That has happened wherever Christianity has gone. The issue is, rather, whether or not the pagan *religions* survived. They did not, and good riddance to them.
“These traditions and customs that survived into the modern South include generous hospitality, hunting, fishing, martial prowess (I noted many of these earlier).”
Of course, Judeo-Christians would know nothing of generous hospitality, hunting, fishing, or martial prowess.
Read up on Thomas Jackson sometime, and find out where he obtained much if not most of his information about warfare.
“Remember, we are talking about the survival of the pagan culture into the modern era, not the pagan religions. The christians were sure to wipe out the old pagan cultures through violence, torture and bloodshed… after all you couldn’t have freedom of religious worship interfere with the profiteering of the church.”
Ahistorical rubbish. But at least you do recognize the point I made above about culture vs. religion. The suggestion that Christians destroyed pagan culture, however, is, like I said, ahistorical rubbish.
“’Southrons can be bold sinners” On this point I agree with you… a lot of Southerners have absolutely no intention of living by their church’s doctrines.”
No, you don’t agree with me at all. Rather, you miss the point again. Webb’s point was that Southrons have historically been bold sinners while at the same time holding to — and living by more often than not — their church’s doctrines.
“’but devout they always have been and are today’ I must disagree on this point because attending church services or giving lip service has nothing to do with being devout to the teachings of Christ. Many churches in the “Bible Belt” are at best social clubs, at worst propagandist for the US military and government. This does not make the Christian faith wrong or immoral; there is just simply no reason to dress it up beyond what it is. If people are happy worshiping In these type of environments, more power to them.”
Your disagreement means nothing to me. It means nothing to me because your assessment simply isn’t based on the facts of the matter. It is based, rather, on your jaundiced and emotional reaction to Christianity and Christian culture. Moreover, no Christian gives a flip about what a dogmatic pagan — who may very well turn out to be a Nazi — has to say about his Church.
“’Ask your typical Southerner about, say, Samhein, and note the blank look on his face’. I absolutely agree with you on this point today most Southerners would recognize this holiday as Halloween or All Saints Day.”
Then I rest my case on that particular point.
“Your third paragraph is full of many assumptions. I have never claimed that the old pagan religions were glorious, that is a completely falsified statement on your part. The old pagan religions of Western Europe were simply nature worship. Their religion followed the natural cycle of the seasons, life, death etc.
Come now, don’t be coy. If you’re a pagan, own up to the fact that you’re a pagan for a reason. You hint at it here: nature is glorious. No?
“There is scant to no academic evidence that the pagan religions were ‘ugly’ as you stated.”
Why don’t you tell everyone here about the “Wicker Man”?
“’contrary to your half-educated and romantic notions about it. And this “pain of death” nonsense is precisely that: nonsense, and simplistic in the extreme. My suggestion is that you bracket whatever “knowledge” you’ve gleaned from high school, Hollywood and half-educated neopagans, and read a reputable church history or two.’ This entire paragraph is completely false. I was educated at a private Christian university, was never taught about Western European pagan religions in high school and rarely watch any Hollywood movies or tv programs at all much less ones (if they even exist) that give an in depth educational lesson on pagan religions.”
Then might I suggest that your parents wasted their money? Not only didn’t you learn any facts about church history, why, that school didn’t even teach you about paganism! The outrage!
How about you tell us what you HAVE read about church history. Please reference the titles of the books you’ve read.
“As far as your last paragraph it has absolutely no bearing onto whether or not the cultural traditions of customs of the Western European pagans can be documented in Southern society today. After all, there has never been, to my knowledge, a dispute to the claim that most Southerners claim christianity as their religion.”
After a millennium and a half of Christian saturation, it can hardly be argued — with a straight face anyway — that the European Christian culture which formed Southern American culture is in any way pagan.
“By making several false statements in your post it really makes it difficult to take your position seriously.”
You’ve nowhere demonstrated that I made any false statements, and if you demur, I challenge you to point out where you did so. And as for taking things seriously, it is certainly difficult to take seriously the ravings of a neopagan who confuses his own jaundiced and emotional assessments with historical fact.
Great posts, VA and TCK. Thanks. As for dixiegirl, I’ve found that it’s best just to ignore her.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones,
“You’ve nowhere demonstrated that I made any false statements”
Let see, you have inferred that I have referred to pagan religions as glorious which is false on its face. Our ancestors had their religion and we have our own religious beliefs. Since I am not a pagan, I would be unable to give a sound opinion on whether or not the old pagan religions were “glorious”.
You have also inferred that my “parents’ money might have been wasted on my college education. This contains another falsehood on your part. My parents never did pay for my college education. I suppose this is enough examples of your falsified statements.
I also like how you refer to a Hollywood movie to make your point about pagan religions being “ugly” after you accused part of my knowledge about pagan religions and culture being based on just that. The use of a movie like “Wicker Man”, which I admit I only saw a few parts of, cannot be used as a reliable source of facts and information on paganism.
Over all, it seems that you lack the finer points of logical debating skills as you have made the above false statements and referenced a “Hollywood” movie in an attempt to support your position. Those are common tactics used by smear machines that have difficulty logically supporting their position. In order to win a debate you have got to do better than that.
Yet, this entire post has really gotten side tracked. I simply pointed out how some pagan cultural customs are still a part of our culture. I have never taken the position that christianity hasn’t influenced Southern culture or that pagan religion is a thriving religion (even though it has become more openly and widely practiced in the past half of a century.
I stand by my point that there are cultural customs that are still part of the South that have survived the peoples’ transition from paganism to christianity.
Let’s look at a more modern example of Southern cultural customs that have nothing to do with christianity. It is a Southern cultural custom that is likely to be going anywhere.
Sweet Iced Tea, an icon of the Dixie, a beverage that is served extensively through the South no matter where you go. The use of this cultural custom of serving sweet tea at dinner, supper or even as a refreshing beverage has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the people of the South are Christians. Yet, as Christianity continues to diminish in the South I have seen no evidence that use of sweet tea is coming to an end in the Dixie. It is likely that our progeny will continue to stick with this cultural tradition, regardless of what what religion they embrace.
TCK—
I went to Catholic school for awhile (when the 70s were wrecking schools–since that’s the only thing there was at first, before homeschool). I also went all the way through conversion classes later (as an adult) just for study purposes.
I had never heard of “Chick”— but it pretty much sums up my time with the nuns.
HERE’S WHERE WE DIFFER— you (and many catholics) always claim that “the church condemns” this and that… the kennedys, pelosis, panettas, janet renos, dicaprios, scorseses, diniros, supreme courtiers, etc… are not “real catholics.”
Always— the villains that undoes the “real thing”— is the jews or protestants, (especially the evil puritans). Sometimes, it is devil possession.
Anyone who disagrees with you MUST BE STUPID (AS YOU say I am above.) Like a Chick tract, etc. But everything I learned about Catholicism, I got right out of catechism classes. (Which were about the most dumbed down classes I have attended.)
—know you would not think so (because I do not go and on, trying to sound “erudite” but I do have a few degrees (blah, blah) and a respectable IQ.
Also—- I would not really count on “Southern Civility.” Even a Southerner’s patience can wear thin.
I just don’t see why Southerners put up with non-Southerners naming them, producing their “literature,” and so on. It makes me sad to see what has happened to them. The protestants also. The fact is, the other populations have not been able to create and produce in the same way as the colonials.
Confederate Papist—
That’s the right question. Are you a Catholic Nationalist (a theocrat who cannot understand why only the protestants were able (COULD HAVE BEEN able) to produce the u.s. when it was a constitutional republic?
If you are NOT a Catholic Nationalist (in reality)— and you put the european over the catholic (you would chose me over a mestizo –that yes, we can thank the kennedys for)— you are fine by me.
The guy above— carefully read his post. This is not a person who has “let in” that real organized Catholic Nationalism exists and is active in the country (a ideological universalism that seeks to displace ethnic nationalism as the organizational structure of society)
Actually— I’m not a catholic hater, lol. Generally, I will admit has not “turned out” my favorite people. (Usually just along better with rural based Americans and Orthodox from East europe, nothing personal)—
What concerns me are the real Heretic Killers. (And yes, in catechism they still teach killing people s/a the Waldensians as heroic. Absolutely, I do not agree. DO YOU?)
Given the history, (and open Catholic-led aggression in the past 60s years in U.S.) it would seem much more likely that you would put a bullet in my back.
I do admit (and this is with a few years of weekly or bi-weekly catechism and mass attendance, sometimes daily)—- the whole thing leaves me cold in a way my own faith does not; the lessons mostly about “talking points” to prove others are wrong about God.
But the bottom line— is where YOUR REAL LOYALTIES LIE. –And whether your God is compatible (and if so, how) with ethnic nationalism.
TCK—
about manners— just reminded me of (the both catholic and southern) Flannery O’Conner and her story called Good Country People
Southerners can be as nasty as anyone, maybe even more so, when they decide that’s what they are going to do. They can be brutally honest, “honest to a fault,” and tend to see straight through the bullshit.
A word of advice— never let southern manners fool you.
Still mulling it over—
Confederate Papist— I think you really would stand by the european, even if they differ from you ideologically, (I’m just not tithing the pope, although due to the welfare state, in effect I do, but that’s another story).
TCK says:
I know exactly where I stand. I stand with my people in my home town and in my home region of Dixie — and race is not an issue for me. If you embrace our Southern culture and values, I really don’t care what colour your skin is…..”
a) if you read the post carefully, this may not be true, in that he admits no “machinations” behind why the protestants have been so wiped out in –very arguably– their own country, and sees no problem in things (given what’s occurred) int he pope’s new ordinance with anglicans, etc.
b) but more importantly—- wonder how he would feel when it’s even more “new south” (assuming he really is southern and had family in the south before the war)—-
—when the character of the “region” to which he has his allegiance becomes non-southern, (as so much of the south is) will he continue to have allegiance to the land boundary— and if not… then what will his new allegiance be to?
— Didn’t finish my other point to TCK–
While I hear that you look at the “bad apples” and say they are not “real catholics”— I would agree with this.
BUT– the reality that concerns me is that —despite denouncing these people— they really are still operating in society, and the overall catholic community benefits by their bad acts.
For instance, the organized catholic community (who wishes to create out of america a “catholic country”) BENEFITS from the “not real” catholic moves of the kennedys opening the south border to their co-congregants.
That’s just one example.
So— since the whole community of which a catholic is a part BENEFITS from such things, (like having a dual status in the u.s., since your religious leader is also a recognized Political State AND has an embassy in the country where you reside), is saying “I’m against it” really enough?
Imo— things such as the Jesuits and Lib Theo, from which the whole catholic community reaped BIG benefits (politically, economically, and so on)– are PART OF the whole overall “divide and conquer” organization, and always have been.
Of course, the pope denounces such things— and yet they never seem to quite go away, do they?
That’s where I differ from TCK. I believe they are all “real” catholics (not in the religious sense, but in the sense that they are fighting for an Ideological Nation (just like communists do, worldwide).
They chose an IDEA (a certain view of Jesus) OVER race, region, culture, etc.
And— given this— how do you all take Bob Whitaker’s statement that IDEA NATIONS tend toward killing people on the basis of disagreements over IDEAS? In a theocracy, “heretics” (people who disagree with your idea) often wind up getting killed. The dictatorship winds up imposing punishments for not agreeing with ideas.
This is the danger with what TCK seems to say the pope is doing (merely disconnecting himself from the “anti-anglo” rhetoric of the Jesuits and Lib Theo, then offering a deal when their church is destroyed for “ordinance,” etc.— THE REAL (one of them) churches of the real old south, btw.
Wow! Dixiegirl, I really don’t know where to begin with that. You are quite a mess. Have a nice day.
And also—
This week from Pew:
They report: “….Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, the statistics show that Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic). …”
Confederate Papist— you’re right to bring up the mestizo question in the southwest. This indicates that while catholics have gained (protestants are almost a minority in the country they did found for the first time at 51% of the population) — BUT this change is made up of NON EUROPEAN catholics.
idk the answer to that— many chose their own co-religionists over their race, and even european background (i.e. when they are both from Northern Europe, for instance).
Catholics (north and south)— have had the largest losses among native born. IMO, this is in part a reaction to a lot of the maneuvers mentioned in my “screed.” Many native born catholics preferred the 1965 u.s., even if wasps were given some credit for it. Watching the borders open, the siphoning of money from the more Generational Americans, some of the catholic-jewish alliances, the stunning behavior of catholics in office like Pelosi, and hundreds of others, and so on— has angered them.
And at some point— being anti-white became synonymous with “christian” anyway. (Just as many are actually indoctrinated as atheist-materialists and told this secular do-gooderism is “religious.” or “christian”)
It is EXTREMELY RARE to actually meet ANYONE who has a truly religious –a word that should be revived— “Sensibility” In other words, they’ve made real life decisions by being guided by God, and see all that occurs around them —how they interpret it— through the paradigm of scripture.
Both priests and pastors are heretical enough have degrees in Psychology (for counseling, and thus, counsel in a secular way). The underlying assumptions of psychiatry –not to mention the collegiate new age baggage— are not compatible with the Word of Jesus.
I really don’t think you know who you’re talking to Dixiegirl. Maybe you should read my blog sometime, if ever you care to learn something.
Dixiegirl, you are doing a good job of creating enemies, if that is your goal. You might try being less abrasive.
One minor point, there is no such thing as a ‘Catholic nationalist’ any more than there is such thing as a Protestant, Hindu or Muslim nationalist. Religions are not nations of people, they are faiths. A German might be Protestant or Catholic but he’s still German. His nationality doesn’t chance based on his religion.
Wow, I travel 225 miles and missed all this??
“RE: Dixiegirl on June 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm
TCK—
I went to Catholic school for awhile (when the 70s were wrecking schools–”
Catholic schools were also not the best place to be in the 1970′s and 80′s either since the atrocious implementation of Vatican II left many catechists confused and “liberated” the nuns (Farley, et al), so I really cannot say what kind of education you got “Dixiegirl”. I would say TCK is right in saying you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t recall reading anywhere in either Canon Law or the Catechism of the Catholic Church whereby killing someone is justified, in fact the Church recognises your so-called “heretic” as Christian bretheren, so I would like to see where in the CCC you read that.
As far as my nationalism, I could give two rat’s behinds about what goes on in Europe, Asia or in South America. All I care about is getting as far away from the tyranny of Washington DC by achieving our independence that was lost 150 years ago, being able to work and feed my family, pay my bills and go to church. I think history has proved that the Europeans are dying due to a self-inflicted wound from the PC 9mm, and unless we get the Feds out of Dixie we will suffer the same fate.
Deo Vindice!
Re: Chad on June 11, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“Snaggle-Tooth Jones,
“’You’ve nowhere demonstrated that I made any false statements’
Let see, you have inferred that I have referred to pagan religions as glorious which is false on its face. Our ancestors had their religion and we have our own religious beliefs. Since I am not a pagan, I would be unable to give a sound opinion on whether or not the old pagan religions were ‘glorious’.
You have also inferred that my “parents’ money might have been wasted on my college education. This contains another falsehood on your part. My parents never did pay for my college education. I suppose this is enough examples of your falsified statements.”
Oh, by “false statements” you meant inferences that were erroneous, though *reasonable*. I thought you were referring to matters of fact.
Well then, you got me there, Chad. Shame on me for inferring that you hanker for the glories of the old religion when you’ve played up that religion so, and shame on me for inferring that your parents paid for your Christian college education, when that is happens in the typical case.
So tell me. Who DID pay for it, and what institution did you attend, if you don’t mind my asking? Color me skeptical, both about your education and your claim that you’re not a pagan. (If you’re not a pagan, what are you then?)
“I also like how you refer to a Hollywood movie to make your point about pagan religions being ‘ugly’ after you accused part of my knowledge about pagan religions and culture being based on just that. The use of a movie like “Wicker Man”, which I admit I only saw a few parts of, cannot be used as a reliable source of facts and information on paganism.”
I wasn’t talking about the movie, son. Who’s making erroneous inferences now?
“Over all, it seems that you lack the finer points of logical debating skills as you have made the above false statements and referenced a “Hollywood” movie in an attempt to support your position. Those are common tactics used by smear machines that have difficulty logically supporting their position. In order to win a debate you have got to do better than that.”
Overall (it is one word, not two), it seems you’ve stumbled from one blunder to another in this exchange, from missing points to logical error to failure to provide facts in demonstration of your argument. If those are examples of *your* “debating skills”, I’ll have to remain pretty happy about mine, reasonable though erroneous inferences notwithstanding.
“Yet, this entire post has really gotten side tracked. I simply pointed out how some pagan cultural customs are still a part of our culture. I have never taken the position that christianity hasn’t influenced Southern culture . . . .”
No, that isn’t exactly how you first framed the argument. Here’s what you wrote: “Southern culture existed well before the people of the South found “christianity” and their culture can flourish regardless of just how “christian” its people may or may not be. Southerners were certainly not near as devout as their Puritan christian neighbors to the north.”
So now, after being clobbered by VA, TCK and me, you’re backpedaling. Glad to see you slowly backing off your initial argument though, and I hope you’re learning something.
“or that pagan religion is a thriving religion (even though it has become more openly and widely practiced in the past half of a century.”
What the relevance is of that statement is anyone’s guess.
“I stand by my point that there are cultural customs that are still part of the South that have survived the peoples’ transition from paganism to christianity.”
Which is a point that has been conceded for the most part. Did you miss that?
“Let’s look at a more modern example of Southern cultural customs that have nothing to do with christianity. It is a Southern cultural custom that is likely to be going anywhere.
Sweet Iced Tea, an icon of the Dixie, a beverage that is served extensively through the South no matter where you go. The use of this cultural custom of serving sweet tea at dinner, supper or even as a refreshing beverage has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the people of the South are Christians. Yet, as Christianity continues to diminish in the South I have seen no evidence that use of sweet tea is coming to an end in the Dixie. It is likely that our progeny will continue to stick with this cultural tradition, regardless of what what religion they embrace.”
Chad’s special subject: the bleeding obvious. And with that last paragraph of yours this exchange is now venturing into the surreal. I think my work here is just about done.
Let me know if you’d like me to recommend a couple of reputable church histories.
Amen CP!!!
Dixiegirl has offered absolutely no proof of any of here hysterical accusations other than her alleged personal experiences and distorted view of history. When she is ready to learn something, I’ll be ready to dialogue with her, but as you can see, she has already made up her mind about a great many things, facts to the contrary be damned. So she and I have nothing to talk about for the time being.
As for the self-inflicted wounds of Modernism on European and American culture, I believe the most damaging of these can be summarised in on very unpopular word — contraception. I know virtually every American, including a lot of Catholics, thinks the Catholic Church is out of step with this teaching, but the fact remains (facts be damned for some) that every Protestant denomination taught that contraception was a sin prior to 1930. Only the Catholic Church has refused to cave into the liberal Modernist trends of the 20th century. And what has contraception done for white America? What has it done for the South??? It has reduced our numbers considerably, without firing a single bullet, and made us a minority in our own land. Granted, the influx of immigrants (both legal and illegal) has contributed greatly to this as well, but the fact remains (another fact be damned thing) that our politicians wouldn’t be able to get away with allowing massive immigration so easily if there were more Americans around to demand it stop.
Just stop and consider it for a moment. If every Southern Nationalist family had five children to raise as Southern Nationalists, how long do you suppose it would take before we became the majority in the South again?
Contraception……yes…….abortion also!
Think of the 40 million people that would have lived…many of whom would have been Gen X’ers….in addition to the children that never had a chance due to contraception.
This entire discussion has been very sad.
To see what real Christianity looks like, check out the front page article on Megan Vogel in the Columbus Dispatch on 6/6/12.
It has been “very sad” why, NSD?
Mr. Snaggle Tooth,
I just think that all this bickering gives ammunition to the enemies of people who try to follow the Golden Rule.
Just my opinion.
The New Silence Dogood.
P.S. I hope you get the chance to read the article on Meghan Vogel by the Columbus Dispatch on 6/6/12.
It’s really good!
Well, was it “very sad” when Jesus drove the money changers from the temple, or when St. Peter confronted Simon Magus with harsh words, or when St. Paul said he wished the circumcision party would emasculate themselves, or when Luther confronted Roman error with some very acerbic language?
Well— see, I do agree with you, Confederate Papist.
In regard to Michael’s point about “catholic nationalism,”— I have to say I think you seem a bit naive on this. Can one be a “zionist?” Of course! And it is Jewish Nationalism, although Judaism is also described as a faith.
It’s true that “a nation” (in reality) is A People. That is the real definition. But what do you do when a religious leader IS ALSO an acknowledged Political State, as is the pope? WE may know that “A Nation is a People” but others believe in Propositional Nations (of Ideas). There really are Theocrats, who believe in creating christian political states.
It’s not my intention to create enemies, but to look at some of the more difficult questions that most people simply turn away from in regards to these thing and try to find genuine common ground.
— In a very quick time in America—-we have experienced a shift to a majority catholic nation and this COINCIDES with a shift to a non-white nation. (As cited by Pew, White European catholics are leaving their faith in record numbers, but their faith becoming the majority because these numbers are up because of Non europeans—
It really is about loyalties. The “South” is much more than just a border, which is why we can speak of the “Southern Diaspora.”
I really don’t know why I’d “create enemies,” lol— for what? citing Pew statistics? And why shouldn’t I refer to real life experiences— I actually VALUE people who speak from what they actually have encountered —names, dates, places— not the academic books they were told to study (Wordism, to use a Whitakerism).
Apparently, if I am very “nice” and amenable to others’ versions of reality, THEN people will have a “dialogue” with me. That’s how professors used to talk in graduate school. At any rate, I’m very grateful I was born Southern, told to rely on my common sense, to be a witness to what I actually experience in the real world (It seems un-Southern to degrade personal witness, as TCK does, since that’s a deep meme of the south— he also implies I am a liar.. “alleged experience.”)
TcK— I laughed at “you don’t know who you’re talking to.” My Southern family taught me that I could be speaking to the King of the World and still I must be true to my perceptions and experiences. I’m very grateful for their insistence on that. However, if you want to leave your information, I’ll look at your blog.
About the heretic issue: in regards to catechism class (and maybe I was just in a bad one, and in a bad catholic school, also), we were taught “the history of the heretical movements,” and the general tone was that their being wiped out (supposedly) was a good thing, that this had “saved christianity,” (the only one, which was the catholic— the others all being in “imperfect communion with God”)
Ah—
Found it, the Catholic Knight. At a glance, TCK is NOT a “catholic nationalist.” But this really is a concern, and is a real thing. It looks like you (TcK) look at the church’s relationship with Israel.
— To me, southern culture is more than a land boundary, an almost undefinable thing that comes from “A People”— who had families that survived the war and still have the tales to tell, the strong history of literature, writers, artists, the folkways and foodstuffs. And the protestant tradition is deeply associated, imo, with the whole legacy of being “strong storytellers,” (due to the emphasis on personal witness and testimony, religiously), and other things.
In all honesty, I can’t say how I’d feel about a majority catholic “New south” that was european. That’s not what’s happening in reality.
Oh TCK—
Seems some time ago I listened to your interview with Michael. It is very good. What many around this area are grappling with is NOT BY ANY MEANS your kind of person!— but an influx of Northeasterners, as you know.
Some neighbors down the road actually told me they had the only true path to God, (because they are catholic), and tried to “correct” me, and “help me.” Back in reality, they are Atheist Materialists (from NYC) who have been taught they are catholic. They don’t have any religious sensibility at all, not really.
You would “get” this. It’s people such as that who are truly scaring me, not you. In this transformed south, the religion of my forebears is not respected, and I do still like my religion, despite the attacks on my church and how effective they have been.
So, sorry to be offensive— but these are trying times for those trying to hold fast to the history and heritage they were given in the south
One more thing:
the more I think about it— I’ve not really met many Catholic southerners (real ones, not transplants). Where I’ve met most —had most of my experiences— was during being educated in the Northeast. Pretty much, when I went there, the protestants ceased. Nyc, for instance, is 4% wasp, even fewer southern wasps. Most teachers were catholic (raised) or jews.
And of course, they were very anti-white, very PC, (often in the Lib Theo way).
Confederate Papists point is true also—- my catholic school experience was after Vatican II, and that seems to have colored even the mainstream catholic church in ways that would be unrecognizable to older people.
Where I struggle— is with this “we are the true church attitude” latched onto these really bossy Northeast types (who are really atheist-materialist at heart, although they do not believe that about themselves).
I don’t know if that makes any better sense. Traditional catholics in the South (really from there)— I would probably not have a problem. —but never meet them here; they are all from northeast cities.
Mr. Snaggle Tooth,
Everything you’ve just said is true.
I suppose we could argue many things, but I think they would just go round in circles.
Therefore, I’ll have to disengage.
Sorry to disappoint!