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
Oh TCK—
Everything said about my education is true. I was actually one of those ex-Episcopals who went directly to the catholic church in 2009, for the fast track conversion. This was prefigured by my family who had no trouble putting my in catholic school, in the aftermath of the 60s (something I was too young to witness). They had no trouble with inter-marriage, education there, etc, and we have catholics in our family, through marriage from the 60s, (with the exception of an early intermarriage with a central european after wwI.
This experience in later life made me wonder what, exactly, had transpired to end my church in the first place. (My childhood church shut down –literally— after many years of existence. Also –just fyi— the experiences were all in the northeast, (later education; the parochial schools being the only “private” schools in our more rural town in the 7os).
At any rate— I do mourn the seeming passing of a church that had been so instrumental in the south. On a personal level, I cannot accept papal infallibility and transubstantiation, in particular.
Currently, I’ve picked a congregation on the basis of it having the most generational southerners, but that really is not what religious practice is supposed to be about. (Although I subsume it under Deuteronomy 32:7 Remember the Days of Old.”
Real heritage (whatever it may be) is very Biblical— from the Fifth command to honor parents, to Deut. 32:7, to having the first thing we know about Jesus being his lineage in the book of Matthew.
I really don’t mean to offend— but simply mourn the passing of so many churches
that was unclear— catholic schools in youth in the south; later 2009, in the northeast (and a very big city) which might account for the politicization of the tone of the class. Lol, to be honest in conversion class, I felt like I was at an political Irish-only meeting. No people could have seemed happier at the gutting of the –in their clear view– upper class prods. (The conversion class was mixed with other catholics coming back to the faith, or who just liked to study— absolutely all of them were Irish and this played out as “anti-english”).
Sorry for the trouble— but it has helped me clarify that experience.
In truth—I have very little experience with (genuine, non-transplanted) southern catholics. I like Pat Buchanan and love reading Flannery O’Conner, who are in that camp. My experiences in the northeast with all this were horrible to the point of, perhaps, making me unreasonable.
If you have remained in the South— let me say: it was hard in the Northeast to separate out religious catholicism, from the saga of the politicized Irish, in particular, and their transference of anti-angloism onto the current politics, including bringing in immigrants from the third world, and so on; as well as non-hiring and promotion of anglos (a real deal in big cities), and other things, such as that. The Italians were the kindest.
Otherwise, please take into account I’m female. I see problems with women voting –certainly see how easily they have been used politically, and try to educate myself to correct that— and generally think the political world should belong to men, with women educating themselves to be a support.
Dixiegirl – the Catholic Church has a lot of enemies…..I’d say most of them are people who say they are Catholic…Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius (sp?), anybody from the Kennedy Klan (intentional spelling). In fact, the Kennedy’s did a lot of damage to the American Catholic by saying they don’t let their faith be their guide. There’s actually a book by Philip Lawler written after the scandals about the scandals and how Boston was the epicentre of it, and it was traced back to the attitudes of Joe Kennedy and his ilk….a Yankee-fied version of Catholicism if you will. His sons, most notably JFK (since he was the only one that became POTUS), took that philosophy even further and it spread like a cancer throughout the Northeast.
I don’t doubt there are faithful Catholics in the NE, but like you said, it seems that 9 out of 10 you meet up there are not.
In regards to your Yankee colonists, I’d challenge their Catholicity any day of the week. These are some of the same Yanks as we talked about, just a few zip codes further South. Tell them if the North is so much better you’d be glad to call United Van Lines to help them move back there. That’s my biggest pet peeve…they come down here to escape high taxes and regulations and then they want to re-make their Yankee hell-hole in my town. They’re loud and obnoxious and they automatically think we’re stupid. I really can’t stand the accent either…I just have to retreat into prayer in order to deal with it all. Thank God He is merciful!!
“I suppose we could argue many things, but I think they would just go round in circles.”
Or, in the alternative, one of us would stop the other in his tracks.
;>)
Nice chatting with you.
(Laughter),
Mr. Snaggle Tooth,
Who knows?
Maybe you would have won….
I guess we’ll just have to keep em’ guessing!
“Otherwise, please take into account I’m female. I see problems with women voting –certainly see how easily they have been used politically, and try to educate myself to correct that— and generally think the political world should belong to men, with women educating themselves to be a support.”
There is alot of PC cowardly men out there. The mainstream Republican politicians immediately come to mind. I see our women as a great ally in the coming times. Marine Le Pen is a good example for women to follow. Not only is she fighting for the survival of her people in the political realm but she has also produced a large family. She has a daughter that seems to be following in her footsteps aswell. Aslong as women are working in the interest of their own people, as a whole, rather than just their gender, then I welcome them with open arms.
With that said, I personally wouldn’t encourage or discourage a woman either way. Some women prefer to just be mothers and supportive of their husbands. I can appreciate both kinds of women.
Snaggle Tooth Jones
You completely crack me up…. You have lied through your teeth, have been caught in those lies and have no way to dispute it. You only have embarrassed yourself over the entire post. Just because some parents decide to coddle their children through life is no basis for you to assume that mine have done the same as others. That would be an illogical fallacy.
I paid for my own education and I happen to be Baptist… Sorry to bust your bubble that I am not some sort of pagan… Like the old saying goes about assuming…It seems to best describe you in all aspects.
I find it intellectually hysterical that you can’t distinguish between culture and religion. It’s true enough that the people of Dixie drinking sweet tea have nothing to do with religion. Just like the fact that customs of cattle herding or natural talent in music has nothing to do with christianity. All of these cultural customs (and more) persist throughout the South and christianity has nothing to do with them.
Since I refuse to continue to have a debate with a proven liar, this will be my last post on this article. The next time you decide to post lies, then you should at least have a reasonable cover story for it. Instead you have created your own fantasy about your opponent’s religion and education. .. and its really just sad.
So I too disengage in this argument.