Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Catholics do outnumber Southern Baptists in the bigger cities in Missouri, but their are very few Catholics in rural areas of Missouri if you look at the maps. Any of the smaller towns and cities as well as rural areas are dominated by Southern Baptists. This includes northern Missouri as well.
Even so, that does not even come close to making Missouri a Southern state. Missouri's cities are just as much a part of Missouri as its rural parts, you can't just pretend they aren't when they have roughly 70-80% of the population living there. having a lot of Southern Baptists is a single Southern characteristic...or is it now...apparently today it is not an exclusively southern one. And I have seen TONS of Catholic Churches in Rural Missouri as far north as Hannibal and as far south as Perryville, so I'm fairly certain there have to be a decent number of Catholics in Rural Missouri, even if they do not represent the majority of the rural population. If Kansas and Nebraska are also completely in the Bible Belt, according to TerryRSA, the Bible Belt clearly encompasses a good portion of the Great Plains in addition to the lower Midwest and South. THe boundaries are clearly much farther north than they once were. It should also be noted that Baptists are 14% of Indiana's population, 20% are Catholic. THese demographics are actually very similar to those of Missouri, which also has many Catholics and Southern Baptists competing for dominance. I would actually go so far as to possibly include all of Indiana in the Bible belt if all of Missouri has to be included. Here is something else to note...both Missouri and Indiana are majority Protestant. Apparently, 3 out of 5 Missourians claim to be Protestant, while the majority of Indiana also claims to be majority protestant-affiliated. So as far as religion goes, it is very difficult to argue for Missouri being part of the South when there is a larger Catholic population present and both Missouri and Indiana are mostly Protestant-affiliated. Let's face it folks....the Bible Belt has really expanded its area over the past 100 years if all of Oklahoma, all of Kansas, all of Nebraska, all of Missouri, half of Illinois and half of Indiana are now a part of it. And my guess is it will only continue to expand further north given how far north and west it has already gone. I'm also very tempted to think that possibly more than 50% of Indiana belongs in the Bible Belt. Southern Baptists have been a very dominant force in that state for quite some time, in both Central and Southern Indiana. I said I was done awhile ago. This time I am. The Bible Belt is the Bible Belt and the South is the south. But the Bible Belt clearly encompasses multiple regions in it today, including the Middle and Southern Plains, much of the Lower Midwest, and all of the South and maybe even tiny portions of the Northeast, mainly the Southern parts of Pennsylvania. In short, what looks like a duck does not necessarily quack like one. End of story.
Even so, that does not make Missouri a Southern state. Missouri's cities are as much a part of Missouri as its rural parts. You can't just pretend they aren't there. having a lot of Southern Baptists is a single Southern characteristic, hardly an argument for the South by itself. And I have seen TONS of Catholic Churches in Rural Missouri as far north as St. Joseph and as far south as Perryville, so I'm fairly certain there have to be a decent number of Catholics in Rural Missouri, even if they are not the dominant trends rurally. If Kansas and Nebraska are also completely in the Bible Belt, according to TerryRSA, the Bible Belt clearly encompasses a good portion of the Great Plains in addition to the lower Midwest and South. THe boundaries are clearly much farther north than they once were. It should also be noted that Baptists are 14% of Indiana's population, 20% are Catholic. THese demographics are actually very similar to those of Missouri, which also has many Catholics and Southern Baptists competing for dominance. I would actually go so far as to possibly include all of Indiana in the Bible belt if all of Missouri has to be included. Here is something else to note...both Missouri and Indiana are majority Protestant. It says that 3 out of 5 Missourians claim to be Protestant, while the majority of Indiana is also protestant. So as far as religion goes, it is very difficult to argue for Missouri being part of the South when there is a large Catholic population present and both Missouri and Indiana are mostly Protestant-affiliated. Let's face it folks....the Bible Belt has really expanded its area over the past 100 years. And my guess is it will only continue to do so given how far north and west it has already gone.
I consider Missouri (like Maryland), a border state- because look how it touches Tennessee and Arkansas. Those from Southern MO are definitely in the South.
I heard that you can't get chicken n' dumplings north of Kansas City, so I guess thats where the transitional zone would be.
I also like the tv show "Mama's Family"- that takes place in Missouri and showcases the areas Southern-Midwestern feel.
Wichita is a decaying city. This is mainly the results of too much influence from the religious right in politics. They voted down a casino and voted against their economic self-interests. The city is backwards and is part of the Bible Belt. It is also about the same latitude as Richmond, VA.
Witchita is north of Richmond. Richmond is the same lattitude as Independence, KS. But its definitely part of the Belt Buckle.
I consider Missouri (like Maryland), a border state- because look how it touches Tennessee and Arkansas. Those from Southern MO are definitely in the South.
I heard that you can't get chicken n' dumplings north of Kansas City, so I guess thats where the transitional zone would be.
I also like the tv show "Mama's Family"- that takes place in Missouri and showcases the areas Southern-Midwestern feel.
yes, I agree, the parts below U.S. 60 are the South, and if that's how you want to argue the definition of a border state, that's fine. But in no way is it a 50-50 thing. i have been all over this state now multiple times....deep Southeastern and deep South Central Missouri are the only truly Southern parts of the state in every aspect (agriculture, culture, dialect, architecture, you name it, they meet it). But Missouri is bounded on the east almost entirely by Illinois and makes up the majority of Illinois' western border and is bounded almost entirely on the west by Kansas and Nebraska. Kansas City and St. Louis are solidly Midwestern. Period. I still see Missouri as an overall Midwestern state, having lived here all my life and having been all over the Midwest. The Northern half is very Midwestern. Roughly between U.S. Highway 50 and U.S. Highway 60 is a transitional area, but missouri does not feel truly southern to me until you are below highway 60. Southern Illinois below U.S. 50 and Southern Indiana below Highway 50 are like most of Southern missouri in the sense of them being "Transitional". A small portion of Missouri just looking at a map appears truly Southern, 80% of it appears geographically midwestern...depending on how you look at it. Anyway...we are talking about the Bible Belt, not the North-South argument. Two different things at least IMO.
I consider Missouri (like Maryland), a border state- because look how it touches Tennessee and Arkansas. Those from Southern MO are definitely in the South.
I heard that you can't get chicken n' dumplings north of Kansas City, so I guess thats where the transitional zone would be.
I also like the tv show "Mama's Family"- that takes place in Missouri and showcases the areas Southern-Midwestern feel.
LOL..Mama's Family. I wondered where that show took place. By the way they talked, I figured they were further south. But I do remember the Missouri reference in the show.
yes, I agree, the parts below U.S. 60 are the South, and if that's how you want to argue the definition of a border state, that's fine. But in no way is it a 50-50 thing. i have been all over this state now multiple times....deep Southeastern and deep South Central Missouri are the only truly Southern parts of the state in every aspect (agriculture, culture, dialect, architecture, you name it, they meet it). But Missouri is bounded on the east almost entirely by Illinois and makes up the majority of Illinois' western border and is bounded almost entirely on the west by Kansas and Nebraska. Kansas City and St. Louis are solidly Midwestern. Period. I still see Missouri as an overall Midwestern state, having lived here all my life and having been all over the Midwest. The Northern half is very Midwestern. Roughly between U.S. Highway 50 and U.S. Highway 60 is a transitional area, but missouri does not feel truly southern to me until you are below highway 60. Southern Illinois below U.S. 50 and Southern Indiana below Highway 50 are like most of Southern missouri in the sense of them being "Transitional". A small portion of Missouri just looking at a map appears truly Southern, 80% of it appears geographically midwestern...depending on how you look at it. Anyway...we are talking about the Bible Belt, not the North-South argument. Two different things at least IMO.
This is a little off topic, but I was thinking about something the other day with regards to speech patterns. I have a friend who lives in Omaha, NE and was listening to how he was talking. I suddenly realized that Omaha is at the southwest edge of the northern cities shift accent regional influence zone. Their was some of the Northern Plains/Upper Midwest influence along with a little Great Lakes influence. Omaha along with most areas of Iowa are also included in the northern cities shift accent region.
This is a little off topic, but I was thinking about something the other day with regards to speech patterns. I have a friend who lives in Omaha, NE and was listening to how he was talking. I suddenly realized that Omaha is at the southwest edge of the northern cities shift accent regional influence zone. Their was some of the Northern Plains/Upper Midwest influence along with a little Great Lakes influence. Omaha along with most areas of Iowa are also included in the northern cities shift accent region.
I could buy that. I have a friend from Omaha that has the quote-on-quote Great Lakes/Upper Midwest accent of which you speak. I kinda think that Interstate 80 (except maybe in the case of Iowa) is roughly the southern boundary of the Great Lakes/Upper Midwest accent, or what I like to call the "Inland North" accent. People from Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Cincinnati all have noticeably different speech patterns from Upper Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Detroit, Toledo, CHicago, Cleveland, and the Twin Cities, though the commonalities shared in all of them are that their accents for the most part are generally flat. THe Upper Midwest sounds just a tad Canadian to my ears...for instance. "out" is pronounced like "oat", they use terms like "pound sand" an stuff like that from what I've noticed. Chicago and Cleveland, both cities along Interstate 80, and areas just south of them have that same speech pattern to them as well, as well as extreme Northern Indiana an extreme Northern Ohio. Also, another key thing to note, and this is kind of relevant to the Bible Belt, is that Chicago and Cleveland are very famous for their architecturally beautiful churches, largely to due to I believe Eastern European immigration...they are FULL of them. Also, here is a common trait that I have noticed is often displayed throughout the Midwest...HUGE churches. Look in the Lower Midwest and you find churches that are pretty tall in height, although I strongly suspect Texas and possibly oklahoma have large churches to them as well like this. States like Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio I've noticed tend to have these old, gigantic churches with just TOWERING steeples, and often are displayed in a very colorful manner, and often they are constructed out of limestone. Many of the ones I've seen in Missouri are, including the presbyterian church down the street from the house in St. Louis that I spent my childhood in. St. Louis has many churches here whose steeples are noticeably tall. The one near Delmar and Big Ban has to be at least 10 to 15 stories tall (the steeple). THe Saint Louis University Church may quite possibly be one of the tallest churches in the world...its church steeple is an astounding 89 meters high, as tall as a 23 story building. The Midwest generally has very big and architecturally astounding churches at least from my perspective. Most of the ones I've seen in the South are generally not quite as breathtaking, but again, i am sure that states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia could easily prove me wrong. Even in the Northeast, you see these really large and old-looking churches that are architecturally astounding around places like New York and Boston. Just down the street from the Saint Louis University Church is another very large church steeple...I tell you, the churches here just strike me as being gigantic compared to most ones I've seen in the South.
Last edited by ajf131; 08-30-2007 at 10:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
