Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2007, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Kentucky
6,749 posts, read 21,995,087 times
Reputation: 2178

Advertisements

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2007, 07:31 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 8,334,257 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueatari View Post
I am in denial. MO doesn't belong here. KC and STL are most of the state and are far from bible belt thinking. Florida is also not so bible belt. What is this map source? All of Kansas and Nebraska not included??? What a rip-off. Posted on Wikipedia does not the truth make!
I kinda agree. Missouri being wholly part of the Bible Belt? That is a joke. I agree that a good chunk of it is, but not nearly the amount Plains or these other so-called sources want to believe. I am in almost anonymous agreement with you blueatari where KC and STL and anywhere north of there is concerned. Catholics outnumber Southern Baptists by a noticeable amount in these areas. But I would be a fool to say all of Missouri is exempt from the Bible Belt. THe Southern half of Missouri seems to have thinking more and more like the Bible Belt the further south you go...Illinois and Indiana I know are not completely exempt either, ESPECIALLY not Indiana. But including all of Missouri or over half of it in the Bible Belt just makes no sense whatsoeever to me and is unreasonable thinking and logic. This map seems to think the Mason-Dixon line is the Bible Belt...couldn't be further from the truth, number one, because the map has the Mason-Dixon line defined incorrectly where MO, IL and IN are concerned. St. Louis is definitely not a part of the Bible Belt. There is nothing Bible Belt about this city whatsoever, and i am better qualified than anyone in this discussion to say that. I think the more accurate definition of the Bible Belt is all of Southern Missouri, parts of Southern Illinois, and all of Southern Indiana...and I think Ohio has to have parts of it influenced by the Bible Belt. I think that any way you cut it...Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana are going to wind up being mentioned when the Bible Belt is concerned. LEt's just face it folks...THE BIBLE BELT IS NO LONGER CONFINED TO THE SOUTH. EVEN THE WIKIPEDIA MAP SHOWS IT TO GO AS FAR WEST AS OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND NEW MEXICO AND AS FAR NORTH AS MISSOURI, ILLINOIS, AND INDIANA. Don't hide from the truth, Ohio...we know you've got Bible Belt influences too. The simple point is, the modern Bible Belt no longer encompasses just the South. Its boundaries have been pushed further north and west over the years due to migration. I have no reason to believe that it could not continue to extend further north when somebody mentioned Wheaton, IL a suburb of Chicago now having evangelical Christianity there. BIBLE BELT DOES NOT EQUAL STRICTLY the SOUTH ANY MORE. live with it people. It still completely encompasses the South and originated there, but there is no question it has extended well beyond the South now. And i agree where Kansas is concerned. They have their Bible Belt Characteristics and cannot be dismissed. The wikipedia map is missing major chunks here...Ohio being completely exempt from the Bible Belt...please don't make me laugh. How can one say such a thing when West Virginia is most of Ohio's eastern border and Kentucky is OHio's entire Southern border. Is the Ohio River now powerful enough to divide religion, especially in these modern times? Not in Indiana or Illinois by a longshot, so i don't believe for a second Ohio has little to no Bible Belt influences. The wikipedia map I am sorry to say is not to be believed It is not only very wrong in some of the areas it defines to be the Bible Belt, but very wrong in some of the areas it defines to not be part of the Bible Belt.

Last edited by ajf131; 08-30-2007 at 08:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 08:05 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,505,907 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
I kinda agree. Missouri being wholly part of the Bible Belt? THat is a joke. I agree that a good chunk of it is, but not nearly the amount Plains or these other sources want to believe. I am in almost anonymous agreement with you bluatari where KC and STL and anywhere north of there is concerned. Catholics outnumber Southern Baptists by a noticeable amount in these areas. But I would be a fool to say all of Missouri is exempt from the Bible Belt. THe Southern half of Missouri seems to have thinking more and more like the Bible Belt the further south you go...Illinois and Indiana I know are not completely exempt either. But including all of Missouri or over half of it in the Bible Belt just makes no sense whatsoeever to me. St. Louis is definitely not a part of it. There is nothing Bible Belt about this city whatsoever. I think the more accurate definition of the Bible Belt is parts of Southern Missouri, parts of Southern Illinois, and of Southern Indiana...and I think Ohio has to have parts of it influenced by the Bible Belt. I think that any way you cut it...Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana are going to wind up being mentioned when the Bible Belt is concerned. LEt's just face it folks...THE BIBLE BELT IS NO LONGER CONFINED TO THE SOUTH. EVEN THE WIKIPEDIA MAP SHOWS IT TO GO AS FAR WEST AS OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND NEW MEXICO AND AS FAR NORTH AS MISSOURI, ILLINOIS, AND INDIANA. Don't hide from the truth, Ohio...we know you've got Bible Belt influences too. The simple point is, the modern Bible Belt no longer encompasses just the South. Its boundaries have been pushed further north and west over the years due to migration. I have no reason to believe that it could not continue to extend further north when somebody mentioned Wheaton, IL a suburb of Chicago having evangelical Christianity there. BIBLE BELT DOES NOT EQUAL SOUTH ANY MORE. live with it. It still completely encompasses the South and originated there, but there is no question it has extended well beyond the South now. And i agree. Kansas and Nebraska have their Bible Belt Characteristics. The wikipedia map is missing major chunks here...Ohio being completely exempt from the Bible Belt...please don't make me laugh.
Texas was ALWAYS part of the Southern Bible Belt, with the Southern Baptist Church having always been far and away the largest protestant denomination. The slight extention into the SW (eastern New Mexico) is due to the influence of migrating Texans (that area is even known as "Little Texas"). It could also be said it "spread" in Oklahoma (as it didn't become a state until 1907) due to settlers from Arkansas and Texas.

Here is a pretty good link with a map that might show why the Bible Belt is mapped on Wikipedia as it is. That is, the influence of the Southern Baptist Church, which only brushes into lower parts of the Midwestern states (with the exception of Missouri, which has some claims to be Southern in certain historical contexts). It doesn't mean that there isn't a large church membership in other areas of the Midwest, but likely that they are not as "conservative/fundamentalist" as those found in the South (Texas to Virginia, and up into Missouri in this instance).

US Religion: Church Bodies on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fboosman/127769429/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 08:31 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 8,334,257 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Texas was ALWAYS part of the Southern Bible Belt, with the Southern Baptist Church having always been far and away the largest protestant denomination. The slight extention into the SW (eastern New Mexico) is due to the influence of migrating Texans (that area is even known as "Little Texas"). It could also be said it "spread" in Oklahoma (as it didn't become a state until 1907) due to settlers from Arkansas and Texas.

Here is a pretty good link with a map that might show why the Bible Belt is mapped on Wikipedia as it is. That is, the influence of the Southern Baptist Church, which only brushes into lower parts of the Midwestern states (with the exception of Missouri, which has some claims to be Southern in certain historical contexts). It doesn't mean that there isn't a large church membership in other areas of the Midwest, but likely that they are not as "conservative/fundamentalist" as those found in the South (Texas to Virginia, and up into Missouri in this instance).

US Religion: Church Bodies on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fboosman/127769429/ - broken link)
I still do not agree with the Bible Belt=The South and the South only. People minimize its influence I think on purpose in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Indiana is STRONGLY influenced by the Bible Belt as far north as Indianapolis. It is a well-known fact that THe Southern Baptist Convention has been dominant in Indianapolis for over 40 years and that the KKK exerted a huge amount of control over it. Further more, maps can be deceiving...Missouri has a good deal more Catholics than Baptists in the whole state, and it should be noted further that the Baptists can be further subdivided into moderate and Southern. 797,000 Baptists, unknown percentages which are moderate or Southern, i am sure at least a quarter are moderate (there are typically many moderate Baptists in the Midwest) 856,000 Roman Catholics. this is enough for me folks. The Bible Belt while certainly still encompassing the entire South, is no longer strictly in the South. Illinois and Indiana and Ohio have Bible Belt characteristics to parts of them, and I am sick of people trying to minimize them when there is too much contradictory evidence for that, especially with Indiana, which strikes me as being just as much in the Bible Belt as Southern Missouri. The Bible Belt does more than just "brush" Indiana as you like to claim. Central Indiana has some Bible Belt characteristics even! To minimize them is to minimize facts. This is getting ridiculous. I'm out of here folks. Anybody who thinks the Bible Belt is still confined to the South or that it still is one of the best ways to define the South now IMO needs a lesson on HOW TIMES THEY HAVE A'CHANGED Good-bye. And in the grand scheme of things, the Bible Belt is merely one thing...A Southern characteristic. 1 mere characteristic that if left by itself is NOTHING. there are many other characteristics that define the South besides the Bible Belt...agriculture, black migration, climate, dialect....dialect and climate and agriculture are the three most defining characteristics of the South, not the Bible Belt strictly speaking. Leave any one of these characteristics alone to fend for themselves and the South you do not have. If it looks like a duck but doesn't quack like one, it's not a duck.

Last edited by ajf131; 08-30-2007 at 08:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 09:19 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,505,907 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
The Bible Belt does more than just "brush" Indiana as you like to claim. Central Indiana has some Bible Belt characteristics even! To minimize them is to minimize facts. This is getting ridiculous. I'm out of here folks. Anybody who thinks the Bible Belt is still confined to the South or that it still is one of the best ways to define the South now IMO needs a lesson on HOW TIMES THEY HAVE A'CHANGED Good-bye.
First of all, contrary to what YOU claimed, I didn't "like to claim" anything. If you read the post, you would see I was referring to what was represented on the map(s) themselves. And offered one possible explanation of why the map on Wikipedia was colored the way it was, and only "brushed" the lower Midwest. That was not MY opinion, necessarily, as to accuracy, but used as a description of what the map depicted. Several posters had problems with the map, so I provided another link which could POSSIBLY explain the one on Wikipedia. That is, the latter went by where Baptist churches were heavily concentrated (as shown in the former), which in turn tend to be more conservative/fundamentalist than most other mainstream denominations.

To some folks, the prevelance of fundamentalism is the basic definition of the Bible Belt (which is what the maps in question seem to show). To others, it may be concentration of church membership. I'm somewhere in between.

Bottom line though, is that if you have an argument based on "brushing" the Midwest, then it is with those who compiled the stats and map, not with my wording.

As to using the Bible Belt to "define the South", I am not sure where that came from. In any event, have a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Richmond
1,489 posts, read 8,775,340 times
Reputation: 726
I've always considered Texas the Bible Belt. They have Mega churches there- like the Olsteens and such.


Virginia would almost all be in the Bible Belt- it if weren't for NOVA which went from very Old South money conservative to Liberalsville over night.

I think Winchester, VA is the start of the Bible Belt in Virginia. There is a Southern Gospel Station there called 'Southern-Lite' that covers Virginia and the Eastern Panhandle of West VA.

In NOVA they still have lots of Southern Baptist churches though.

The most interesting part are the Korean Southern Baptist Churches !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Tippecanoe County, Indiana
26,372 posts, read 46,199,122 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by vasinger View Post
Gotta leave Kansas in. Thats definitely part of the Belt. Its one of the few states to support the Creation Theory. It has a Creation Science Museum and banned Evolution from text books. Especially Southern Kansas is very Bible Belt.

Missouri is part of the Belt if its below St Louis.

Nebraska can go and so can most all of Florida (yankeeized) except for North Florida . Utah is not the Belt either. They's Mormons which is a cult.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Tippecanoe County, Indiana
26,372 posts, read 46,199,122 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
I kinda agree. Missouri being wholly part of the Bible Belt? That is a joke. I agree that a good chunk of it is, but not nearly the amount Plains or these other so-called sources want to believe. I am in almost anonymous agreement with you blueatari where KC and STL and anywhere north of there is concerned. Catholics outnumber Southern Baptists by a noticeable amount in these areas. But I would be a fool to say all of Missouri is exempt from the Bible Belt. THe Southern half of Missouri seems to have thinking more and more like the Bible Belt the further south you go....
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL; Upstate NY native
217 posts, read 876,921 times
Reputation: 118
US Religion: Religious Adherents on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fboosman/127769108/in/photostream/ - broken link)

Very interesting. On the above link, it seems like church attendance is highest in the the Dakotas and parts of the upper Midwest, while lowest in some regions of the Bible Belt (eastern Kentucky).

So is the Bible Belt definiton based on the % of Baptists in an area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2007, 05:18 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,505,907 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallylady46 View Post
US Religion: Religious Adherents on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fboosman/127769108/in/photostream/ - broken link)

Very interesting. On the above link, it seems like church attendance is highest in the the Dakotas and parts of the upper Midwest, while lowest in some regions of the Bible Belt (eastern Kentucky).

So is the Bible Belt definiton based on the % of Baptists in an area?
Not necessarily I wouldn't think, although since their is no "official definition" of the Bible Belt, it could be one some use. It appears that the map showing where Baptists are the largest denomination and the one used to define the Bible Belt on Wikipedia are similar enough that apparently that is the view of those who compiled the latter one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top