Regional Religious Bias

Okay, I have to say that there are a lot of Christian tropers, especially here in OTC, who do not share many of the same convictions that I have come to expect of Christians. I know some extraordinarily great and awesome Christians, and I know of some utterly depraved individuals who take the banner. But there are certain beliefs I have always ascribed to the majority of them.

Now, I realize that TV Tropes has something of a left-wing bias. So that might be the cause of some of the differences. But I think there might be something else.

I live in the Southeastern United States.

To clarify, you can't throw a rock here without hitting a church. There are tons and tons and tons of churches here, and a huge portion of the population is practicing Christians of one denomination or another. I realize that each might have its separate beliefs, but the people in my (what I've realized is hideously biased) sample or Christians share certain beliefs.

Most of all, there is the belief that those who do not believe in Christ are doomed to eternal damnation. Even some of the nicest, sweetest people around here believe that my family and I are going to Hell for not being Christians. And these people really are legitimately nice, because they are concerned about my eternal soul when they try to convert me.

But that gets pretty grating. It seems like this "club" that people have an excuse to say, "if you're not in, you're a bad person." They'd be happy to have you join, but if you aren't a joiner, you're bad. After all, how else could eternal damnation of non-Christians be justified, if you weren't bad?

I have partly this to blame for my preconceptions regarding Christianity, and I want to know if this, among other things, are just regional in nature. Am I getting a very skewed perception of the faith?

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

Well, I'd say it's regional, but most of my thoughts on it come from comparing how people deal with it in Europe as compared to here. Over there they consider religion a private matter and probably wouldn't bother you much with it. Here whether or not you're whatever can make or break you in the political field. It's ridiculous.

I don't know, in America we just seem to equate freedom of speech with "say whatever thing we feel like, even if it bothers that other person. Even if we've said it repeatedly and they've repeatedly asked us to stop. Because hey, we can say what we want." That and change seems to come to the Southeast really slowly.

The rate at which those individuals exist is likely regional and in areas where they can make up a significant portion of the community gives them the "courage" to speak their mind to you about your soul being damned. I know people who hold to those beliefs, but in communities full of Christians that don't think like that (or just not happy about "pushy" Christians), or not even Christian, they tend to hold their tongue as they feel besieged and are too afraid to talk (hence the cries of "we've lost all our rights to these godless heathens!"). I've also noticed that over the years, the number of Christians who steadfastly hold to "not accepting Jesus means you'll be eternally damned no matter what you do in your mortal life" has been dropping because it's just a ridiculous view where a serial murdering rapist craphole can get into heaven but a man who spends as much time as possible giving to charity and volunteering goes to hell.

edited 6th Jun '12 11:43:43 PM by breadloaf

It certainly is regional, and you can dig into history to find out why by tracing which denominations ended up where. "Jesus is the son of God" is about all we can agree on between us.

The southeast US is where the Baptist and Methodist movements began, and they're both still very prominent there, as well as where a lot of the more aggressive stereotypes come from due to recent backlash revivals. Further north you get more along the lines of Anglican, though there's a heavy Catholic influence due to later immigration (most notably Irish). The Catholic Church mostly moved with Spain during colonization, and they're still pretty heavy along the southwest and up the Pacific Coast. Mormons moved off to Utah with Brigham Young, though IIRC there are still enclaves around Virginia for some reason I don't remember. The north-central is pretty heavy Lutheran, especially around the Dakotas, due to heavy settling by Germans and Russians in the 19th century. The Pacific Northwest is kind of where the Catholics and Lutherans ran into each other — you'll usually see Catholics represented more prominently on maps and stuff, but we've typically got churches within blocks of each other — and there's been a lot of cultural osmosis between us.

From there, you can extrapolate some of the more general trends. Baptists tend to be the really hardline ones (again, a lot of it is due to surprisingly recent revivals), so the southeast is kind of a hot zone. New England was the site of a whole lot of infighting that everyone got sick of really fast until the King told them to cut it out so he could make money, so it's a lot looser — as are Anglicans on the whole at this point. Catholics and Lutherans are a mixed bunch, and it mostly depends on local-scale stuff as to how hardline they get. The Mormon stereotype (ridiculous fringe aside) is more uptight but friendly. And so on.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:47:22 AM by Pykrete

I would say that you are getting a skewed view of the faith. There's many different forms of Christianity and ways of expressing it. In California we happen to house a great many types of it even having our own personal Bible belt. Most of the Christians I myself have come into contact with are pretty fucking awesome. A good deal of them supporting gay rights and finding the fundies absolutely crazy and annoying.

However I myself am almost entirely unfamiliar with the forms of Christianity that I hear horror stories about. The few fundies I've met have been relatively easy to avoid and haven't seemed to do much other than pass out booklets and such before leaving quietly. The only reason I know of their being such is due to looking at the things they gave me.

There's also the big general splits in how religion is perceived in different nations. In many places in Europe it's considered a private matter and open expressions of it can apparently be viewed as strange or rude if what I've heard from Humon and others who live out there is correct. In the US it seems to vary depending on region though largely open expressions of it are king. In particular expressions of Christianity. Thailand, from what I've noted from examining Thai culture, has a very open and communal religious culture and view on religion it seems. It also bears the remnants of Ashoka's ruling style, namely the king seeking approval from the Sangha for actions and vice versa. Though Buddhism in general tends to be very communal and collectivist.

In the end religion is highly subject to regional and sect differences. To the point where it can honestly be hard to find criteria under which every division and regional area of said religion correlate so as to make them all definably that religion in particular. For example you can't necessarily say that all Christianity is bound by the belief that Jesus is God in some form or the son of God. We have groups like Unitarianism that more or less reject that concept. Which in the end I suppose leaves us with "Jesus was really fucking awesome and we believe in God", but then we still have the matter of whether or not we accept Atheistic Christianity as being Christianity. Which if we do may just leave us with "Jesus was really fucking awesome and we base our shit off him to some degree".

Simply put religion is something of an unholy clusterfuck and gaining a truly representative view of any one faith in general, as opposed to specific areas of sects, can be very damned hard.

Now to answer the justification of the damnation of non-Christians...This seems to be, in some cases, related to the fact that Christ is what gave humans in general the ability to get to Heaven without following an ultra strict doom code. Due to how naturally fucked we are it's Jesus or be damned because humans lack the capacity to not be damned without someone helping them. At least this is one view on the topic I've seen in the past. It's shown up in other religions as well; an entire sect of Buddhism more or less runs on such thinking (Shin Pureland if curious).

^Things like that are good part of why such divisions in thought are seen from region to region. It's a rather large topic that warrants some study since it's quite interesting and can help present insight into religion and religious culture as we see it now. I myself sadly am not too schooled in this particular area in any faith...

edited 7th Jun '12 12:21:14 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That's correct.

Open expression of Religion is viewed as strange — basically imposing that person's views on them — and Religion is not directly involved in Politics; if a Politician tried the using the same emphasis on Religion as what apparently happens in the US, they would not get elected.

edited 7th Jun '12 12:26:39 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Indeed, especially here: It's viewed as "what the Front National*

does" and Sarko caught a lot of flack for one of his speeches that was seen as "an attack against the separation of church and state".

Politics aside, religious people in France are still mainly Christians of Roman Catholic denomination. The American branch of Christianity, especially that of the "bible belt", is viewed as strange by those who know it exists.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:02:52 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Finland is one of those places where religion is very personal, so the fundie types are almost nonexistent. Just about the only time I hear anyone talking about God IRL is some Witnesses of YHWH coming mothly to give their paper. Politicans who emphasise their Christianity survive with 4% of the votes only due to PR. But then I know other places are different, and from the US I likely get only the vocal minority. I know it's a minority, just not exactly how minor.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Indeed. Although, I think its much to do with the secularisation of European society, and liberalisation of social policy (especially that in the protection of minority rights) in the majority of European states. Much of America (especially the Bible Belt) does not have the socially progressive policies that most Europeans seem to take for granted. I believe that this lack of liberalisation (and secularisation of society) leads to a vacuum where there is not much scope to be tolerant of others, and hence, the idea of 'forcing' your religious views on a minority group is seen as right.

It also may be that although freedom of speech is a protected and highly-guarded right in Europe, there are laws that curtail it in the name of public safety, which co-incidentally, follow common sense.

As Green said, in Britain, open admittance of faith is fine, but it's seen as odd and socially wrong; it can be interpreted - and will be - as trying to convert people.

Yup. It's a fine line: you can present your belief and your arguments. That's cool. But the moment you cross that invisible line to say "this is what you should do, too": red flags go up.

It's fun to watch Jehovah's Witnesses walk that line sometimes. Some are very good at it: newbies aren't. Interestingly enough, the same red flags can be brought out if you're an animal right's activist that pushes things a bit far. The exact same flags.

It's one of the things I love about Europe: sometimes, subtext is needed to work out what the message they're yelling actually is, as the blatant one is rather carefully worded. It's almost like you're telling a load of people to stock up on thesauruses.

edited 7th Jun '12 7:18:01 AM by Euodiachloris

Indeed, indeed. Of course, that line is very fine. I swear, I remember somebody joked about blowing stuff up (you'll never guess their ethnic origin!) near a police car...

Let's just say, I think the PoT Act came into full force in that scenario. I think they're still rotting in Belmarsh.

In my experience, it also depends on the part of your area you live in. Small, rural towns tend to be far more religiously motivated than larger cities.

And the midwest is very similar to the southwest.

I'd be interested to know how 'casual' religious people are depending on region. Like, go to church/temple/mosque every time they're meant to according to their dogmatic institution (or more than they're required), really devoted to the alms giving, do they help out at their local thing, etc.

Because I was a Christian for some time, and Australia's much like Europe in that religion's not a thing you're meant to profess loudly. I never voluntarily went to a church during the whole time I was Christian, and I somewhat opposed the fact that my school had prayer times at assemblies for everyone except those who specifically opted out of it, because I thought that was a bit cultish when the vast majority of the students were generically secular humanists. Besides, I think a prayer should be 'composed' by each individual for the best relationship with their God(s) (where applicable), not just mindlessly droned.

But anyway, long story short: Australia is much like Europe in that religion is not often publically professed, but unlike it in that being such a relatively young country, we have few shrines or holy places that're widely visited (Indigenous Australians being the exception, where such sites haven't been co-opted or destroyed outright).

Not that Christianity varies within Britain, as Wikipedia's article notes:

Note the part in bold; that should confuse you Americans!

edited 7th Jun '12 8:17:16 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Of course, for the religious people who choose to keep it to themselves unless asked, and who don't actively evangelize and try to convert others, you're not going to hear from them as much, obviously.

Where I live there are also tons of churches. There's even a group of Mennonites who like to hang around downtown holding signs during weekends (weather permitting) that say things like, "The Party Ends in Hell" and "The Wages of Sin is Death". I don't know what they think they're trying to accomplish.

But on the other hand, groups like the Unitarian Universalist Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and even the Roman Catholic Church don't really do that sort of thing. If you ask them what they believe, they'll gladly tell you whatever you want to know, but they don't generally go out of their way to convert others. Mainly because they don't have an emphasis on eternal damnation, so there's nothing (in their perception) to save you from.

I think my head just asploded.

edited 7th Jun '12 7:50:41 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I personally have come to the conclusion that socialism is the only current model of economics that actually fits Christianity to begin with, and Christ's teachings generally support liberal positions more often than not. Hence, I am a Catholic socialist liberal.

As to regional biases, I do hope nobody ever has the lack of fortune to have the Old South as their first impression of Christianity in America. That would be terribly uninformative and unfair to that person.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

I don't know about regional bias, but the majority of Christians are Catholic, and of course Catholics don't believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. So its not some left-wing bias.

I think the SE US has more Protestantism, and Protestants tend to be all over a large spectrum so its hard to generalize or say anything about them at all.

Well, the essential quote of communism, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat", is a Bible quote. Besides, gosh, who in the Bible advocating giving poor people stuff (which is somewhat of a major component of socialism)?

edited 7th Jun '12 8:04:55 AM by AirofMystery

People could argue about what economic system best fits Christianity until they're blue in the face without reaching any sort of agreement.

Also, the Deep South has a long history of particularly anti-Catholic Protestantism. The KKK was vehemently anti-Catholic, viewing it as un-American and pro-Foreigner. After all, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, and it was founded specifically to support the practice of slavery. (They did eventually apologize for that. In 1995.)

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Communism is a theoretical ideal. Socialism is a practical ideological system. They are not the same thing.

As to Jesus, there are also things like how you treat the least of God's children being how you treat Jesus, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc. Capitalism actually comes across as very anti-Christian, being as selfish and apathetic towards suffering as it is.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

I disagree about that definition of socialism, in that it gives socialism a definition. There are as many socialisms as there are Christianities, and like what's been said about the various Christianities in this thread, the various strains of socialism share only a very vague link. Maybe "we should help poor people somehow" would be it.

No, because socialism is not a religion, but an economic system, and thus has a specific definition regardless of what its various weak adherents would like it to be. I mean, even I admit that I am not completely a socialist, by the proper definition. That's just how it is.

This is also a regrettable derail.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Hence Christian socialism.

---

Now back to the Advertised Programme.

edited 7th Jun '12 8:23:06 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The South is a highly mixed bag, religiously. Here as nearly everywhere else, there's a slight correlation between rural isolation and religious uniformity, and the latter is an atmosphere that can foster clannishness and obscurantism. (Oddly, the correlation with ideological uniformity in many other matters seems to be weakly inverse.)

And Baptists & Methodists only scratch the surface. Out in the country, independent Protestant churches often dominate—confusingly, many of these call themselves "Baptists" of some sort, though they're unaffiliated with any denominational organization. Each church is usually only as orthodox as the founding preacher, and can range from generically evangelical all the way to non-Nicene cultishness. Politically, they range from almost complete quietism to grandstanding across the political spectrum.

The cities have a lot of "megachurches" that are usually evangelical, and what the British would call "nonconformist" in theology. Episcopalianism used to be common among the upper crust, but they've largely drifted away to the megachurches or away from church altogether. Outsiders are often surprised to learn that many Southern cities have significant Catholic and Jewish populations, both native and augmented by transplants.

edited 7th Jun '12 11:00:06 AM by Jhimmibhob

"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones

I like the choice of words as "augmented by transplants". Like Jewish and Catholic cyborgs.

Is anyone here from South America or East Asia or the Middle East? It's all been North America and Europe so far here, barring my brief foray into Oceania.