The American conservative support base

[Durandal]

Scenarios like Flashdance come to mind.

Don't you mean Footloose?

Dammit! I knew that was the wrong movie, but I couldn't think of the right title.

[Darth Raptor]

LazyRaptor's reply makes it even worse by equating conservatism with a lack of a quality education.

I cannot for the life of me think of a more readily apparent association. Again, social conservatism can only emerge in people who allowed their family traditions to think for them, rather than thinking for themselves. Public schools are notorious for squeaking kids by without training them in the use of logic.

Never mind that there are many principled, well educated conservatives, just as there are principled, well educated liberals. Conversely there are just as many liberal morons (see the DU boards) as there are conservative morons.

I'd say the jury's still out on whether a serious social conservatie could be considered "well principled". As far as well educated, by what standards? Anyone who seriously embraces a cultural outlook like that does not put rational thinking first. Again, I think you're confusing the obvious topic of social conservatism with things like tax policies and gun control regulations.

Interesting.

I work with a black guy who isn't Catholic, yet he busts his ass to pay his son's tuition at a parochial school because he doesn't like his neighborhood school.

Could it be that the local Catholic school provides a better education than his public school district?

As a graduate of that same public school system, I can tell you that at the time of my attendance, teacher quality and class material varied from outstanding to mediocre (none were actually bad). If I had a child, I'd be busting my ass to send him or her to the parochial school, and I'm not Catholic.

Yet Raptor would deny me the right to see that my child has a quality education.

No, idiot. My entire post was about ensuring quality education. If the public schools were up to a decent standard, no one would need to go to a parochial school as an alternative to secular school. Conversely, people who would otherwise get cracker-jack diplomas from bullshit Creationist schools (like my brother) would not go through life with the irrevocable handicap of not having a diploma anyone takes seriously.

Care to justify actions that would shut down hundreds of the best performing schools in the Northeastern cities, i.e., the Catholic schools administered by the local archdiocees?

If they're up to the standard, they aren't going to be shut down. I guess I should have been more clear. That was targeted at the hardcore schools that teach Hovind like an ordinary school teaches Newton. Fundamentalist homeschoolers in particular. I've seen that "education" first hand, and know for a fact that people trained like that will most likely grow up to be ignorant and intolerant.

[sketerpot]

You've basically forgot about the brainwashing that takes place in public schools. I know - I've spent the past 11 years as a student in them. And they're not even bad schools - the High School I'm in is actually rather good. But everything has a bias, and it's often thrown in early. It is typically a leftist bias.

The high school I'm in now has a weird bias: leftist and rightist. In this small Nebraska town (slightly over 2000 people), you get both mixed together in a weird way. You have the environmentalist propaganda which seems to be common to all schools, and I've only seen one science teacher here willing to teach evolution (with one other who probably would). Up until 10th grade, the treatment of the subject at the heart of biology is pathetic. In the 5th and 6th grades, the science teacher is a creationist, and in junior high, the only time evolution is mentioned is to say that it's "just a theory". I'm serious. (Fortunately, science education gets better in high school, with a teacher who talks freely about previously taboo topics like evolution and the thermodynamic impracticality of 600-pound rectal thermometers ).

There is the socially conservative everybody-is-a-Christian-and-screw-the-rest mentality that you might expect from such a town, but there is also a lot of external culture seeping in through TV, the internet, and so on. It's quite weird to see, for example, obviously sex-crazed people condemning gays for religious reasons while happily watching MTV.

My point: you get brainwashing anywhere it's possible and the people involved don't teach critical thinking. Left, right, whatever: people who unreasoningly buy into an ideology will, when present in sufficient concentration, engage in the sort of brainwashing you describe.

Contrary to popular opinion, most religious people (even rural ones) do not have such a hellfire and damnation approach to every nonbeliever. If nothing else, they realize that being nice to them makes them more likely to convert than telling them they'll go to hell.

I have some experience with rural religious people's attitudes toward unbelievers. The main views among the less extreme (I'm mostly dealing with Methodists here) seem to be these:

1. There's no such thing as an atheist.
2. You're just bitter.
3. Why don't you try the love of God?
4. INITIATE FULL MIND SHUTDOWN BEFORE THESE UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS CAN BE CHALLENGED!

It's not hellfire and brimstone, but it's still damn annoying.

[tharkûn]

Indeed; rural communities are generally lacking in it. But by all means, if you can show me lots of examples of rural communities with annual Gay Pride parades or well-known "gay" town districts, let me know.

That is an awfully high burden of proof. New York City has somewhere around 250,000 participants in its gay pride parade. The total population is about 8,000,000. If we assume that Hicksville, USA has a proportional number of people who, under ideal circumstances, would want to participate in such a parade and call it a town of 5,000 ... then you end up with a parade consisting of 156 people. Going by the amount of money used to promote and stage such an event, Hicksville is even more handicapped. Of course I highly doubt that all 250,000 participants in New York's Gay Pride parade are locals, I could easily see thousands of people willing to take part in a parade in NYC from all parts of North America.

Even your most liberal small town is unlikely to have a gay pride parade, namely because the town can barely field a decent parade on the 4th of July. I mean seriously even if you live in a near uniform Irish-descent small town, you still might not have a St. Patrick's day parade. It is a helluvalot easier to get 150,000 people in New York on March 17th than to get 93 in a small town.

"Gay town" districts? Seriously how many small towns have any districts? Even in an ideal small town how many patrons would there be for such a district? Big cities can have distinct disctricts that cater to specific subsets of the general population, because those subsets are larger than entire hicktowns.

I'm currently living in Ann Arbor, MI (population 114,498) which is more or less the most gay friendly city in the state and certainly the most liberal major city. Do we have a gay pride parade? No (or it is so obscure that I missed even hearing about it). Do we have a "gay town district"? No, the closest I am aware of are a handful of gay bars and only one or two are "flaming gay". This is in the first city in the US to elect an openly gay city council member and the first city in the US to have a "gay pride week". Hell I think they even elected a gay member to the state legislature last go round. We further have such delightful student traditions as the Naked Mile and Gay Kiss-ins, but even in a city like this we lack gay pride parades or distinct gay districts.

One reason why small towns aren't diverse is because they are small and are not experiencing strong immigration (from the urban centers or internationally). When everyone who lives in town has descended from the same set of white anglo-saxon protestant forebearers it weights against heterogeneity whereas a major city with new international immigrants arriving daily weights heavily against homogenity. In many small towns the last influx of newcomers may have been in the 1860's.

Social conservatism is defined by its desire to prevent social change, and the past was a very intolerant place (much more so than the present), so like it or not, social conservatism is intolerance. You cannot separate social conservatism from intolerance any more than you can separate politics and lies.

I don't know, I think one could support the death penalty, the abolition of abortion, state's rights, "being hard on crime", gun rights, etc. and oppose legalizing prostitution, marijuana, euthanasia, etc. while still supporting civil rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc..

With the vast range of social issues I think there is room to be a social conservative on many issues without being simply intolerant. Either you have a more narrow view what is "social" than I or a much broader view on what is "intolerant".

[Keevan_Colton]

I don't know, I think one could support the death penalty, the abolition of abortion, state's rights, "being hard on crime", gun rights, etc. and oppose legalizing prostitution, marijuana, euthanasia, etc. while still supporting civil rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc..

You do realize what you're saying dont you?
"You can oppose some civil rights while supporting civil rights..."
It reads in a most amusing way.

[Darth Wong]

That is an awfully high burden of proof. New York City has somewhere around 250,000 participants in its gay pride parade. The total population is about 8,000,000. If we assume that Hicksville, USA has a proportional number of people who, under ideal circumstances, would want to participate in such a parade and call it a town of 5,000 ... then you end up with a parade consisting of 156 people.

I've lived in a town of 6,000 people before, and yes, 156 people would have constituted a major public event. In fact, it would have tied up the whole "downtown" area of the town. Try again.

Going by the amount of money used to promote and stage such an event, Hicksville is even more handicapped. Of course I highly doubt that all 250,000 participants in New York's Gay Pride parade are locals, I could easily see thousands of people willing to take part in a parade in NYC from all parts of North America.

So? Why is it that whenever someone passes some asinine city ordnance outlawing gays or Satan or some other crazy fundie nonsense, it's always a small town? Sheer coincidence?

Even your most liberal small town is unlikely to have a gay pride parade, namely because the town can barely field a decent parade on the 4th of July. I mean seriously even if you live in a near uniform Irish-descent small town, you still might not have a St. Patrick's day parade. It is a helluvalot easier to get 150,000 people in New York on March 17th than to get 93 in a small town.

Again, I've lived in a small town before. They hold events. They get a pitiful number of people that wouldn't be enough to get noticed in a shopping mall, but they hold civic pride events and other such things.

"Gay town" districts? Seriously how many small towns have any districts? Even in an ideal small town how many patrons would there be for such a district? Big cities can have distinct disctricts that cater to specific subsets of the general population, because those subsets are larger than entire hicktowns.

Have you ever lived in a small town? I have, and there's a seedy district, a high income district, a middle income district, etc. Sure, you can walk from one district to another in about five or ten minutes so it's a bit surreal, but there are distinct districts, for sure.

I'm currently living in Ann Arbor, MI (population 114,498) which is more or less the most gay friendly city in the state and certainly the most liberal major city. Do we have a gay pride parade? No (or it is so obscure that I missed even hearing about it). Do we have a "gay town district"? No, the closest I am aware of are a handful of gay bars and only one or two are "flaming gay". This is in the first city in the US to elect an openly gay city council member and the first city in the US to have a "gay pride week". Hell I think they even elected a gay member to the state legislature last go round. We further have such delightful student traditions as the Naked Mile and Gay Kiss-ins, but even in a city like this we lack gay pride parades or distinct gay districts.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you expect me to consider a town of 115k in the middle of Michigan to be socially progressive, you're nuts.

One reason why small towns aren't diverse is because they are small and are not experiencing strong immigration (from the urban centers or internationally). When everyone who lives in town has descended from the same set of white anglo-saxon protestant forebearers it weights against heterogeneity whereas a major city with new international immigrants arriving daily weights heavily against homogenity. In many small towns the last influx of newcomers may have been in the 1860's.

So you admit that large cities are more diverse, but you insist that this has nothing whatsoever to do with social liberalism?

Social conservatism is defined by its desire to prevent social change, and the past was a very intolerant place (much more so than the present), so like it or not, social conservatism is intolerance. You cannot separate social conservatism from intolerance any more than you can separate politics and lies.

I don't know, I think one could support the death penalty, the abolition of abortion, state's rights, "being hard on crime", gun rights, etc. and oppose legalizing prostitution, marijuana, euthanasia, etc. while still supporting civil rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.

Of course one can theoretically do those things (it's not as if people are incapable of intellectual self-contradiction). It's also theoretically possible for someone to hate Bush with a passion but wholeheartedly support the decision to go to war in Iraq. That doesn't change the fact that the phenomena are intrinsically connected: social progression and tolerance are generally interconnected; the "good old days" were racist, sexist, and homophobic. Those who wish to return to them make it pretty obvious how tolerant they are.

With the vast range of social issues I think there is room to be a social conservative on many issues without being simply intolerant. Either you have a more narrow view what is "social" than I or a much broader view on what is "intolerant".

Since you seem to think that anti-abortionists are "tolerant", I'd say that's the case.

[RedImperator]

The miscommunication in this thread is a pretty good example of why the left/right division doesn't really work.

[tharkûn]

So? Why is it that whenever someone passes some asinine city ordnance outlawing gays or Satan or some other crazy fundie nonsense, it's always a small town? Sheer coincidence?

You don't think there is a discrepancy in sample size? I mean seriously there are thousands of Hicksvilles for every major metropolitan center. If 23 hicktowns banned gays or Satan it would be equivalent to one city of my size doing so (and 496 would have to do so to be equivalent to Toronto).

It is a helluvalot easier to get outliers in small sample populations and there are a helluvalot more small populations in the city game.

Yes, small towns are generally more conservative, but whether or not they have gay pride parades is not indicative.

Again, I've lived in a small town before. They hold events. They get a pitiful number of people that wouldn't be enough to get noticed in a shopping mall, but they hold civic pride events and other such things.

And what are these events for? The 4th of July (1st isn't it over there), Veteran's day? They have pitiful crowds when it is a cause with a WIDE support base, how much smaller is it going to be when statistically, one doesn't expect a helluvlot of participants even with complete tolerance.

Have you ever lived in a small town? I have, and there's a seedy district, a high income district, a middle income district, etc. Sure, you can walk from one district to another in about five or ten minutes so it's a bit surreal, but there are distinct districts, for sure.

Lived in a small town, well I had a place and mainly slept in a "town" of 2,500 and commuted out for a year or so. The ONLY parade was on Flag Day, and even that was a pitiful showing.

Tell me how would a "gay town district" be different from the rest of town? Would it be the place where all the town's gays live? Where all the gay bars are? Aside from a gay bar or two what do you expect would be in a "gay town district".

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you expect me to consider a town of 115k in the middle of Michigan to be socially progressive, you're nuts.

Have you ever heard of Berkeley? It is only slightly less liberal here. The democrats run the elections, and the liberal wing at that. Republicans-in-name-only occassionally make political hay. The city council has passed "living wage" ordinance; the city civil rights clause protects: "Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, Age, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Condition of Pregnancy, Marital Status, Height/Weight, Mental or Physical Limitations, Source of Income, Family Responsibilities, Gender Identity, Educational Association, or HIV Status"; we have our own civil rights commission; active peace organizations; viable green party candidates; host Hash Bash; we have sizeable Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, UU, Toaist, Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, neo-Pagan, etc. populations, and of course we have active communists (of the Troskyite persuasion) in local politics.

Now if you go about 2 miles beyond city limits (and in some of the new subdivisions at city limits) it is right back to that stuanch conservative Michigan rural and suburban atmospheres. But it the city itself there is a long history of "progressive" "liberalism" dating back decades.

So you admit that large cities are more diverse, but you insist that this has nothing whatsoever to do with social liberalism?

1. I never said nothing, this is not an all or nothing game.
2. Large cities are more diverse because they can statistically be so. New York can have Tagalog disctricts, because New York is big enough for the miniscule amount of Tagalogaphones to be visible.
3. Large cities have extremely high immigration. Many small towns have had the same basic residents since their founding in the 1800's.

There are a host of reasons why small towns are less diverse; social conservatism plays a substantial part, but ignoring the realities of the difference of size and immigration is not a good idea.

Of course one can theoretically do those things (it's not as if people are incapable of intellectual self-contradiction). It's also theoretically possible for someone to hate Bush with a passion but wholeheartedly support the decision to go to war in Iraq.

How is self-contradictory to support gun rights, a solidly conservative issue, and to simultaneously support gay marriage?

The hate Bush/support Iraq is a quite common phenomena, how do you think it got past the senate floor?

That doesn't change the fact that the phenomena are intrinsically connected: social progression and tolerance are generally interconnected; the "good old days" were racist, sexist, and homophobic. Those who wish to return to them make it pretty obvious how tolerant they are.

Those who wish to return to the good old days are reactionary they are to conservatives what radicals are to liberals.

Since you seem to think that anti-abortionists are "tolerant", I'd say that's the case.

Fine leave aside that one issue. Why in hell can't you support a tough stance on crime, the death penalty, state's rights, gun rights, etc. while supporting civil rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.?

I fail to see why one can't fall on the side on the conservatives on numerous social issues without being intolerant.

KC:

You do realize what you're saying dont you?
"You can oppose some civil rights while supporting civil rights..."
It reads in a most amusing way.

You can oppose some civil rights while generally supporting civil rights. A helluvalot of black fundementalist Christians racial civil rights, but don't support civil rights based on sexual orientation. I don't follow you here, this is a fairly common position.

[Plekhanov]

KC:

You do realize what you're saying dont you?
"You can oppose some civil rights while supporting civil rights..."
It reads in a most amusing way.

You can oppose some civil rights while generally supporting civil rights. A helluvalot of black fundementalist Christians racial civil rights, but don't support civil rights based on sexual orientation. I don't follow you here, this is a fairly common position.

Then those people are clearly as confused as you then because they aren’t supporting “civil rights” they are calling for rights for themselves whilst demanding that those same rights be denied to others. They are self-righteous bigots only out for themselves and really don’t help your argument.

[tharkûn]

Then those people are clearly as confused as you then because they aren’t supporting “civil rights” they are calling for rights for themselves whilst demanding that those same rights be denied to others. They are self-righteous bigots only out for themselves and really don’t help your argument.

They are described as and self-identify as social liberals not conservatives.

The are a helluvalot more social issues than just gay, female, and racial issues.

[Uraniun235]

That makes it political, and attempts to supress political viewpoints are against both the letter and the spirit of the bill of rights.

Hello Slippery Slope.

People would be quite free to hold and express these viewpoints, but it would most certainly not be a violation of the Constitution for federal laws to create an environment which does not tend to support such thinking.

Besides, I don't even know what form any sort of solution could hope to take... maybe it wouldn't even have anything to do with direct legislation at all.

[Elfdart]

Give it up, Tharkun. You're using unfair tactics like logic, reason and facts to debate strongly held prejudices, namely the belief that the yokels are somehow more bigoted and intolerant than others.

The largest race riots occured where? The largest wave of lynchings occured where? The most brutal cops work where? It's been a long time since a Mississippi sheriff cornholed a black prisoner the way "New York's Finest" fucked over Abner Louima.

If flyover country is inherently less tolerant, why is it that except for FDR, the most liberal US Presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Truman) since WW2 have been from the hills of Texas or the back woods of Arkansas and Georgia. The most liberal candidate was George McGovern. Was he from New York? L.A.? San Francisco? Try South Dakota. The most liberal, populist and progressive states have historically been Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Yet the bumpkins in those places get defamed as crypto-Klansmen by ignorant assholes.

The most obnoxious fag-basher in the Senate is Rick Santorum, the exact opposite of a hayseed. Tom DeLay is from the tiny hamlet of Houston. The Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex is one of the most heavily populated areas in the US. Does this prevent evangelical types from trying to get creationism into science class in the local schools of the major cities?

I submit that to the extent the bible-thumpers take over more small town school boards and city councils, it's for the same reason and not much different from the way Greens, Libertarians and other fringe players are able to, since you only need a handfull of votes to turn an election in the villages. Fifty votes can get you on a school board in Springtown, TX. It won't get you jack shit in a Chicago ward.

One overlooked reason behind the notion that yokels are distrustful of their more urbane counterparts is the oh-so-superior attitude

[HemlockGrey]

The most obnoxious fag-basher in the Senate is Rick Santorum, the exact opposite of a hayseed.

I would postulate that this may be because he is sucking the cock of the Alabamians who populate the are between Pittsburg and Philadelphia.

[Aeolus]

Give it up, Tharkun. You're using unfair tactics like logic, reason and facts to debate strongly held prejudices, namely the belief that the yokels are somehow more bigoted and intolerant than others.

The largest race riots occured where? The largest wave of lynchings occured where? The most brutal cops work where? It's been a long time since a Mississippi sheriff cornholed a black prisoner the way "New York's Finest" fucked over Abner Louima.

If flyover country is inherently less tolerant, why is it that except for FDR, the most liberal US Presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Truman) since WW2 have been from the hills of Texas or the back woods of Arkansas and Georgia. The most liberal candidate was George McGovern. Was he from New York? L.A.? San Francisco? Try South Dakota. The most liberal, populist and progressive states have historically been Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Yet the bumpkins in those places get defamed as crypto-Klansmen by ignorant assholes.

The most obnoxious fag-basher in the Senate is Rick Santorum, the exact opposite of a hayseed. Tom DeLay is from the tiny hamlet of Houston. The Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex is one of the most heavily populated areas in the US. Does this prevent evangelical types from trying to get creationism into science class in the local schools of the major cities?

I submit that to the extent the bible-thumpers take over more small town school boards and city councils, it's for the same reason and not much different from the way Greens, Libertarians and other fringe players are able to, since you only need a handfull of votes to turn an election in the villages. Fifty votes can get you on a school board in Springtown, TX. It won't get you jack shit in a Chicago ward.

One overlooked reason behind the notion that yokels are distrustful of their more urbane counterparts is the oh-so-superior attitude

Living in Dallas-Fort Worth, I can assure you that while it's got a vaery vibrant Gay scene, it's still WAY more conservative than little ole Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor is very liberal compared to most of the US

[Elfdart]

That's my point. Living in a small town does not equal being bigoted, closed-minded or reactionary.

Look at any major city -especially ports of entry from overseas. Do you think the natives of New York in 1900 were any nicer to the Paddies, Guineas, Yids, Polacks and other immigrants than say, the people of Peoria? NO! They fucked over immigrants at every opportunity. Only blacks were treated worse.

Urbanites didn't let up on immigrants and blacks because they were more tolerant. They did it because after a while those groups became numerous enough to fight back either through force or the ballot box -or both.

Small towns are a different matter. It's kind of hard to start a race riot if only a dozen people show up. Sure, you might be more likely to be the target of nasty gossip or bigoted slurs in the villages, but you're more likely to be beaten or killed by a racist cop, or burned out of your property by angry mobs in the big city. So much for the lack of tolerance in American Thule.

[Elfdart]

By the way, I live in Fort Worth and you're right. What passes for "liberal" here is either moderate or conservative in other parts of the country.

[Elfdart]

The most obnoxious fag-basher in the Senate is Rick Santorum, the exact opposite of a hayseed.

I would postulate that this may be because he is sucking the cock of the Alabamians who populate the are between Pittsburg and Philadelphia.

Ever notice that every time he starts gay-baiting, he brings up incest? Does he have a hot sister or something?

[Gil Hamilton]

The only reason that Rick Santorum got the Senate seat in PA is because of the rural areas, not the cities, as Hemlock pointed out. He couldn't win jack in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. He's not very good evidence that the major PA cities are just as anti-<insert -ism here> as the middle of the state, because if it were up to the cities, he'd still be a scumbag attorney rather than a scumbag Congressman.

[Darth Wong]

Give it up, Tharkun. You're using unfair tactics like logic, reason and facts to debate strongly held prejudices, namely the belief that the yokels are somehow more bigoted and intolerant than others.

Really? What facts? Has he produced statistics to demonstrate these facts? Here in Canada, support for gay marriage is almost entirely concentrated in the cities. Why do you think that is, hmm?

The largest race riots occured where? The largest wave of lynchings occured where? The most brutal cops work where? It's been a long time since a Mississippi sheriff cornholed a black prisoner the way "New York's Finest" fucked over Abner Louima.

The race riots never took place in small towns because they had no hope of even trying to fight in those venues, moron. You need two sides to have a fight. When one side is pretty much stomped flat, there's no riot.

If flyover country is inherently less tolerant, why is it that except for FDR, the most liberal US Presidents (LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Truman) since WW2 have been from the hills of Texas or the back woods of Arkansas and Georgia. The most liberal candidate was George McGovern. Was he from New York? L.A.? San Francisco? Try South Dakota. The most liberal, populist and progressive states have historically been Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Yet the bumpkins in those places get defamed as crypto-Klansmen by ignorant assholes.

Please explain A) how you have ascertained these people to be the most liberal (Clinton, for example, passed the "Defense of Marriage Act"), B) why you feel that any of their public actions are indicative of private beliefs rather than political expediency, and C) why you forgot to mention people like David Duke (whose support came primarily from rural areas- oops!), Strom Thurmond, etc.

Also, could you explain why you feel that the most socially progressive states are Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota?

The most obnoxious fag-basher in the Senate is Rick Santorum, the exact opposite of a hayseed. Tom DeLay is from the tiny hamlet of Houston. The Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex is one of the most heavily populated areas in the US. Does this prevent evangelical types from trying to get creationism into science class in the local schools of the major cities?

Trying and largely failing. They are most successful in the rural communities. Also, every news story in the last 10 years about segregated high school dances, lingering interracial marriage prohibitions, etc. comes from small towns.

Sixteen southern states enforced interracial marriage bans until 1978. Alabama's interracial marriage ban was not removed from its books until 2000, and even then by a mere 60/40 vote. South Carolina's similar ban was not repealed until 1998. In the modern context, gay rights are far more likely to be abridged in small towns, and in the recent Canadian election gay marriage was a big issue where a sharp dividing line between rural and urban attitudes was obvious in the polling results.

I submit that to the extent the bible-thumpers take over more small town school boards and city councils, it's for the same reason and not much different from the way Greens, Libertarians and other fringe players are able to, since you only need a handfull of votes to turn an election in the villages. Fifty votes can get you on a school board in Springtown, TX. It won't get you jack shit in a Chicago ward.

Nice theory. Doesn't change the fact that you're far better off in a city than in a small rural community if you do any of the things that social reactionaries don't like.

One overlooked reason behind the notion that yokels are distrustful of their more urbane counterparts is the oh-so-superior attitude

Polls like this help too. Oops, that would be an example of the "facts" you alluded to but which neither you or Tharkun actually provided, wouldn't it? Too bad it doesn't support you.

[tharkûn]

Strom Thurmond

Was a political whore, but did first enjoy a career as social liberal and civil rights advocate.

Basically when he started he aligned himself with the civil rights movement (he pushed for the abolition of poll taxes, funding for black schools, and was the first senator to hire a black aide) and liberals, then when it became obvious that to continue to be elected he needed to switch ideologies, he did. Later still he switched back, publicly apologizing, to keep getting elected.

He had no problem romancing a black women nor sending his mixed race daughter money.

As far as I can read it, the man's personal opinions are unclear and he certainly appears to be a political whore.

Polls like this help too. Oops, that would be an example of the "facts" you alluded to but which neither you or Tharkun actually provided, wouldn't it? Too bad it doesn't support you.

You know I said that you set awfully high burdens of proof. You do. I've been to Jerusalemn, have family who live there, it has possibly the highest concentration of fundies in any major city in the democratic world. Does it have a gay pride parade? Yes. Does Ann Arbor, quite literally one of the most liberal cities in the US? No. Damned if I can find our gay district, even though we have something like 50% more self-identified gays per capita than the rest of the country.

Diversity is not just an issue of social liberalism, nor is social conservatism defined just by race, gay, and gender issues.

[Elfdart]

Please explain A) how you have ascertained these people to be the most liberal (Clinton, for example, passed the "Defense of Marriage Act"), B) why you feel that any of their public actions are indicative of private beliefs rather than political expediency, and C) why you forgot to mention people like David Duke (whose support came primarily from rural areas- oops!), Strom Thurmond, etc.

(A) Overall record, dummy.
(B) You can't tell with politicians, can you? Whether it's a President or a school board member in a small town. In both cases, it probably a little of both. But whether it's the person's beliefs or just pandering, the end result is what's important. LBJ often called blacks by Mark Fuhman's favorite N-word, but he DID more for the rights of blacks than anyone since Lincoln.
(C) David Duke's support came mostly from suburbs, as KKKers almost always do. Contrary to popular myth, it wasn't the Jed Clampett types who joined the Klan, it was middle-class whites from the suburbs. People like David Duke, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond only like "white trash" slightly more than minorities.

Also, could you explain why you feel that the most socially progressive states are Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota?

Look up the names Robert LaFollette, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Tom Harkin for starters.

Sixteen southern states enforced interracial marriage bans until 1978. Alabama's interracial marriage ban was not removed from its books until 2000, and even then by a mere 60/40 vote. South Carolina's similar ban was not repealed until 1998.

First, those laws were passed by state legislatures, NOT city councils. Those legislatures meet in the State Capitol of each state. Second, since geography isn't exactly your strong suit, let me fill you in on something. There are a lot of people and a number of large cities in the South. You've watched Deliverance too many times.

[Glocksman]

No, idiot. My entire post was about ensuring quality education. If the public schools were up to a decent standard, no one would need to go to a parochial school as an alternative to secular school. Conversely, people who would otherwise get cracker-jack diplomas from bullshit Creationist schools (like my brother) would not go through life with the irrevocable handicap of not having a diploma anyone takes seriously.

So what would you do with the parochial schools? And before you say 'ban them' after the public schools are brought up to standard, remember that pesky First Amendment clause about interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Besides, you can get a damned good education at some religious schools.
What degree holds more weight, one from Slippery Rock State Teacher's College or Georgetown University? One from Saint Louis University or one from your local community college?

You're lumping schools such as those with asshats such as those at Bob Jones University.

[Darth Wong]

(A) Overall record, dummy.

Which you don't bother to show us.

(B) You can't tell with politicians, can you? Whether it's a President or a school board member in a small town. In both cases, it probably a little of both. But whether it's the person's beliefs or just pandering, the end result is what's important. LBJ often called blacks by Mark Fuhman's favorite N-word, but he DID more for the rights of blacks than anyone since Lincoln.

And this man reflects on broad statistics ... how?

(C) David Duke's support came mostly from suburbs, as KKKers almost always do. Contrary to popular myth, it wasn't the Jed Clampett types who joined the Klan, it was middle-class whites from the suburbs. People like David Duke, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond only like "white trash" slightly more than minorities.

And where did you get this information from? Every source I've seen says that most of the parishes he carried were rural.

Also, could you explain why you feel that the most socially progressive states are Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota?

Look up the names Robert LaFollette, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Tom Harkin for starters.

Again, basing your argument entirely upon politicians rather than things like laws passed (and barely repealed even many decades later), the entire Southern Baptist movement, etc.

Sixteen southern states enforced interracial marriage bans until 1978. Alabama's interracial marriage ban was not removed from its books until 2000, and even then by a mere 60/40 vote. South Carolina's similar ban was not repealed until 1998.

First, those laws were passed by state legislatures, NOT city councils. Those legislatures meet in the State Capitol of each state.

And this explains the 60/40 vote ... how?

There's no bigger polling sample size than a vote, and what do the votes say? Let's see:

In 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but it was nevertheless important as a gauge of public attitudes. The amendment passed, but nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.

Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters voted on removing an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Again, this clause was moot because of a US Supreme Court ruling (although the "state's rights" jack-offs might dispute that), but it was still a good gauge of public opinion. Once again, the amendment passed, but 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.

In November 2000, Alabama voted on a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage that had been in its constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. When one considers that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted overwhelmingly to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state voted to keep the ban. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.

Yeah, it's just a few legislators in an oak-panelled room, right? And make careful note of the dates on those items. I'm not digging up ancient history here.

Second, since geography isn't exactly your strong suit, let me fill you in on something. There are a lot of people and a number of large cities in the South. You've watched Deliverance too many times.

And you've made a lot of claims with no real evidence except for "some politician came from X state and passed a civil-rights law, so everybody in that state is progressive!"

[Darth Raptor]

So what would you do with the parochial schools? And before you say 'ban them' after the public schools are brought up to standard, remember that pesky First Amendment clause about interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I didn't say "ban them" and wasn't going to say "ban them". A lot of the reason people go to those schools is because the quality of education is superior to public, secular schools. Remove that factor, and there wouldn't need to be a banning. And perhaps you missed it when I said they wouldn't be disqualified if they were up to the standard. Lack of clarification on my part.

Oh, and free excercise of religion does not entail substituting religious training for real education. Things like my brother's laughable cirriculum would be a no-go.

You're lumping schools such as those with asshats such as those at Bob Jones University.

Yes, I was. And wrongly so. Unintentional, but no less wrong. Ideally, a parochial school would have to measure up to the new standards. Some would fail miserably. Not all would, I admit.

[Mayabird]

156 gay people in a small town banding together? Don't make me laugh.

Those 156 hypothetical people are spread all over the age distribution. You'll be counting Granny at 93 who's living in the town nursing home who is a lesbian but has hidden it this entire time by just being a "maiden aunt" who "just couldn't find a man" and a sprinkling of teens who have to keep their sexuality hidden lest the other kids beat the shit out of them and the preachers get on to them.

Here's the thing about small towns: everybody knows everybody else, and that is a BAD thing. If you are gay and don't hide it (marry someone of the other gender, become a complete homophobe, etc.) they will know, and neither you nor your family will get any peace. If you have kids, they'll be tormented as the fag's kids. If you have a business, you might notice people avoiding your business. Nothing personal of course, but they would just rather drive to the Wal-Mart thirty miles away then buy stuff from a fag. And those friends of yours? They're not friends anymore. They will talk about you behind your back, and won't talk to you about anything substantial, and they will make not-so-veiled remarks about how we need to protect "godly American children from evil influences" and "protect traditional mariage."

So what do a lot of those "156" people do? Get the hell out of town. Some of them probably get driven away by the hostility of the locals. Some just leave, like a few of my friends in college, who knew they wouldn't be able to survive in Bumblefuck, GA so they fled to the big city of Atlanta.

Sure, maybe every small town isn't a cesspool of intolerance and bigotry like mine was. But I still lived in one, and I know how that town and the surrounding ones were. Go ahead and blather on about how small towns are all so hunky-dory, but know this: I did NOT have a happy fun Andy Griffin childhood by any means.