[subego]

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind | Cracked.com

Yes. A Cracked article.

There are dozens of ideas here I've struggled to express. Had I been able to, the thoughts on religion would have gone into a thread grandiosely named "Secular Humanism's Great Failure". This will work as a superior substitute.

[Captain Obvious]

Meh, incomplete narrative.
Trump happened because the level of engagement in the primary process is pathetic.

Yes, he got the most votes in the history of the GOP primary system but he also did not get the majority of votes which means he also has the distinction of being the nominee with the largest number of votes against him as well. There was no groundswell movement in the GOP to give voice to rural america. They were just the ones most motivated to show up to vote in the spring.

He’s was not the choice for ~60% of Republicans then and he is not the preferred choice of ~60% of Republicans now. Unfortunately, a good chunk of that 60% feels they don’t have much of a choice but to support him in a race where the other option is Clinton.

Yes, the article addresses why those disenfranchised rural folk wanted Trump but they are still a minority and are going to get nowhere in having their problems fixed any more than the inter city disenfranchised demographic.

Trump supporters blame immigrants and globalists.
BLM & Bernie supporters blame the 1% and racism.
All of those factors are simply one small part of why they are experiencing hopelessness.
The real cause and one that will not be repaired is the new nature of the U.S. economy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Trump happened because the level of engagement in the primary process is pathetic.

Yes and no. Yes, primaries get lower engagement compared to elections. No, because this primary got a lot of participation. Which is no real surprise when you 17 candidates.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Yes, he got the most votes in the history of the GOP primary system but he also did not get the majority of votes which means he also has the distinction of being the nominee with the largest number of votes against him as well. There was no groundswell movement in the GOP to give voice to rural america. They were just the ones most motivated to show up to vote in the spring.

Hopefully conservative voters can get their shit together then. But if they're anything like liberals in off-election years, they don't seem to learn their lesson.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

He’s was not the choice for ~60% of Republicans then and he is not the preferred choice of ~60% of Republicans now. Unfortunately, a good chunk of that 60% feels they don’t have much of a choice but to support him in a race where the other option is Clinton.

Statistically, you're right, but check out who his best competition was: Ted Cruz. He's basically Trump if he was politically savvy and actually religious.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

The real cause and one that will not be repaired is the new nature of the U.S. economy.

Agree.

[subego]

To me, what's important in this article is less about Trump, and more about why a significant portion of Republican voters think the way they do.

A thought process which utterly baffles many Democrats... specifically the religion part.

I've heard more than one Democrat accuse the Republicans of disingenuously pandering to religion, when the reality more closely resembles the alternate title I give in my OP.

Make no mistake, I'm firmly on team "secular humanism", but as the article indirectly argues, there is no secular humanist solution to maintaining social cohesion in the middle of ****ing nowhere. Religion fills in where secular humanism has failed.

What's worse is the failure goes beyond not providing a solution. Secular humanism actively mocks those who refuse to abandon a functioning system for a derisively offered empty basket.

[subego]

On a tangible level, not getting the points made in this article is why Democrats lose.

If they could just figure this out, they'd start wiping the floor with the GOP.

[BadKosh]

Cruz had a high "prick quotient" though. He turned out to be a liar.

[subego]

Rubio is basically Cruz minus the dickhead, Ivy League shit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's worse is the failure goes beyond not providing a solution. Secular humanism actively mocks those who refuse to abandon a functioning system for a derisively offered empty basket.

Boom. And those secular humanists, in the name of tolerance, actively espouse violence against viewpoints that don't match theirs. For all their grandstanding and patting themselves on the back, they are as hateful, discriminatory, and bigoted as the "rednecks" and "deplorables" they are claiming superiority too. On top of all their racism, hate, and bigotry - they're hypocrites too.

I'd put myself in the secular camp, but not as a humanist. More of a secular rationalist. Live and let live. Don't hate, and accept that your worldview is not superior to everyone else's.

If you preach equality, strive for equality. If that's the case, skin color, religion, political alignment shouldn't even enter the discussion.

Before you partisans jump in to talk about how the right is all bad and sucks too - I agree. My advice in this case would be to heal thyself, doctor. Then perhaps progress can be made, but not until ya'll lose this idea that you're morally superior to those who's perspectives you couldn't even begin to understand.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Make no mistake, I'm firmly on team "secular humanism", but as the article indirectly argues, there is no secular humanist solution to maintaining social cohesion in the middle of ****ing nowhere. Religion fills in where secular humanism has failed.

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorance talking. There are plenty of areligious ways to create cohesion. When my parents were young, the local churches were social hot spots. These roles are now filled by other things such as the local soccer team. You have relatively areligious countries like Japan where society isn't deteriorating and you have strong social cohesion.

Originally Posted by subego 

What's worse is the failure goes beyond not providing a solution. Secular humanism actively mocks those who refuse to abandon a functioning system for a derisively offered empty basket.

Whether a system functions is very much in the eye of the beholder. Socially, all Western societies are way more progressive than dominant religions are, and the gulf widens. So just because you perceive the basket to be empty, doesn't mean it is. Personally, I think such statement shows the same type of ignorance militant atheists show towards believers.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Boom. And those secular humanists, in the name of tolerance, actively espouse violence against viewpoints that don't match theirs. For all their grandstanding and patting themselves on the back, they are as hateful, discriminatory, and bigoted as the "rednecks" and "deplorables" they are claiming superiority too. On top of all their racism, hate, and bigotry - they're hypocrites too.

I don't think brandishing all Trump supporters are deplorables is constructive, but if you go to the watering holes of Trumpists and browse the comments, you do see a lot of racist and anti-semitic shit. I was shocked that such people still existed in the 21st century. Trump supporters do have to ask themselves whether they want to be in such kind of company and what they want to do about these people in their midst.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorance talking. There are plenty of areligious ways to create cohesion. When my parents were young, the local churches were social hot spots. These roles are now filled by other things such as the local soccer team. You have relatively areligious countries like Japan where society isn't deteriorating and you have strong social cohesion.

Whether a system functions is very much in the eye of the beholder. Socially, all Western societies are way more progressive than dominant religions are, and the gulf widens. So just because you perceive the basket to be empty, doesn't mean it is. Personally, I think such statement shows the same type of ignorance militant atheists show towards believers.

Is it too much to ask to allow me a response to the challenge before calling my statement ignorant? Really poor way to conduct a discussion, but I will do my best to restrain myself from behaving in-kind.

With regards to the three countries under discussion, the key distinction is the following.

Population per square mile:

United States: 84
Germany: 235(!)
Japan: 339(!!)

There is no comparison of what constitutes the "middle of nowhere" in the latter two countries when compared to the former. A system which maintains social cohesion in the latter two is not guaranteed to function similarly with the former.

I am fully willing to argue the notion the basket is more full than I imagine, but I'm not seeing a challenge beyond the basket is fuller for those in circumstances which are more akin to suburban rather than genuinely rural. As implied above, Japan and Nebraska aren't exactly comparable.

In fact, the premise of the entire article is why someone from Nebraska not only has little use for the observation "well, it works for Japan", but how that argument is in fact infuriating. Perhaps some of the arguments made there should be addressed?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

Population per square mile:

United States: 84
Germany: 235(!)
Japan: 339

It's worth pointing out that the nordics (with the sole exception of Denmark) all have a much lower population desnsity than the US and are among the most secular societies in the world.

I think there is much, much more going on in the US than religion as social cohesion in rural areas.

I've traveling way too much and I'm too jet-lagged to express myself coherently. I hope I'm making enough sense to contribute to the conversation.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it too much to ask to allow me a response to the challenge before calling my statement ignorant? Really poor way to conduct a discussion, but I will do my best to restrain myself from behaving in-kind.

With regards to the three countries under discussion, the key distinction is the following.

Population per square mile:

United States: 84
Germany: 235(!)
Japan: 339(!!)

There is no comparison of what constitutes the "middle of nowhere" in the latter two countries when compared to the former. A system which maintains social cohesion in the latter two is not guaranteed to function similarly with the former.

In case of Japan especially, the number population density you see is a bit misleading, because the population concentrates around 15 % of the area (essentially along the coast). In the remaining 85 % it is actually very, very low because of the mountainous terrain, and the communities there are typically very tight-knit. (That should also give you an idea of how dense the population in the remaining 15 % actually is.) In some parts, they can be cut off from the rest due to heavy rainfall or snow. They have had to rely upon one another in case of natural disasters for centuries, and that's part and parcel of this tight webbing.

You're completely right that the Japanese system might actually only work in Japan, but it's nevertheless an example of a the glue of society is not based on religion. The most successful civilizations had glues other than religion, e. g. the Roman and the Persian Empires were quite happy to let their different people's keep their own religion for centuries. My criticism was that you were writing from the perspective of someone where religion indeed was the glue, and that's completely fine. But to declare that in certain circumstances, religion is the only way, that's patently false.

Originally Posted by subego 

I am fully willing to argue the notion the basket is more full than I imagine, but I'm not seeing a challenge beyond the basket is fuller for those in circumstances which are more akin to suburban rather than genuinely rural. As implied above, Japan and Nebraska aren't exactly comparable.

Except that these places I was referring to are definitely not suburban. However, you are right that Japan and Nebraska are different, but then rural India and Nebraska are also different.

Originally Posted by subego 

In fact, the premise of the entire article is why someone from Nebraska not only has little use for the observation "well, it works for Japan", but how that argument is in fact infuriating. Perhaps some of the arguments made there should be addressed?

I never wrote that the Japanese model is supposed to work for Nebraska, so why do you? An a-religious Nebraska would probably look very differently, and judging by the trends, you'll find out sooner rather than later. Religion is not necessary for societies to be stable and prospering.

[Paco500]

To be fair, Shinto practices and traditions are pretty damn strong in rural Japan. While Shinto does not fit the mold of western religious practices, its somewhat analogous.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

To be fair, Shinto practices and traditions are pretty damn strong in rural Japan. While Shinto does not fit the mold of western religious practices, its somewhat analogous.

Many of the ubiquitous festivals are based around shrines, and they are just attractions that people go to because they are fun. In the same vein, most families in Japan contribute money to Buddhist temples so that they can keep their family grave (which can literally span generations) or get admission into the kindergarten. (In case of my wife's family grave, over 50 people are buried there.) But that's not necessarily an indication that you are a religious person.

In Germany there are very similar trends: if you want to marry in church or be buried on a graveyard associated to a church (e. g. to be near your family members), you often have to be in church and pay church taxes. You also have an easier time to get into a church-run (by paid-for-by-the-state) kindergarten. This has fooled some to take this for a higher level of religiosity than it actually is.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Many of the ubiquitous festivals are based around shrines, and they are just attractions that people go to because they are fun. In the same vein, most families in Japan contribute money to Buddhist temples so that they can keep their family grave (which can literally span generations) or get admission into the kindergarten. (In case of my wife's family grave, over 50 people are buried there.) But that's not necessarily an indication that you are a religious person.

In Germany there are very similar trends: if you want to marry in church or be buried on a graveyard associated to a church (e. g. to be near your family members), you often have to be in church and pay church taxes. You also have an easier time to get into a church-run (by paid-for-by-the-state) kindergarten. This has fooled some to take this for a higher level of religiosity than it actually is.

I don't disagree. The point I was trying to make is that in rural Japan, Shinto culture and traditions plays a similar role in social cohesion that Christianity does in rural America.

[Waragainstsleep]

It will surprise no-one to hear me say that I don't think its the religion part of religion that fulfils the social cohesion aspect of rural life. In the absence of religion people have parties and festivals for other reasons, charity fundraisers, school events, etc. A social structure will build up around what is there if the people want or need it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I don't disagree. The point I was trying to make is that in rural Japan, Shinto culture and traditions plays a similar role in social cohesion that Christianity does in rural America.

I'd rather say that you merely have established social structures that are being repurposed. In cities, these old structures, think of them as watering holes, have been replaced by, say, sports clubs and the like, but in rural areas you just have less choice and much slower turnover.

Let me give you an example: across my high school (which was right at the intersection of suburbia and the country-side) there was a small building that belonged to the protestant church nearby, and was mostly used for youth group activities. I literally had Ethics classes there (which you can electively take instead of Protestant or Catholic theology in case you are an atheist), and my friends and I had parties there. So what was exactly Christian about my Ethics class for atheists (and students with other religious affiliations)? Or what was particularly Buddhist about my wife's kindergarten? It just happened to be the closest kindergarten in the neighborhood. Ditto for my primary school.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In case of Japan especially, the number population density you see is a bit misleading, because the population concentrates around 15 % of the area (essentially along the coast). In the remaining 85 % it is actually very, very low because of the mountainous terrain, and the communities there are typically very tight-knit. (That should also give you an idea of how dense the population in the remaining 15 % actually is.) In some parts, they can be cut off from the rest due to heavy rainfall or snow. They have had to rely upon one another in case of natural disasters for centuries, and that's part and parcel of this tight webbing.

You're completely right that the Japanese system might actually only work in Japan, but it's nevertheless an example of a the glue of society is not based on religion. The most successful civilizations had glues other than religion, e. g. the Roman and the Persian Empires were quite happy to let their different people's keep their own religion for centuries. My criticism was that you were writing from the perspective of someone where religion indeed was the glue, and that's completely fine. But to declare that in certain circumstances, religion is the only way, that's patently false.

Except that these places I was referring to are definitely not suburban. However, you are right that Japan and Nebraska are different, but then rural India and Nebraska are also different.

I never wrote that the Japanese model is supposed to work for Nebraska, so why do you? An a-religious Nebraska would probably look very differently, and judging by the trends, you'll find out sooner rather than later. Religion is not necessary for societies to be stable and prospering.

I gather in Japan there's no place farther than 70 miles from a coast. Someone this close to a population center is well within the boundaries to take advantage of what the population center has to offer.

The article (and myself) are discussing situations where it's hundreds of miles to the nearest population center. This is a situation which essentially doesn't exist in Japan or Western Europe, whereas by geography, most of the U.S. is like this.

Hence my statement "well, it [a-religiosity] works for Japan". The "it" in that sentence isn't "the Japanese system", its "an a-religious system". That an a-religious system functions where the closest population center is 70 miles away does not address how an a-religious system will function when the population center is 300 miles away.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

.... most families in Japan contribute money to Buddhist temples so that they can keep their family grave (which can literally span generations).......... (In case of my wife's family grave, over 50 people are buried there.) But that's not necessarily an indication that you are a religious person.

In Germany there are very similar trends: if you want to marry in church or be buried on a graveyard associated to a church (e. g. to be near your family members), you often have to be in church and pay church taxes. You also have an easier time to get into a church-run (by paid-for-by-the-state) kindergarten. This has fooled some to take this for a higher level of religiosity than it actually is.

Or perhaps it's fooled people into thinking they're not religious

What difference does it make where your grave or anyone elses is if you're truly not a religious person or society? You dont believe in a soul /spirit right? And why would non religous people want to be married in a church? In the U.S. even religious people often dont get married in churches as there's all kinds of alternative nice places to get married. Sounds incredibly religious to me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Or perhaps it's fooled people into thinking they're not religious

What difference does it make where your grave or anyone elses is if you're truly not a religious person or society? You dont believe in a soul /spirit right?

Are you asking whether I'd like to have a grave? No, I'll donate my organs to people in need and my body to science. But I think the discussion is quite different if it's about the grave of others. I wouldn't impose my preferences on, say, my grandmother (who was a Christian Scientist and definitely wanted a grave) or any other relative for that matter. So I don't see paying for a lot in a graveyard not as a sign of being a closeted believer.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Are you asking whether I'd like to have a grave? No, I'll donate my organs to people in need and my body to science.

No thats not what I was asking. I wasnt using "you're grave" to mean you but in a general sense.

But I think the discussion is quite different if it's about the grave of others. I wouldn't impose my preferences on, say, my grandmother (who was a Christian Scientist and definitely wanted a grave) or any other relative for that matter. So I don't see paying for a lot in a graveyard not as a sign of being a closeted believer.

You said these were largely non religious societies. If thats the case the "preference" of others wouldnt matter because they wouldnt be religious, after all, most of them wouldnt want graves. But you implied they were all essentially pretending to be religious because a grave was so important to them. Hell I'm religious and even I have no need for a grave, it's useless.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

The article (and myself) are discussing situations where it's hundreds of miles to the nearest population center. This is a situation which essentially doesn't exist in Japan or Western Europe, whereas by geography, most of the U.S. is like this.

Except in Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Except in Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Well, I did say Western Europe, but this is a fair point, and I'm glad it was repeated.

Here's what I'd guess about the scenario in Scandinavia.

Like Japan, you have the major population centers on the coasts, and the vast majority of the "rural" population is, like Japan, not farther than an hour-and-a-half drive away from something more happening.

More importantly however, and this is the key distinction with the United States, those parts of Scandinavia more than a 80 miles inland, aren't really vital to a modern Scandinavian's continued existence.

In the United States, that Nebraskan, religious hellscape is the reason my secular, cosmopolitan utopia here in the city gets to exist. We'd starve to death without it.

The secular, cosmopolitan, Scandinavian utopia gets to exist because the back yard is a 24/7 cod party.

[P]

I should show this post to my brother in law, who is from the north of Sweden...

Anyway: you're mostly right about the population centers. In Sweden there are more or less three areas centered around the three biggest cities where most of the people live, and the north is sparse - even more so in the inland areas up north. I don't agree that we could get by just fine without it, though. Most of the hydroelectric power comes from there (some 50% of the electric power), there is extensive mining which has been very important to the industrialization of Sweden (and got is involved in world politics too often), and there is a lot of lumber industry in the sparsely populated areas further south. Could that be replaced by imports? I'm sure, but then you could import your food (the UK does, mostly).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

You said these were largely non religious societies. If thats the case the "preference" of others wouldnt matter because they wouldnt be religious, after all, most of them wouldnt want graves.

The grave is several generations old, I reckon it is at least 100 years old, so it was started at a time when Japanese were more religious than they are now. And again, I disagree that I need to impose my non-belief onto others, I think that'd be arrogant and rude. You are right that to me their beliefs don't matter, but the people themselves do (including the other living relatives for whom the family grave is important).

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

But you implied they were all essentially pretending to be religious because a grave was so important to them. Hell I'm religious and even I have no need for a grave, it's useless.

No, I didn't imply they were pretending to be religious.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence my statement "well, it [a-religiosity] works for Japan". The "it" in that sentence isn't "the Japanese system", its "an a-religious system". That an a-religious system functions where the closest population center is 70 miles away does not address how an a-religious system will function when the population center is 300 miles away.

Conversely, you brought forth no arguments why in the latter situation you need religion as societal glue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Conversely, you brought forth no arguments why in the latter situation you need religion as societal glue.

Because life there sucks.

It's soul-crushingly boring, the economy has little use for education, there's no social mobility, most people are poor, the infrastructure is a disaster, and there aren't enough people to make a voting bloc the government will take notice of.

If given the opportunity, there is almost zero reason to stay.

The one reason which exists is the sense of community. It's religion which fosters that community. It's religion which says it is a duty to God to make the sacrifice required to keep the community afloat.

A tangible benefit is received in return. The people in these communities watch each other's backs. In the city, it's government who does this watching.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The one reason which exists is the sense of community. It's religion which fosters that community. It's religion which says it is a duty to God to make the sacrifice required to keep the community afloat.

But why can't something else that inspires kinship take the place? I also don't see how Christianity “commands” these people to stay (and suffer). Again, the only thing I take issue with is that only religion can take this role, not that religion still is an integral part in these communities.

Originally Posted by subego 

A tangible benefit is received in return. The people in these communities watch each other's backs. In the city, it's government who does this watching.

Yeah, but again, religion isn't the reason people watch each other's backs, it's that these people form a tightly-knit community where everybody knows everybody. But honestly, this is nothing that special that only happens when you are hundreds of km away from the next town.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But why can't something else that inspires kinship take the place? I also don't see how Christianity “commands” these people to stay (and suffer). Again, the only thing I take issue with is that only religion can take this role, not that religion still is an integral part in these communities.

Yeah, but again, religion isn't the reason people watch each other's backs, it's that these people form a tightly-knit community where everybody knows everybody. But honestly, this is nothing that special that only happens when you are hundreds of km away from the next town.

It's not a question of inspiring kinship, it's a question of inspiring sacrifice. The question put forth to every rural American is "do I flee for greener pastures in the city, or make the sacrifice to stay?"

Religion considers this to be a noble sacrifice. That's the command.

The soccer club doesn't really concern itself with such philosophical questions.

[el chupacabra]

What kinds of things can people do for fun in the city that they cant do in the nebraska countryside?

[subego]

To steal a joke from the article, see a live musical performance that isn't country.

In less snarky terms, the city doesn't offer different types of fun, it offers more variety within almost every type of fun not falling under the category of "outdoor activities".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No thats not what I was asking. I wasnt using "you're grave" to mean you but in a general sense.



You said these were largely non religious societies. If thats the case the "preference" of others wouldnt matter because they wouldnt be religious, after all, most of them wouldnt want graves. But you implied they were all essentially pretending to be religious because a grave was so important to them. Hell I'm religious and even I have no need for a grave, it's useless.

Last time I checked, Japan still suffered from an unhealthy adherence to tradition.

After all, just because I celebrate Christmas doesn't make me religious.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

What kinds of things can people do for fun in the city that they cant do in the nebraska countryside?

I'm too anti-social to answer this

[subego]

I'm anti-social too!

But I like stuffing my face, and within two blocks my options are...

Good diner
Shitty diner
Chipotle tacos
Drunk people tacos
Sit-down tacos
Fancy tacos
Salad shop
Chinese
Fancy Japanese
Low-rent Japanese
Fast-food Japanese
Vietnamese sammiches
Pastry
Brazilian
Chicken Hut
Decent pub food
Decent pub food at a brewery
Shit from Mariano's (new!)
Hot dogs without ketchup
And
Jewish deli where pastrami dies and goes to heaven.

[The Final Dakar]

Food strikes me as a limited activity

[subego]

Limited in what sense? I eat food pretty much every day.

[The Final Dakar]

When I think of a lack of options in rural America I think if entertainment, not food.

[subego]

Hence me expanding the categories for which there are a lack of options to beyond entertainment.

Phun phact: I used to hang in southern Wisconsin a lot. It was extraordinarily difficult to get good cheese. The reason? The good stuff all gets sent to Chicago.

[andi*pandi]

Variety of food is a valid comparison, as is quality. Even if East Overshoe, NE has a chinese food place, chances are it is a horrible horrible place. I grew up in the country, 30 minutes to a small city with shops/restaurants, 90 minutes to a big city with GOOD shops/restaurants.

City Fun activities:
Theatre - dance, plays, comedy, opera, classical music, small indy bands, performances (blue man group type)
Theaters - movies beyond the top hollywood blockbusters
Dance clubs
bookstores
stores that don't end in -Mart
family friendly entertainment: bowling, pool, arcades, 5wits, room puzzles, trampoline parks
theme/water parks
driving to the country

Rural "fun" activities:
Community Theater
School Theater
Church suppers
Diners
Gas station pizza/sub shops
Local farm to table high end restaurant people go to for birthdays and anniversaries
School sports
Outdoor activities: skiing, biking, hiking, fishing, boating, horseback riding
Picking fresh produce and cooking it the same day
Grilling
driving to the city

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not a question of inspiring kinship, it's a question of inspiring sacrifice. The question put forth to every rural American is "do I flee for greener pastures in the city, or make the sacrifice to stay?"

Religion considers this to be a noble sacrifice. That's the command.

I'm quite sure there is no command in the Bible to “stay where you are born and suffer”. In my observation a lot has to do with inertia to change.

Originally Posted by subego 

The soccer club doesn't really concern itself with such philosophical questions.

It doesn't have to, it just needs to fulfill the role of the watering hole of the community. Really, you have these “dying” communities everywhere, they are just an effect of the increasing urbanization.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Last time I checked, Japan still suffered from an unhealthy adherence to tradition.

After all, just because I celebrate Christmas doesn't make me religious.

I think the analogy to Christmas is quite apt. To me it's a family holiday even though I am not religious. To Japanese it means even less, because it is just something commercial. They do have similar traditions for New Year, though, i. e. meeting family, eating tons of good food and drinking. That seems quite universal in all of humanity.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Variety of food is a valid comparison, as is quality. Even if East Overshoe, NE has a chinese food place, chances are it is a horrible horrible place. I grew up in the country, 30 minutes to a small city with shops/restaurants, 90 minutes to a big city with GOOD shops/restaurants.

City Fun activities:
Theatre - dance, plays, comedy, opera, classical music, small indy bands, performances (blue man group type)
Theaters - movies beyond the top hollywood blockbusters
Dance clubs
bookstores
stores that don't end in -Mart
family friendly entertainment: bowling, pool, arcades, 5wits, room puzzles, trampoline parks
theme/water parks
driving to the country

Rural "fun" activities:
Community Theater
School Theater
Church suppers
Diners
Gas station pizza/sub shops
Local farm to table high end restaurant people go to for birthdays and anniversaries
School sports
Outdoor activities: skiing, biking, hiking, fishing, boating, horseback riding
Picking fresh produce and cooking it the same day
Grilling
driving to the city

From my college experience it was the kids who were from rural areas that did the most drugs and drank in high school since they had nothing else to do out in podunk. The runners up were the kids who had gone to boarding schools only they drank less and had done a much better quality of drugs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm quite sure there is no command in the Bible to “stay where you are born and suffer”. In my observation a lot has to do with inertia to change.

It doesn't have to, it just needs to fulfill the role of the watering hole of the community. Really, you have these “dying” communities everywhere, they are just an effect of the increasing urbanization.

The irony being, in the case of the United States, what these dying communities produce is what allows urbanization to happen.

I strongly disagree with the notion the mere existence of a watering hole is enough to keep a tiny community together. What does this watering hole have the watering holes (plural, by two orders of magnitude) in the city do not?

This leads into what the Bible commands, or more precisely, what churches command. They command one consider family to be of primary importance, and likewise consider the church they attend to be of primary importance.

While the command is not directly "stay and suffer", the commands of "suffer for family" and "suffer for your church" add up to what might as well be a command to stay. Or at least, what I claimed above, which is that Christianity considers this a noble sacrifice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I strongly disagree with the notion the mere existence of a watering hole is enough to keep a tiny community together. What does this watering hole have the watering holes (plural, by two orders of magnitude) in the city do not?

I think you got it backwards: to survive small communities have watering holes, and if they don't exist, they'll form spontaneously. They are important in ways that they aren't in bigger cities. When I lived in the rural US, things like convenient store in the next town was the location where young people met to hang out (mine with <500 inhabitants was too small to have one). Others were football games, and for other people, gatherings organized by their Church. In other parts of the world, this could be a soccer club, a shooting range or a temple.

Originally Posted by subego 

While the command is not directly "stay and suffer", the commands of "suffer for family" and "suffer for your church" add up to what might as well be a command to stay. Or at least, what I claimed above, which is that Christianity considers this a noble sacrifice.

Again, I don't think this is a precept of a certain flavor of Christianity, it's just a conflation of local culture with the teachings of Christianity. Their community is still their home, and one of the reasons people resist moving is that this would contribute to the death of the community they came from. Still, a lot of young people will move to other parts of the country where they can get jobs and make a more convenient life for them. The one who stay tend to be people who either feel they can't move or don't want to leave their home.

[subego]

I'd say the above is backwards.

Rural life offers a watering hole spontaneously created around a convenience store in the next town over. This is precisely why people leave. The convenience store, a game of footie (American or otherwise), and time at the range simply don't compare to the socialization options one has in an urban environment. This is to say nothing of the options for upward mobility.

I likewise posit the devotion one shows to a convenience store is not so subtly different from the devotion one shows to their church. My guess would be the eternal soul aspect has relevance, but I don't want to downplay how nice it is to have immediate access to the Slurpee machine.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Except in Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

I didn't realize they're in Western Europe.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When I think of a lack of options in rural America I think if entertainment, not food.

We have plenty, but they're not the same types of entertainment. For instance, last night we went on a "haunted hayride", with a horse-drawn wagon (very Tim Burton-esque) followed by a creepy as hell cornfield maze, an outdoor viewing of Sleepy Hollow, and chili competition (where my wife's "Bison 4 Alarm" placed 2nd). It was all a lot of fun. If anything I think city dwellers are oversaturated with options.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't realize they're in Western Europe.

Italy is like "scusi..."

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't realize they're in Western Europe.

That's a weird map. Back before the fall of the Iron Curtain, there was frequently a Western and Eastern, with Eastern being the Warsaw block + Yugoslavia, and Western being the rest (including Greece, which is pretty far to the east. These days it is sometimes split up a bit more, but if Scandinavia is off on its own then Western Europe also doesn't include Spain and Portugal.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I likewise posit the devotion one shows to a convenience store is not so subtly different from the devotion one shows to their church. My guess would be the eternal soul aspect has relevance, but I don't want to downplay how nice it is to have immediate access to the Slurpee machine.

Yeah, but neither slurpee machine nor church are stopping a migration towards urban centers, so why do you think religion is more successful at keeping people there? (Not that I think it is the job of religion to guilt people into staying where they are.) Because in your mind people who haven't left rural Nebraska cling to religion more strongly than people in the city to give them a sense of identity?