[subego]

Here's my theory.

Rural America is unique. Europe, outside of the CIS, doesn't have an equivalent. Rural Europe is far more densely populated, and much less isolated.

Also, every country in Europe is based to one extent or another on monarchy and ethnic nationalism. America never had a monarchy, and we are strongly dissuaded from tying nationalism to ethnicity.

On top of this, America is big. Really freaking big. There's a massive difference in how far a European government needs to stretch to reach its most rural citizenry compared to the American federal government.

To sum up, rural American communities are...

Far more isolated than any community in Europe.
Can't really count on the proximity or aid of centralized government.
Have nothing concrete, such as ethnicity or generations of fealty, upon which to anchor their nationalism.

I propose the only thing keeping these communities coherent is religion. Without it, they'd fall apart, and the rest of the country, who is dependent upon their sacrifice, would fall apart with it.

That's why America is obsessed with religion... to the confusion of most Europeans, and even a large segment of Americans. It's our "dirty little secret". We can't function as a country without it.

While I'm firmly on "team rationalism", I'm forced to admit my team has been unable to come up with a better solution.

[Laminar]

What does "fall apart" mean?

It seems as if you're saying that if you took away rural churches, farmers would stop growing crops. I'd venture a guess and say farmers are much more dependent on federal subsidies than local churches.

[andi*pandi]

I was with you until "and the rest of the country, who is dependent upon their sacrifice..."

what the what?

[Jawbone54]

Yeah, I don't buy it.

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers, and I'm not sure that's a road you're wanting to go down.

[reader50]

You're leaving out worship of the almighty dollar. Also, nightly worship of the TV set. There's more than one religion at play here.

[subego]

What I mean by fall apart is collapse under the weight of petty squabbles.

It behaves like the sheriff of a Wild West frontier town, except the buy-in is a belief in God rather than fear of what comes out of a sixgun.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers

Sounds like the big city to me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I was with you until "and the rest of the country, who is dependent upon their sacrifice..."

what the what?

Since us urbanites want to eat, we demand a certain segment of our society do backbreaking work in isolated communities out in the middle of nowhere.

I think calling that a sacrifice is fair.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers

To answer in less of a one-liner style, urban dwellers have more of a choice in the matter. Urban centers have the population density to generate the revenue to make a government large enough to act as a force for social cohesion, which is what it does.

A rural community doesn't have the critical mass to swing this.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers, and I'm not sure that's a road you're wanting to go down.

This.

(Or maybe we should discuss what eventually happens when one does go down that road. There's more than enough historical data available)

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

To answer in less of a one-liner style, urban dwellers have more of a choice in the matter. Urban centers have the population density to generate the revenue to make a government large enough to act as a force for social cohesion, which is what it does.

Like Detroit...

...and Chicago...

[EDIT] Not to speak in sweeping generalities, but I've visited NYC, DC, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, and other large American cities. If there's one common thread that I've seen among many of the residents, it's that urban life has taught them to treat other people as either obstacles or pure crap. The exceptions to this (in my personal experience, at least) were San Francisco and Austin, where I found myself striking up conversations with extremely friendly strangers. Not to offend our Northeastern 'NNers, but the Northeast is easily the least friendly region I've ever visited. I certainly don't think a person has to be religious to be nice/ethical, but it wouldn't hurt some of them to at least try it out, because their strong governments haven't exactly been the utopia they'd anticipated.

[EDIT, EDIT] Another exception: Toronto, but that doesn't count, because Canadians.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Like Detroit...

...and Chicago...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

EDIT>>I have to add that if someone individually wants to replace God with govt, it's their right to do so, just dont cram it down the throats (or out f the pockets) of others who don't subscribe to that particular "religion".

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[subego]

Where did I say the government model of social cohesion was awesome?

It sorta functions. That's the best I can say about it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sorta functions. That's the best I can say about it.

Exactly. It sort of functions.

If my car "sort of functioned," I would never get behind the wheel, and I certainly wouldn't put my kids in the back seat.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, I don't buy it.

Neither do I. It's a factor, but so it nationalism, profession (think coal or gas or oil), ethnicity, tradition, values.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers, and I'm not sure that's a road you're wanting to go down.

Oh, I've already heard that accusation. Its the mistake a mind that finds comfort in a higher power thinking all people must need that same comfort. I apologize for the negative metaphor, but its like thief who thinks everyone steals.

Edit:

Originally Posted by subego 

To answer in less of a one-liner style, urban dwellers have more of a choice in the matter. Urban centers have the population density to generate the revenue to make a government large enough to act as a force for social cohesion, which is what it does.

A rural community doesn't have the critical mass to swing this.

Funny, I would say urban centers have enough diversity to allow people to find belonging in a variety of groups (ethnic, sports, hobbies, etc.)

Edit 2:

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

[EDIT] Not to speak in sweeping generalities, but I've visited NYC, DC, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, and other large American cities. If there's one common thread that I've seen among many of the residents, it's that urban life has taught them to treat other people as either obstacles or pure crap. The exceptions to this (in my personal experience, at least) were San Francisco and Austin, where I found myself striking up conversations with extremely friendly strangers. Not to offend our Northeastern 'NNers, but the Northeast is easily the least friendly region I've ever visited. I certainly don't think a person has to be religious to be nice/ethical, but it wouldn't hurt some of them to at least try it out, because their strong governments haven't exactly been the utopia they'd anticipated.

Interesting dichotomy here: As I see it, the rural is more about isolation (being left alone) and individuality, yet we say they're more homogenous (subego claims by religion). Meanwhile, the urban, as you point out, ignore you and are more diverse (even though they are more communal in their politics).

****ing make sense of that.

[andi*pandi]

I don't care for any of these generalizations.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, I've already heard that accusation. Its the mistake a mind that finds comfort in a higher power thinking all people must need that same comfort. I apologize for the negative metaphor, but its like thief who thinks everyone steals.

I hope you, and others here, know by this point that you guys aren't going to offend me if you criticize my religious sensibilities. 'NN has been helpful to me precisely because you guys are willing to speak your minds on the matter. Same goes for you too, subego. All of you guys.

Now that's out of the way, the discomfort the irreligious feel with the religious stems from the mandate that accompanies the Gospel:

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

It's what Penn Jillette pointed out in his YouTube video years ago: if a Christian actually believes the Bible, then they have to proselytize, because otherwise they're not just crappy Christians, but crappy human beings. If I truly believe that God didn't just save me, but wants to save my friends, neighbors, family, etc., then I have a moral obligation to share the Gospel with them.

That is going to create a lot of discomfort, especially with people who have been burned by supposedly religious people or religious institutions.

Funny, I would say urban centers have enough diversity to allow people to find belonging in a variety of groups (ethnic, sports, hobbies, etc.)

Pulling back into the Law of 150's driveway here. Human beings aren't meant to function in such large groups, so we gravitate to small groups of likeminded individuals, even in cities with massive populations. That's usually when we wind up acting like actual people, IMHO.

Interesting dichotomy here: As I see it, the rural is more about isolation (being left alone) and individuality, yet we say they're more homogenous (subego claims by religion). Meanwhile, the urban, as you point out, ignore you and are more diverse (even though they are more communal in their politics).

****ing make sense of that.

Yeah, I can't.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I don't care for any of these generalizations.

Your kind usually doesn't.
bazinga

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I hope you, and others here, know by this point that you guys aren't going to offend me if you criticize my religious sensibilities.

I put that both out of genuine feeling and because you're not the only religious person who will read it.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Now that's out of the way, the discomfort the irreligious feel with the religious stems from the mandate that accompanies the Gospel:


It's what Penn Jillette pointed out in his YouTube video years ago: if a Christian actually believes the Bible, then they have to proselytize, because otherwise they're not just crappy Christians, but crappy human beings. If I truly believe that God didn't just save me, but wants to save my friends, neighbors, family, etc., then I have a moral obligation to share the Gospel with them.

That is going to create a lot of discomfort, especially with people who have been burned by supposedly religious people or religious institutions.

I'm not sure how this addresses my point, because I'm kind of talking about the opposite – the inability of the religious to comprehend the irreligious.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Pulling back into the Law of 150's driveway here. Human beings aren't meant to function in such large groups, so we gravitate to small groups of likeminded individuals, even in cities with massive populations. That's usually when we wind up acting like actual people, IMHO.

I agree that the groups collapse after a certain size. Much like there's a limit on how many 'friends' a person can really have.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, I can't.

But do you agree with the observation on its surface?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Exactly. It sort of functions.

If my car "sort of functioned," I would never get behind the wheel, and I certainly wouldn't put my kids in the back seat.

And then they never get to go places and will remain isolated.

To be clear, I'm not saying either choice is correct, I'm saying regardless of the choice, there will be trade-offs.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Your kind usually doesn't.
bazinga

You're still mad I cut down your tree that time, aren't you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Interesting dichotomy here: As I see it, the rural is more about isolation (being left alone) and individuality, yet we say they're more homogenous (subego claims by religion). Meanwhile, the urban, as you point out, ignore you and are more diverse (even though they are more communal in their politics).

****ing make sense of that.

Let's call out the elephant in the room...

Urban centers are blue. Rural communities are red.

[subego]

And I meant ethnically homogenous. Individual rural communities are ethnically homogeneous.

Edit: but are really frowned upon should they want to use that as a mechanism to foster social cohesion... as well they should be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I hope you, and others here, know by this point that you guys aren't going to offend me if you criticize my religious sensibilities. 'NN has been helpful to me precisely because you guys are willing to speak your minds on the matter. Same goes for you too, subego. All of you guys.

Thank you.

Here's the thing though. I'm arguing religion as a force for good.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, I don't buy it.

It feels like what you're getting at is that government replaces God for urban dwellers, and I'm not sure that's a road you're wanting to go down.

Nah, most urbanites worship themselves, in a manner of speaking, they're their own gods.

[BadKosh]

People bond during disasters and tragic events more in the rural areas. Usually things are more localized too. This closeness, and general familiarization with the people and area is what brings folks together. That they are religious is a by-product of a more harsh life.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nah, most urbanites worship themselves, in a manner of speaking, they're their own gods.

That's fair.

The contrast I'm trying to draw is rural communities would self-destruct if they had that attitude. The reason they don't is because of religion.

The only reason godless urbanites such as my self don't starve to death is religion.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Monsanto is a deity?

[subego]

It's all fun and games until there is no more okra.

[Waragainstsleep]

The difference in group sizes brings obvious differences in attitudes.

When you live in a big city, you are either at work, at play or navigating the obstacles between instances of each. Sensibly you are only going to be at ease, relaxed, comfortable and friendly when you are at play. Unless the navigation between places is pleasant. Is it possible that going from A to B in San Francisco is much nicer than it is New York? I'm guessing having never been near either that SF has advantages in both weather and traffic for starters.

Anyhow, in a smaller rural community, everyone tends to know everyone. And you cannot escape that. There are people who knew your parents and their parents they know your kids and they expect to know your grandkids. If you do something brilliant or something shameful, everyone will know about it and you cannot escape it unless you leave. They will of course find other things to talk about soon enough whether you stay or go. In the city you don't have that. If you are in a particularly specific scene, you have it to a smaller extent, but you can avoid that scene or change scenes altogether. You don't have to move away to disappear. You are surrounded by people who don't have the capacity to know you or each other because there are far too many of you.

Some people like anonymity, some people like being surrounded by people who know them and knowing someone is quite often the same thing as caring about them. Or close to it. People in a small group will give you better support than a large one who don't know you well enough to like you. This is a common argument in favour of religion, it creates such a group, even among larger anonymous groups.

I've always held its not the religion thats the important part. Its spending time together and getting to know each other. Religion is just the excuse to do that. It could easily be any number of hobbies or interests in common, (like it is in cities) but people don't tend to experiment with their religions as much as their hobbies or tastes. They tend to be born with one and they'll usually stick with it until they die. And they'll pass it on to their kids too. We've already mentioned the homogenous nature of rural areas.
Plus the truth is that you need other people out there. If you have a bad crop one year, your neighbours will whip round and help cover you. You'll do the same for them in other years. It takes a village. Farmers have always been like that, look at the Amish when they build barns.

So my take is that its not the religion holding things together. As much as that will surprise none of you. Maybe it gets in the way less than it does in cities?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Monsanto is a deity?

Would you like Zyklon B with that GMO burger?
Bayer's Monsanto bid to create biggest agricultural supplier - BBC News