David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at 

What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.

> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
> descriptive value.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt

Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different 
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a 
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.

As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.

> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
> seen such
> discrimination.

Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet 
I don't doubt it happens.

However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your 
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice 
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything 
bad about you.

> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.

Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my 
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message