David H. Burns wrote:
> So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism" 
> (another prejudicial and emotive term)

What's prejudicial about the term?  Are you saying there aren't protestant 
fundamentalists?

> is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that). 

So you're arguing with the words in definitions now? You don't know what the 
word "dominant" applies to when used to refer to a population of people?

> Why call it the "Bible Belt" 

Because it's a description of how people in that belt of land interpret the 
bible. Do you not know the definition of "bible", or of "belt"?

> and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And 
> who drew them? :)

I don't know, but it's been a term in common use for decades, so arguing 
that it's meaningless is just playing silly buggers. You'd like to take 
offense, but since there's really nothing to take offense at, you're having 
a hard time coming up with reasonable objections.

Do you think that protestant fundamentalism *isn't* dominant in those areas, 
compared to other religions?

-- 
   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