I’ve learned to expect that here on the SDMB.
What did the English civil war have to do with seccesionism or religious ghettoisation? I’m very familiar with the period and I don’t recall there being a strong element where either side was advocating for either.
Or do you mean the American civil war? That would make sense.
The connection between statements like this and reality is abundantly tenuous. I teach college in the South, and even spend time around a lot of religious fundamentalists, and these attitudes are simply non-existent. I have never encountered a defender of slavery or theocracy (though I have encountered racists). You can find lone nuts in every society in the world; you can’t extrapolate their opinions to the whole population.
I meant to the extent that the English civil war was a Puritan attempt to establish a theocracy (which admittedly was only one facet of a complex struggle).
Pakistan
Most Dixie apologists agree that slavery was wrong and argue instead if the South had won it would have died out peacefully anyways. Not to mention Saudi Arabia is a state that uses decapitation, stones adulterers, and forbids women to drive.
I expect an independent Dixie to be a Protestant version of Poland or Chile or Ireland.
I see what you’re saying, but that’s a retrospective rationalisation for what happened. The organised church was a strong supporter of the King and the absolutist position, so when the civil war finally broke out those that were opposed to the monarchy and/or the absolutist position were often religious dissenters, or sympathetic to that cause. As it was the faction that overlapped with the dissenters that won the war they then had the freedom to establish the religious order as well as the political order (and this was largely driven by Cromwell and his supporters). The war hadn’t been started to create a puritanical state, it was simply a legacy of it. I think this is born out by the fact it only lasted as long as Cromwell’s reign did. After the restoration of the monarchy the faction that supported puritanism started to lose influence and eventually turned into the religiously extreme but politically insignificant movements like the quakers (many of whom had packed off to the colonies by this point).
Yeah, and what a fantastic example of a successful country that is.
There’d be a lynching inside of five minutes.
That said, yes, there are millions of wonderful and kind people throughout the South.
But someone is getting lynched in the first five minutes.
What does that mean? Poland, Chile, and Ireland are disparate countries. Sure they all have a Catholic tradition and (IIRC) all bar abortion but don’t have any other striking similarities.
I’m thinking Pinochet’s Chile, with the social welfare apparatus of 20th-Century Eire, and Warsaw Pact Poland’s ban on dissident labor unions.
With barbecue.
I think Virginia would be split, the Northern Virgina mega-city would not become part of the new republic, the rest would probably go. Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News, Virginia Beach, etc.) could go either way.
I meant in the sense it would have elements of all three countries especially the strong voice of religion without being a theocracy.,
I think your perception of Ireland is a bit out of date. The catholic church still largely controls primary and secondary education but its role outside of weddings/funerals/communions/confirmations has never been more diminished. I, for one, am thankful for that. Secularisation has taken longer in Ireland than in other parts of Europe but it is happening.