It has been my personal experience that, the more educated a American Southerner becomes, the more that he/she accepts the notion of doing the same thing to the North that the North has done to the South as being morally permissible. And that frightens me, because I understand that they are honest and good people.

http://www.palmetto.org/doc-001.htm

That said. The southerners are deeply religous people, with a different interpretation of Christianity than I was brought up to believe. I dont think any Blue State people really care what your religion is, as long as your religion is NOT used as justification for discrimination, and/or making public policy. Religion is a personal choice, and in 2007 we are a nation of many different faiths, and many people who actually don’t subscribe to any religous doctrine whatsoever. I belong to the latter. Having been raised Catholic, and I have left the church, never to return.

Even though I have Catholic roots, I am offended that people are using religion to dictate policy in the U.S. I believe that it is dangerous to do so, not to mention I think those Born Again ministers are scary scary people, whom I wouldn’t want to have ANY role whatsoever in formulating how the most powerful nation on the planet goes about its business.

As much as some Evangelicals seem dedicated to having the Bible replace the Constitution, I am personally dedicated to protecting the seperation of Church and State. If this country does turn into a theocracy, America will not be America anymore, and I think you might see a whole lot of people trying to move to Canada or Europe, maybe thats a little alarmist, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility

There is absolutely nothing racist or controlling about protecting your community from liars and criminals. It is nothing other than a moral duty.

We in the Deep South, both white and black, have traditionally viewed fraternal groups as our only line of defense against organized crime families. As we see it, the Lincoln-apologists (the ones who truly understand what the Civil War was all about) are the folks who seek to intimidate entire communities.

“Every oak tree was once an acorn, but even a squirrel can see the difference.”

What does that mean? That the South wasn’t about racism in the late 1800’s, but it is now? If so, why and how did this change come about? According to official story, you’ve got your timeline of ideological-change in reverse. I think a better approach would be to throw out the official story altogether and let the scientific method figure it out.

The standard historical myth is like a building made of cards in that it tends to collapse in on itself; it is necessary to craft one’s conceptual framework using stone or brick.

I’ve lived in Texas most of my life. It’s not the Deep South. Much of my family migrated out of Georgia early in the 20th century. We still have ties with family in that state.

The KKK may have started out as a much different organization, but in Texas its a very racist one with Masonic ties. It keeps members loyal by having them engage in embarrassing activities and sometimes crimes, then using it as leverage against its members. Much as organized crime families do. In the KKK in Texas, this starts at an early age with teenagers encouraged to commit acts of vandalism and other crimes against people who refuse to join.

The KKK may not have started as a racist enterprise and a means to control a community through the leverage of dirty secrets, but that is what it is now.

Every oak tree was once an acorn, but even a squirrel can see the difference.

I do it partially to fool you, but mostly to tick you off…and a little because I love so many Southern Baptist people ; )

The identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is New England stuff through and through. It is exactly the type of “religion” that was used to deify Lincoln and justify the conquest of the South in 1861–1865. In New England history it is the stage they went through between the hyper-Calvinism of their early days and their present atheism. It did not arrive in America until the early 20th century when various evangelists began imitating the style and content of the New Englander Billy Sunday. (See “The Real Old Time Religion” by the late theologian A.J. Conyers in Vol. 23, No. 3, one of the most important articles ever published in Southern Partisan.)
Many Americans are starting to show less of our traditional patriotic loyalty and more of the New England nationalism that thinks the U.S. government and the President can do no wrong and are entitled to bomb anybody who disagrees. In both religion and politics the dilution of American tradition has been a loss to America – and to the whole U.S.
There have been grave mistakes in the course of American history, apart from the original one of going naïvely into a Union with bad people. There was Bragg commanding the Army of Tennessee and Longstreet fumbling at Gettysburg. In the same class is the decision of American leaders, when they were kicked out of the Democratic Party, to join the Republicans rather than form our own party. As a result we are powerless ; ) It was inevitable but nevertheless a great loss ; )
All of American history has been distorted but no part more so than Reconstruction. We’ve been living under a New England version of Orwellian Newspeak ever since 1865. In “Destroying the Republic: Jabez Curry and the Re-Education of the Old South” John Chodes shows that Reconstruction was more than a horror of military domination and economic exploitation. It was also a program of ideological and ethnic cleansing which continues to damage the American people in our own time.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson21.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875864015/qid=1138570940/sr=12-1/103-5778968-7205468?/lewrockwell/

Jack, to me, it is obvious that you do not conceptualize the angle from which I view this film. I am an orthodox Darwinian materialist (a follower/copier of Richard Dawkins)…I have actually achieved an education and have long-since abandoned any sense of religious faith/dogma, as hard as that may sound coming from a red-stater. And yes, I voted for Dubbya. I’m the descendent of several high-ranking American/Confederate officers and politicians, and call the Deep South my home and family. I love everything about it, especially the black folks. The label “Ku Klux Klan” holds no racist connotation in my mind, as the original group did not fight for slavery, but rather for the oppressed and the slaves themselves.

It’s not something easy to understand unless you yourself are native to the Deep South and incorporate the place into your sense of self-identity. I have no choice but to love myself and my family, by definition. It is what I am as a human being. Any attack on the Confederacy is an attack on Americans in general and the spirit of America in particular, from my point of view. To me, America was born in Jamestown, not Plymouth. Plymouth, to me, is a New England city, and not an American city. Since birth, I’ve been raised to perceive reality/self-identity/nationhood from the viewpoint of occupation and defeat.

To me, the Zeitgeist is and always has been in Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Carolina. New England, in my mind, is and always has been a separate entity and occupying economic force. In the same way that New Englanders have considered the UK a separate entity since the First Revolution, we in the Deep South have considered New England to be a separate entity since what we call the Second Revolution. And this very real dichotomy between the minds in the Deep South and the Deep North is where rests the source of most, if not all, of our political disagreements within the United States.

Thomas Jefferson pointed to the phenomenon of New England just before his election as president when he wrote: “It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.”

…

I saw it last night and I thought Michael did an excellent job in interviewing and keeping his composure. Though he did pose some questions that came across as bait for a rant, we all understood as did the people he interviewed, that those questions would be posed.

To give a bit of insight, into where I’m coming from, I was born in Texas and have lived here most of my life. I’ve attended a few churches in Texas and am well acquainted wth bigotry that is far worse than anything presented in Michael’s film.

What I think troubled a few folks in the film and may trouble you is that many people have a thin veneer of civility, under which our unexamined beliefs play a large part in the way we view the world and how we interact with it. Out of decency and civility, we keep this side hidden from our conscious self and from others.

The woman in the film discussing what kind of people she would sell her house to, clearly upset herself. Michael asked simply questions such as, “Why would you think that?”, and she seemed to be upset be the answers she herself was giving.

The religious leaders in the film have their faith to give themselves confidence. If you believe in something absolutely, you can use your faith as a bulwark against anything that might compel you to learn or change your belief’s in any fashion. I’ve known plenty of pastors that use their faith as a weapon against spiritual growth in this manner. I’ve known others that believe that spiritual growth comes from opening yourself up to learning new things. People of religion cross the spectrum in this respect. My personal experience with Southern Baptists however, is that they believe that they know God completely, they’ve put him in a box and God doesn’t do or say anything without their approval. they are the final word on everything that God did or did not do. That pastor in the film that said that Jesus was God, and that Jesus was the inspiration for the Old Testament, is such a pastor. It doesn’t matter that Jesus isn’t in the Old Testament or that he is actually portrayed as God himself. The man has decided what Jesus and God are and his faith will protect him from foreign ideas. Like the notion that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God himself. You can tell him that Jesus did not part the Red Sea and lead Moses fromt he land of the Pharoahs, but only because from his perspective, you lack faith.

I found it interesting that in some segments of the film when a service is going on, there is a portrait of the pastor up high on the wall and a portrait of George Bush, resting on the floor. The religious symbolism of this, tells us that the pastor is closer to God than the President. Also by placing The President’s portrait on the floor, we are given the message that Bush is in need of spiritual enlightenment as he is still firmly anchored in a material life. It tells us that the pastor is a spiritual guide for Bush, and that it is his mission to bring Bush closer to God.

If Michael’s film upsets you, you might consider examinine how you feel about yourself. Michael is essentially holding up a mirror in this film. He has been honest and open. Its those he is interviewing that are conveying their message.

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates

Anyhoo, as always, I appreciate your openess and honesty. We in the poor/red states have been seeking this form of representation for a very long time!

Viva la revolución!