Coastie,

You can't be serious.

Surely you cannot look at the massive amount of data, the maps, the graphs, and the links and still tell me with a straight face that generally those living in the red, Republican, conservative states----the Bible Belt states----have fared as well in life as those living in the blue states.

BTW, I have checked this data, not only with the links supplied, but with additional links I researched, and this information put forth by the author is sound.

Are you disagreeing with the facts?

The author listed over a dozen areas in which the red states fall behind the blue states-----poverty, more incarceration, more food stamp utilization, healthcare so substandard that it has lead to more hear disease, strokes, and cancer, lowered wages, highest rates of teen pregnancy and obesity, etc.

Are you trying to tell me that this is all a coincidence and that the red states are just "unlucky" in these areas?

This is no coincidence. These areas are depressed because they are controlled by conservatives and Republicans, but the biggest reason is the extreme overzealous Christians in those states have been able to exert an inordinate amount of control over the politicians that enact these laws which ultimately affect the citizens.

Hell, Coastie, can't you see? Can't you read the facts and look at the map? It's as plain as day.

Do you deny that the Bible Belt states are generally overall the worst states for sex offenders? Would you rather live in Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, or Oklahoma than one of the blue, more progressive states? I certainly hope you would.

Are you telling me that the red states----the Bible Belt states----have more lenient laws for registrants and its citizens in general than the blue states. Oh I know you can pick a state here and there is an exception, but we are talking statistics and generally here.

You can try to throw out some exceptions to the rules regarding these issues----and there are a few exceptions----and you can attempt to bring things into this debate such as foreign police, gun violence, cops being assaulted, Confederate generals, the Chinese being in our waters. But these things are not even mentioned in the article and not the subject for debate, so I have no idea why you are even bringing them up.

I have a suspicion that you cannot really argue the facts but you want to throw out these other issues..

Regarding the source of the article-----These are pure facts. I am sure a few could be contested, but it does not really matter where these studies and research were reported, whether it be Daily KO or the National Enquirer.

If the data is valid, why does it make a difference where they are reported?

Coastie, I have been at this game for a very long time and I have been around the block several times. There is no way in the world that you can tell me that the red, Republican, conservative states----the Bible Belt states----the states which fell in love with the evangelical Christian movement are GENERALLY a better place to live for a sex offender---or any citizen---than the more progressive states.

So don't even try.

rewdaizepam

BTW, calling people you don't like these childish and cartoonish names takes a lot away from your credibility. It makes you sound like a fifth grader on the playground. You are more than that. If I was any reader and I saw some of those ridiculous names you refer to people you don't like, I would just stop reading there and go fishing or something as your credibility would be ruined.

"So don't even try". What sucks about the internet is that you can't hear my 'chuckle'.
Don't know where you got 'Foreign Cops' out of my post, but... Obviously you either didn't comprehend or didn't actually read my post because I was justifying my statement that "Liberalism is a cancer". Every where it gains control, chaos follows. You can attempt to rewrite history, but until about 1968, the south was predominantly controlled by the Dems. You like stats, look it up, but then again, as was mentioned, if you look hard enough on the internet, you can find anything you want.

"These things are not even mentioned in the article". Well, actually, racism is predominant in the article and how the south has so many racists in it. Up into the early 60's, the KKK was huge, especially in the 20's and the 50's and 60's, before the conservatives started getting control. Can't rewrite history.
Enough on that.
"I have been around the block a few times".
I sure as hell didn't ride in here on a head of cabbage.
"I have a suspicion you can't really argue the facts".
Belittle, right out of the liberal playbook, come on dude, you're better than that.
You are criticizing Christians and blaming them, along with conservatives, not all conservatives are Christians. Most Muslims are by the very nature of their religion are conservative, as are a great many Jews.
You do realize that many on this forum are devout Christians don't you? "If I was a reader and saw the Christian bashing coming from you, I would leave and go hunting because you would have NO credibility.
Show me where in the article it says anything about SO's. Can you tell me why that is? I think most people on here can.
Would i like to live in FL, GA, MS, AL, LA, OK etc? No more than i would care to live in CA, IL, OH, CO, IN, NY. But again, this article says NOTHING about SO's
You've been 'Around the Block', have you been around the country? Have you been to the Liberal Yankee states? Like I said before, The highest gun violence and general crimes against persons or property rates are in Liberal controlled states. The stats are a lot easier to look up than these so called UNBIASED stats you posted. Hell, I never even heard of the DailyKos until your post(Or any of the others).
I live in the REDDEST state in the country, a state that is almost a theocracy, yet it is probably the easiest state for an SO. Texas told the AWA to "Get Stuffed". I not only have been 'Around the Block' I've been around the 'Other Block'. In other words, I look at both sides before making up my mind.

BTW.
Damn, Thank you, I thought I was sounding like a 3rd grader by calling the "Divider in Chief", Obozo. Does 'Odumbo' work better? No, I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for Barry.

To quote the great Al Bundy, "Let's Rock".

Coastie,

You don't even address either my messages or the original article. Instead, you just put forth a bunch of nonsense and catch phrases, which makes your messages almost incoherent.

I am not going to even waste my time trying to answer your message above.

rewdiazsepam

I read it and I'm living it.......Yankee transplant to Arkansas. And here's another bit of irony-in the last 6 months, two Church of Christ ministers have been charged with CP. Their bonds were either OOR or 1500. Down here, the legal and judicial community like to take care of their own. My husband's bond was 15K: he's neither a minister or a part of the "establishment." He's a dishwasher.

I will make it simple for you. What the article and you are saying is that the Liberals are good and the Conservative are bad and that Christians are evil and suck.
What I am saying is that anyone can skew stats to reflect their viewpoint. When msnbc or fox news conducts a poll on the same subject, why are the result so much different?
Again, the 2 highest gun violence cities are Los Angeles and Chicago but the left leaning media and blogs never mention that.

It's alright, belittle and dismiss, doesn't bother me.

People who attack others because they didn't get their way or don't agree with the majority are just expressing their immaturity. It's like "I don't like the way the ball game is being played and I'm going to take my ball and go home. And by the way... I'm going to call you names on the way home!"

We have a democratic process here and their will always be winners and losers and "Whiners!" The "Whiners" are the squeaky wheels with out any grease. If you don't like the results then you didn't do enough to prove your opinion. Attacking people for their opinions is just wrong.

You're either the problem or you're part of the solution.

I am going to make it simple for everyone...

I don't like our POTUS at all... I think that he has done more harm than good, to the point that I don't think I'll see our country recover from the damage within my lifetime and I'm not that old.

Our former president's wife, as much as I can't really stand her, I don't feel it necessary to call her by something other than the name she goes by.

I can't stand a former governor of Alaska because of the double standard that seems to exist in her mind either, but I won't sit here and behind a screen name call them by anything other than what they use to author their books and be announced as at their speaking engagements.

The bottom line is that it is disrespectful and if you wish to get respect you must give it first, even if you know you'll never receive it in return.

What is see deteriorating here in this thread is respect and it didn't seem to take that long.

OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES, EVERYONE HAS ONE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. I don't think I can make that anymore clear. One doesn't need to 'walk a mile in someone else's shoes' to have an opinion or an asshole. They don't need to know both sides of an issue to have an opinion on it. If they want to have a more educated and informed perspective and opinion on it then those things would be helpful if not prudent but they are certainly NOT REQUIRED. Don't really care who you are or what your credentials are, EVERYONE is going to have their own opinion about pretty much everything. If that is hard to accept for some, it is just something that they need to work on tolerating. Because opinions aren't going to be going away, since they are like assholes it is just a place to get the shit out.

The article shows a pattern. It doesn't say DEFINITIVELY that republicans and the church are the ONLY reason those states are in this muck. As I recall through history that both parties have ruled the roost down there with similar results. This is a MINDSET of the people within those communities, not necessarily the people that seem to represent them in our government. If I were to actually try to point a finger anywhere in those states it would be squarely fixed on The Church. I don't really care what flavor of religion they are because they all do basically the same things to their parishioners, control their actions, their thought process and opinions with the bible and their swinging sermons. Weaving scripture and personal opinion together in such a way that it can be consumed as messages from God.

Now I know that there are some very religious/spiritual folks on this board and I don't usually like to dabble in the religious debate, but this thread seems warrant some discussion of the role that religion plays in the mass control of the people that subscribe to the thought processes and thinking of whichever church they belong to.

I also can't blame any of the political parties for the laws that are in place, be them the Patriot Act, AWA, SORNA, and all those executive orders that so seriously undermine our Constitution I can't believe that something hasn't been said about the corrosion of the checks and balances our founding fathers put in place. You see there isn't a political party that hasn't had their hands in those issues and helped them come to be. Not for the good of the citizens of this United States, but for their careers. They effectively eroded our 5th amendment rights with the Patriot ACT, they did that to ALL OF US, not just SOs. Yet here on this board we are doing exactly what they want, to be so busy bickering among ourselves that we don't see what they are doing.

Since it was brought up, all gays should be able to reap the benefits of being partners for life. Either that or take away the married benefits from those that are married. Because commitment isn't just between a man and a woman, it can be between an employee and a boss, it can be between a pet owner and their pet, it can be between a man and man or a woman and a woman. What this issue always seemed to boil down to was SEX and nothing more. Which is nobody's business, unless all of you would like to start posting in grave detail your sex life blow by blow. If there is going to be marriage benefits than anyone that commits to another in a legal and meaningful way should be entitled to them or there shouldn't be any for anyone. That is my opinion and I have an asshole to prove it.

I will never trust religion, people follow it too blindly and without question. Everything deserves to be questioned, examined and contemplated. Churches, at least the ones I have been to, do not really want you to question them or their way of thinking and being. They say they encourage the questions and the debate but only if in the end you agree with them regardless. They like diversity as long as in the end they conform. They welcome all walks of life as long as in the end they walk with them the way they like. This isn't just Christians, it goes for all religions (Muslim to pagan to christian to Buddhist to whatever). Not one truly embraces individuality, not even my Pagan religion does that effectively but it has come the closest.

The fact that lately one political party is doing well with one faction of the religious leadership doesn't mean that'll last forever. Remember all of those human beings that are in those states in positions of power are making deals among themselves with their own self-interests at heart not the people that they were elected to serve. I'll bet if that same political party could get some kind of headway or foothold on a piece of legislation by befriending every SO and their loved ones, they would do it for their OWN political gain, to remain in power.

So before trying to point fingers at who is 'worse' or whatever, think about the big picture, think about history, think about what their intentions could be for their own personal gain. Because it usually has little to do with what they claim it is all about.

Wisconsin...

You and I both previewed Rew's link and you approved it. I would not have as this is not a political board. I knew it was going to raise tempers. You should have expected the turmoil it was going to cause. I am in the bible belt and learned very quickly to keep my politics to myself.I transplanted from a blue state and can tell you first hand that my current red state is harsher on RSOL's. I'm just surprised that of all the southern red states mine is the least harsh but harsh none the less.

There never will be a singular reason for anything.... only opinions and data. One can always find data that supports your view. That's the problem with the internet. Anything gets published.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to bash another person's opinion. This should be at the most a robust discussion. It doesn't matter what party you point your finger at. If it causes them to lose votes they won't do it. That is the problem with our country today. A politician's first job is to get re-elected and that's wrong.

FreeToBreathe,

I expected it turmoil... I also expected people to be adult about it... I also am surprised that it didn't cause much much more as it would have in the past.

I am actually pretty proud of everyone on this thread that kept it civil, kept it as a discussion and were very respectful to all.

I agree, the vast majority of time I will never discuss politics, abortion or religion with anyone, but I decided that this was helpful information for all no matter how controversial it might be.

I do discuss controversial subjects, but I will only discuss with people who can agree to disagree. I've had great conversations with people about topics and even through we didn't agree, we respected each other's opinion.

As far as religion is concerned, I do believe that the church had a lot to do with the sex offender registry, just like it was with the witch trials. I also think that the church can help us turn it around. When there are more and more churches doing prison ministry, they will interact with more and more sex offenders, and they can see from there, as well as registrants on their own churches have been reformed and are not a danger to society, yet are still branded with a scarlet letter.

This is certainly an interesting article. My first question would be a matter of causation and origination. The author clearly wants us to believe that religion is the main cog that is the driving force behind every other point. How do we know that is the case? How do we know that one of the other maladies has not driven religion and everything else, say a severe lack of education?

Oh Independent, now you're heading into the political realm... In my opinion it would seem to me that lack of education, be it access or just the quality that is there is a driving force to the church... If people aren't educated they aren't taught to question things, if they are never taught to question the things around them they will follow blindly something that seems to make sense to them.

I believe that all those things work in tandem with each other, no one thing could do the damage that is seen all over the country especially in the bible belt.

I have always said that this SO issue is far more than just about SOs. That's why this still holds very true for me... Now altered....

First they came for the Sex Offenders, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Sex Offender.
Then they came for the Constitutionalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Constitutionalist.
Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I'm going into the political realm? This whole article is political. I'm just asking the question of causation and origination. The author is starting with religion and then going from there to say all the other issues are related to religion, or at the very least inferring that by how the article is constructed.

I don't think my meaning came across as I had hoped... sorry about that...

I am agreeing with you... that the author is trying to prove/infer that religion is at the heart of this... when I believe that you are more correct that it is the people itself that are lacking in the critical thinking skills needed to question the religious leaders, question the faith, and question the motives of those delivering their 'message' to their congregations. There is a huge amount of human element here, more so than there is adherence to the the letter of the bible. (Which my High School English teacher stated was a fabulous book (work of fiction) if you can leave behind the fact that it is considered a religion manual.

I believe that book written by men, compiled with their bias and agenda in mind. What is amazing is that the agenda hasn't really seemed to change over several centuries.

Ok understand that better now.

For me it is tough to say that their is a first cause here like the author is claiming religion is. I don't think it is nearly that clean cut.