Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tipdrill541 t1_jea5e9l wrote

Not surprising considering all those strange religious groups like the mennonites and amish came from Europe. Their presence must exist there somewhere

91

NoWarmEmbrace t1_jeam6e2 wrote

Fun fact; The Pennsylvania Dutch for instance aren't Dutch but German. But 'German' in german = Deutsch, so it got morphed into Dutch.

So the Pennsylvania Dutch are in fact the Pennsylvania Deutsch, with german heritage.

58

Epyr t1_jeardxm wrote

Though some may have been from the Netherlands as there wasn't historically as much distinction between the Dutch and Germans as their is today.

16

[deleted] t1_jeb9o3m wrote

[deleted]

5

Epyr t1_jebdc9s wrote

That's also not true. The Dutch arose as an independent nation in the 1600s and share a lot of history with the low Germans. Even today groups like the Frisians have arguably more in common with Germans such as the Hanoverians than the Hanoverians have with Bavarians. They were different than other Germans but not significantly moreso than other difference within what we now call the German people.

A quick look at wikipedia also shows they came from all over Germany and parts of the Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch

10

nomagneticmonopoles t1_jechaz9 wrote

Actually they're mostly originally Swiss, but yes, the word morphed with regard to the language they spoke.

2

WanderingLethe t1_jegwnbm wrote

Deutsch didn't get morphed into Dutch.

It are words with the same origin, meaning of the people, the word people actually has the same origin as well.

Germanic people referred to themselves as Diets/Duutsch/Deutsch and some more variants.

The English mostly had contact with the Dutch, and called them Dutch, while the Dutch eventually started to call themselves Nederlands(Netherlandic) and only the Germans Duits. The Dutch anthem uses Duijtsche bloet, now Duitsen bloed (Dutch blood).

The Germans have kept the word Deutsch for their own, just as the Pennsylvanian Dutch (Deutsch).

2

ST616 t1_jealkuy wrote

In the Dutch Bible Belt there are areas where up to 35% of voters vote for the Reformed Political Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij or SGP). The party was officially oppossed to women's sufferage until the late 1980s. The didn't allow women to be members until they were forced to in the mid 2000s, and they only changed because of the threat of a loss in public funding. The female members that did join were only allowed to stand for office because of another threat of loosing public funding in the 2010s.

40

TouristNo4039 t1_jeapcx2 wrote

Making the Netherlands a theocracy is literally on their agenda. I don't understand why parties like that are allowed when they want to get rid of elections and democracy all together.

28

ST616 t1_jeauc6m wrote

Luckily they're not going to be able to come close to achieving their aims.

They aren't very big, but they are a lot bigger than most people would imagine given the Netherland's reputation for social liberalism.

10

arcosapphire t1_jeb8csv wrote

> Luckily they're not going to be able to come close to achieving their aims.

I used to say the same about people wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade. I think maybe let's not assume what can or can't happen.

11

ST616 t1_jebgd31 wrote

The percentage of American voters and lawmakers who were against Roe v. Wade has always been a lot larger than the percentage of Dutch voters and lawmakers who are sympathetic to the aims of the SGP.

4

arcosapphire t1_jebht7t wrote

Well it sure is good that percentages of support never change over time, then.

2

ST616 t1_jecmeqk wrote

They change but not by that much. The percentage of Americans who support abortion rights hasn't changed much for decades, nor has the percentage of Dutch people who support the SGP.

1

leeuwerik t1_jeb49eg wrote

If you are really referring to the SGP your statement is just baloney. The SGP is the one party that alsways cites the constitution. Hell even their name refers to the constitution.

I'm not a fan of them because they sleep with their bibles but there is really no agenda to go theocracy.

−5

Badmeestert t1_je9tkuw wrote

Yes and they belt away

So many children we will get overthrown

13

liniel99 t1_jea88wq wrote

I thought every country had a Bible belt?

12

pewpewpewouch t1_jeaoxiz wrote

Yep. Unvaccinated too. They got a measles issue a few years ago. Quite a few kids got seriously sick but because the hospitals are situated in vaccinated areas the 'umbrella-effect' kept it from spreading further. Luckily only one youth, (a 17 year old girl), died.

11

im4ruckus t1_jecg7sm wrote

I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church in Michigan and never knew this about this in the Netherlands. CRC had remained a pretty conservative organization. Lots of cities in Michigan around Holland Michigan have Netherland names, like Zeeland!!

11

_Mechaloth_ t1_jectssi wrote

Former United Reformed Churchee here (now agnostic). You guys were way too lax for the true TULIPers.

2

pohl t1_jecoubz wrote

They gotta zoom that map out a bit so you can see the end of the belt in W Michigan.

1

Turtle_Shaft t1_jeb33pd wrote

There’s religious people in other countries? Who would have known

8

Dragmire800 t1_jeb5mgq wrote

Europeans are, on a whole, a lot less religious than Americans, and unlike the US, where religious belief is holding steady, Religion is very quickly plummeting in Europe.

7

DaNo1CheeseEata t1_jebjekr wrote

>nd unlike the US, where religious belief is holding steady,

Meanwhile in reality.

>A new report by Pew Research Center and the General Social Survey published on Tuesday found that the large numbers of people in the U.S who practice Christianity are declining. The religion's demographic has been dwindling since the 1990s, the report said, as many adults transition to an identity of atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christianity-us-shrinking-pew-research/

18

warpus t1_jebb79u wrote

Especially in western europe. I'd be far less surprised about a bible belt in say, Poland.

6

LosWitchos t1_jebuuhi wrote

Despite what you say, there is an area (around the south east of the country) that's considered the bible belt of Poland.

It's partly because in most big cities, dropping religion is a growing trend, but that area of Poland doesn't have big cities, rather smaller cities, towns and villages. They're more likely to base their community around the church.

2

Turtle_Shaft t1_jeb9esj wrote

Thats true but religious people still exist so obviously its not surprising that there are religious parts of a country. Also i wouldn’t call europe with a broad stroke as eastern and Southern Europe are quite religous and muslim immigrants aren’t abandoning their religion upon entering a european country.

1

NoWarmEmbrace t1_jeamwig wrote

In for instance Staphorst, a village in the belt, just installed their first female City Councillor in 2022.

Edit: Not because no one wanted before but because "the woman is inferior to the man so they can't sit on a council where their descisions are made for men".

7

TheDetailNerd t1_jebhpk9 wrote

Are they as hate filled and bigoted as the us Bible belt?

6

Away-Bee-616 t1_jebren1 wrote

Perhaps but not as much as this comment section.

1

ThatDarnedAntiChrist t1_jec81kl wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/04/03/how-christian-is-christian-nationalism

3

Away-Bee-616 t1_jecquk6 wrote

I'm a Christian and a patriot (patriot = nationalist for my purposes) but I do not like the idea of theocracy nor do I like modern examples of theocracy (Middle East countries including Israel, the Vatican, North Korea...) I know that separation of church and state is more of an unspoken rule in the USA but it's a good rule. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding you but are you advocating for a christian theocracy? If so I'm not buying.

−5

ThatDarnedAntiChrist t1_jedb6i3 wrote

Number one, the separation of church and state isn't an idea, it's the first line in the First amendment.

Number two: the article I posted the link was warning about Christian nationalists. I'm not advocating for a Christian theocracy, I'm concerned people too stupid for their own good think we can have one here. I'm all for a secular government and the free practice of one's faith. God has no business in government, and government has no business in religion, as long as that religion doesn't deprive anyone of their rights.

2

Away-Bee-616 t1_jedcxup wrote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute and the terms "church" and "State" do not appear in the Amendment.

Also I couldn't open the link. My phone's fucky I'm getting it fixed soon. The first amendment just says the federal govt cannot make any religion a state religion. This implies a separation of church and state and for all intents and purposes that's what it means but for instance law makers can still use their papist or Mohammedan values when writing or voting for a law.

0

ThatDarnedAntiChrist t1_jedhbdi wrote

>but for instance law makers can still use their papist or Mohammedan values when writing or voting for a law.

Most likely Baptist, Presbyterian, or Evangelical values. Just remember most domestic terrorists identify as protestant evangelicals. And it's Islamic, not Mohammedan. Unless you somehow gravitate towards the early 20th century.

I would expect any person to be guided by their values, be them religious or not. It's when they expect their religious dogma to become part of law that's an issue.

2

SuedbyHogs t1_jebacfk wrote

Is it a safe assumption that the more inland areas are always more religious than coastal areas which have more diverse people and exposure to new ideas?

2

Kargathia t1_jedbzbc wrote

If there's such a correlation, it's more likely to be indirect, with large urban areas being less religious, and the same large urban areas being likely to be sited next to a river or coast.

As a direct example, the province of Zeeland is often considered to be part of the Dutch bible belt, and it doesn't get much more coastal than that. It does lack a major city.

5

InsatiableWand3rlust t1_jec518r wrote

Interesting idea. Makes sense because coasts are where immigrants and foreign nationals first come to when they travel to the given country. This seems pretty spot-on. Or maybe it's because cities in general are developed alongside water bodies, and some of these are on oceanic coasts, and cities are more diverse in general, making them more liberal.

Some inland areas are more liberal than coastal cities, though (Paris is probably more liberal than a small Mediterranean city on its southern coast).

3

Johannes_P t1_jee2ipl wrote

And if you want to bring your children there then think about vaccinating them, since the locals, as hardcore Calvinists, think vaccination gfoes against divine predestination.

2

apathy_corp t1_jeakx2k wrote

I am very sorry, Netherlands.

−2