Why New England?

[kittynh]

So why did so many religions start in New England? I'm talking Spiritualism, Christian Science, Mormon... and in a most peculiar beautiful but REMOTE little town Washington, NH...the Seventh Day Adventists.

I'm not sure what was going on, but for some reason religion founding was quite the hobby here at one time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb8wUx3kovc

[UndercoverElephant]

Slightly off-topic, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u96COiazRS8

[blobru]

So why did so many religions start in New England? I'm talking Spiritualism, Christian Science, Mormon... and in a most peculiar beautiful but REMOTE little town Washington, NH...the Seventh Day Adventists.

I'm not sure what was going on, but for some reason religion founding was quite the hobby here at one time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb8wUx3kovc


Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Two main causes of religion are oppression (the need for hope) and boredom (the need for meaning). Too much security leads to boredom, so it's maybe not surprising that many religions native to America would be founded in the first and most settled and secure region (and the first to experience boredom from having too few frontier hardships to face plus more free time to fill).

Also, the guarantee of freedom of religion would have been a big draw for prospective immigrants looking for a home for their unorthodox, often-persecuted beliefs (not that there wasn't persecution in the States; it just wasn't, or at least shouldn't have been, state-sanctioned), with Boston being a major port-of-entry.

[kittynh]

hmmm... good point

Also a fairly well educated bunch of people, at least compared to other parts of the country. Certainly a lot of tolerance also. (after the Salem witch thingy).

Trust me, Washington NH in winter...you'd go nuts!

[six7s]

Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Two main causes of religion are oppression (the need for hope) and boredom (the need for meaning). Too much security leads to boredom...Interesting points :)

I wonder if a similar thang was happening (at least for a select few) in the Middle East (where Abraham begat Jesus and Mohammed) and/or India - the home of more flavours of woo than you can poke a stick at

[six7s]

wikipedia: The Second Great Awakening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening)
The Second Great Awakening (1790–1840s[1]) was a period of great religious revival that extended into the antebellum period of the United States, with widespread Christian evangelism and conversions. It was named for the Great Awakening, a similar period which had transpired about half a century beforehand. It generated excitement in church congregations throughout New England, the mid-Atlantic, Northwest and the South. Individual preachers such as Charles Grandison Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton Stone, Peter Cartwright, and Asahel Nettleton became very well known as a result. Evangelical participation in social causes was fostered that changed American life in areas such as prison reform, abolitionism, and temperance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening

[six7s]

wikipedia: First Great Awakening
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening)The First Great Awakening led to changes in UK colonial society. In New England, the Great Awakening was influential among many Congregationalists. In the Middle and Southern colonies, especially in the "Backcountry" regions, the Awakening was influential among Presbyterians. In the southern Tidewater and Low Country, northern Baptist and Methodist preachers converted both whites and blacks, enslaved and free. The Baptists especially welcomed blacks into active roles in congregations, including as preachers. Before the American Revolution, the first black Baptist churches were founded in the South in Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia; in Petersburg, Virginia, two black Baptist churches were founded before any white one.

Although the idea of a "great awakening" is contested, it is clear that the period was a time of increased religious activity, particularly in New England. The arrival of the young Anglican preacher George Whitefield probably sparked the religious conflagration. Whitefield, whose reputation as a great pulpit and open-air orator had preceded his visit, traveled through the colonies in 1739 and 1740. Everywhere he attracted large and emotional crowds, eliciting countless conversions as well as considerable controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening

[Floyt]

Also, the guarantee of freedom of religion would have been a big draw for prospective immigrants looking for a home for their unorthodox, often-persecuted beliefs (not that there wasn't persecution in the States; it just wasn't, or at least shouldn't have been, state-sanctioned), with Boston being a major port-of-entry.

This. I suppose you could say that the seed population was biased towards a demographic that had fervent and unpopular views on religion. If a main reason for leaving England is to get the Star Chamber off one's back, there's going to be a good deal of religious individuality at the destination!

[shadron]

Ah, but that wasn't necessarily the case. Removing an unpopular fanatical minority from the mother country translated into shiploads of fanantics here in the original colonies, who were just as intolerant as the societies they came from. Their charters from the king often included clauses setting the local religion to that of the settlers. Oglethorpe had to get a separate charter for Maryland so the dissident Catholics could immigrate, because they weren't tolerated in Massachusetts or Virginia. Finding people who could even concieve of separating state from religion is pretty near a miracle, and they having enough power to make their ideas stick..... Well, saying we were lucky is putting it mildly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you might not be considering how many religions began in all corners of the world. We are just more exposed to some of them than others so it appears there is a concentration of origins here.

[hgc]

Nitpick: Mormonism was founded in western New York, not in New England.

[roger]

Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Plus, people who were adventurous, that didn't like the strictures of society, etc., were likely to travel west. (I speculate, I claim no historical expertise).

[blobru]

hmmm... good point

Also a fairly well educated bunch of people, at least compared to other parts of the country. Certainly a lot of tolerance also. (after the Salem witch thingy).

:broomstic The Puritans in Salem were well-educated (Puritans having founded Harvard); however, having Puritans in every political office made tolerance (for witchcraft, especially) kind of moot. But on the whole, I think it's that fairly well educated bunch of people that will eventually make the Freedom of Religion clause in the US Constitution a surer thing.

Trust me, Washington NH in winter...you'd go nuts!

Nutser. :)
And something like the beauty of NH in winter could have inspired Emerson to kick off Transcendentalism (Nature as "god").

Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Two main causes of religion are oppression (the need for hope) and boredom (the need for meaning). Too much security leads to boredom...

Interesting points :)

I wonder if a similar thang was happening (at least for a select few) in the Middle East (where Abraham begat Jesus and Mohammed) and/or India - the home of more flavours of woo than you can poke a stick at

Well, oppression for Christianity, putatively for Judaism (if you accept the Exodus myth as quasi-historical); Islam? Mohammed got bored with his job and went to live in a cave, so... :D (of course there's a lot more to it; just picking on a few obvious causes). India??? Yikes. The Hindu acceptance of many avatars makes for a larger religion with tolerance built into it, I guess, all flavors being sort of holy; though still a lot of strife when a dozen different gurus each claim to be the current avatar.

wikipedia: The Second Great Awakening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
wikipedia: First Great Awakening
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening
I think you might not be considering how many religions began in all corners of the world. We are just more exposed to some of them than others so it appears there is a concentration of origins here.

I think kitty is interested in religions beginning in New England compared to the rest of the US, or else in a comparatively short time vs the whole world; that's what I took her to mean, anyway. Within the US, NE's long since lost the title of top religious hatchery to California, where new 'spiritualities' are usually amalgams of Eastern beliefs (ironically on the West coast, while on the East coast they were Western; and let's not forget / mention... the South!) :scared:

Also, the guarantee of freedom of religion would have been a big draw for prospective immigrants looking for a home for their unorthodox, often-persecuted beliefs (not that there wasn't persecution in the States; it just wasn't, or at least shouldn't have been, state-sanctioned), with Boston being a major port-of-entry.

This. I suppose you could say that the seed population was biased towards a demographic that had fervent and unpopular views on religion. If a main reason for leaving England is to get the Star Chamber off one's back, there's going to be a good deal of religious individuality at the destination!

Certainly, after its enshrinement in the Constitution, this [religious individuality] would have been a prime motive for immigrating. (Prior to that, the torch of liberty as often lit up a shining, puritans-only, city on a hill -- see next quote). :halo:

Ah, but that wasn't necessarily the case. Removing an unpopular fanatical minority from the mother country translated into shiploads of fanantics here in the original colonies, who were just as intolerant as the societies they came from. Their charters from the king often included clauses setting the local religion to that of the settlers. Oglethorpe had to get a separate charter for Maryland so the dissident Catholics could immigrate, because they weren't tolerated in Massachusetts or Virginia. Finding people who could even concieve of separating state from religion is pretty near a miracle, and they having enough power to make their ideas stick..... Well, saying we were lucky is putting it mildly.

Was that Lord Baltimore? (Oglethorpe's the first governor of Georgia). :confused:

Great point, though. The concept of religious freedom doesn't seem to get a solid foothold in the colonies until the Enlightenment, through writers such as Thomas Paine, who argues for it in Common Sense (1776), and, of course, Thomas Jefferson. The great virtue of the early colonies for religious freedom seems to have been the extra open space.

Plus, people who were adventurous, that didn't like the strictures of society, etc., were likely to travel west. (I speculate, I claim no historical expertise).

You're living in Colorado with a couple of pit bulls... am I going to disagree? :nope:

[porch]

I thought it was because, as Goodman Brown might have told you, on a particularly misty night in the northeasten coastal climes, the moonlight can play phantastical tricks on your eyes.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Nitpick: Mormonism was founded in western New York, not in New England.

{pedant}
While New York is considered separate from the rest of New England now, one could make the case that during the 19th Century, it was a part of it with the southern states starting in Maryland and "the west" starting in Pennsylvania.
{pedant}

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not so sure there's anything in need of explanation. Were more religions founded in New England on a per capita/per annua basis than elsewhere? More people have lived there and for a longer time than elsewhere in the U.S. (I'm assuming we're not talking about pre-Columbian or native American religions.)

ETA: It strikes me as similar to asking why most of our Founding Fathers lived in New England.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I think kitty is interested in religions beginning in New England compared to the rest of the US, or else in a comparatively short time vs the whole world; that's what I took her to mean, anyway. Within the US, NE's long since lost the title of top religious hatchery to California, where new 'spiritualities' are usually amalgams of Eastern beliefs (ironically on the West coast, while on the East coast they were Western; and let's not forget / mention... the South!) :scared:....I still think if one were to look at the actual data one would find, just as there really are not more ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle than one would expect by chance, there is nothing statistically significant about religion origins in NE. It just looks that way if one doesn't do the math.

[shadron]

Was that Lord Baltimore? (Oglethorpe's the first governor of Georgia). :confused:

You're right - George Calvert (first Lord Baltimore) and his son, Cecil Calvert (2nd), and his younger brother, Leonard Calvert, who actually led the colonization. After Virginia declared the Church of England as the only faith allowed therein, Puritans poured into Maryland, which had a toleration-of-all-christians policy (considered to be the for-runner of the 1st Amendment), and Calvert had to put down several revolts in which Puritans tried to turn Maryland into a Puritan colony. In one case the Puritans held rule in Maryland from 1650 to 1658, and burned all the Catholic churches in Maryland to the ground.

The founder of beliefnet.com, Steve Waldeman, wrote a book about the sorry history of toleration in America before the constitution. He is rather the history nut and his blog at http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/ is very often a good read.

[dafydd]

Let us not forget that the Passengers called themselves Saints,not Pilgrims.The sailors on the Mayflower called them 'puke stockings'.The Puritans stayed behind in England because they wanted to purify the Church Of England,but the aforesaid Puritans were not radical enough for the Saints,so they set off to the New World to establish their own brand of religious intolerance.

[Beerina]

Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Two main causes of religion are oppression (the need for hope) and boredom (the need for meaning). Too much security leads to boredom, so it's maybe not surprising that many religions native to America would be founded in the first and most settled and secure region (and the first to experience boredom from having too few frontier hardships to face plus more free time to fill).

Also, the guarantee of freedom of religion would have been a big draw for prospective immigrants looking for a home for their unorthodox, often-persecuted beliefs (not that there wasn't persecution in the States; it just wasn't, or at least shouldn't have been, state-sanctioned), with Boston being a major port-of-entry.

hmmm... good point

Also a fairly well educated bunch of people, at least compared to other parts of the country. Certainly a lot of tolerance also. (after the Salem witch thingy).

Trust me, Washington NH in winter...you'd go nuts!

:)





Well, the theory that religions are fraudulent overmemes designed to spread the meme to others suggests they will adapt or lose out to competing, similar overmemes. Thus they will try to adapt. Of course, an adapted one is one with a slightly different structure, which is in fact a technically different religion.

This is amplified by the overmeme's well-entrenched submemes about how any deviation whatsoever is Fail and deserving of death.


So the adaptation mechanism engages once remote from, and thus free of, threats from its almost identical and much larger siblings. Said overmemes even weed out the "kill anyone different" submeme, replacing it with a "live and let live" submeme, to aid in its own future survival.


Said overmemes then profligate.

Hideous pious goo scenario occurs. :(

[godless dave]

So why did so many religions start in New England? I'm talking Spiritualism, Christian Science, Mormon...

The LDS church started in New York, which is not in New England. But like New England, it is one of the oldest colonies in North America.

[Erigena]

Just a guess, kitty.

New England comprises many of the older, original colonies and was the first region of the US to urbanize, to become securely settled amid a fair helping of industry and prosperity.

Two main causes of religion are oppression (the need for hope) and boredom (the need for meaning). Too much security leads to boredom, so it's maybe not surprising that many religions native to America would be founded in the first and most settled and secure region (and the first to experience boredom from having too few frontier hardships to face plus more free time to fill).

Also, the guarantee of freedom of religion would have been a big draw for prospective immigrants looking for a home for their unorthodox, often-persecuted beliefs (not that there wasn't persecution in the States; it just wasn't, or at least shouldn't have been, state-sanctioned), with Boston being a major port-of-entry.
I agree with your last statement. The assumption that religion would be tolerated was a big reason so many immigrated to begin with. As noted in this thread by others, many were sorely disappointed.

I'm not sure boredom had much to do with it as they were tied up heavily in surviving.

[maddog]

The LDS church started in New York, which is not in New England. But like New England, it is one of the oldest colonies in North America.

"We're not New England! We're not New England!"

Hey New Yorkers! Here's a newsflash for ya: Nobody south or west of Pennsylvania cares whether or not NY is part of NE. In fact, nobody south or west of PA cares *at all* about that part of the country!

Hey, look at the bright side:

From Wikipedia:
In December 1953, Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology) in Camden, New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey).[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard#cite_note-87) He moved to Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) in 1955 and organized the Founding Church of Scientology

NJ and DC got the wackiest of the wacky.

[Erigena]

{pedant}
While New York is considered separate from the rest of New England now, one could make the case that during the 19th Century, it was a part of it with the southern states starting in Maryland and "the west" starting in Pennsylvania.
{pedant}
In the 1600’s New York was part of the New Netherlands region and was originally known as New Amsterdam. As you mentioned it is not part of New England now either. From 1897 on, New York has been part of the Mid-Atlantic states.

http://www.usm.maine.edu/maps/exhibit2/sec4.htm

[Darth Rotor]

They didn't have MTV, kitty. ;)

[maddog]

From 1897 on, New York has been part of the Mid-Atlantic states.

Whoa, dude! WE don't want NY either!!!

The Mid-Atlantic, as is referred to around here, is DE-MD-VA, and sometimes NJ. The "Mid-Atlantic Region" may be expanded to include PA, WV, and possibly (though not usually) the Carolinas.

But we sure as anything do NOT claim NY!!!

[six7s]

They didn't have MTV, kitty. ;)So they had to invent their own

[HansMustermann]

Interesting points :)

I wonder if a similar thang was happening (at least for a select few) in the Middle East (where Abraham begat Jesus and Mohammed) and/or India - the home of more flavours of woo than you can poke a stick at

Well, _old_ religions are hardly the same things. They're not a case of spawning your own sect of Inanna because you don't think the guys in the next town stick as true to the writings of Enheduanna as you'd like. They're simply a case of each tribe, later city-state, having made up their own cosmology and god(s).

So you have some thousands of little tribes with their own fairy tale, and then you end up trying to merge them into one coherent tale as you unite or conquer them. And if you give it some thousands of years, there'll be power shifts. (Which require adding a few chapters as to how the deity of town X, now the ruling dynasty, is suddenly at the top of the pantheon, and the gods of town Y got to the bottom.) There'll be invasions, which work out different schemes of mixing their own gods with yours. Etc.

It's not even as much about India or the Middle East. You can see the result of lots of small tribes and shifting mythologies in the proto-germanic/proto-norse tribes too. E.g., by Roman accounts at least one tribe had Tyr as their top-dog. Fast forward about a thousand years to the Viking age, and by now Tyr had lost a hand and Odin was the leading guy. And then there's the whole Vanir pantheon which points at an earlier animistic culture. Etc.

It's not really cults which splintered from one religion. What you see is really that each individual tribe had invented their own god(s) or spirit(s) from scratch, and depending on the zone they had merged and evolved in different ways.

But the main difference I see is this: in the ancient times, the custom was more along the lines of trying to assimilate and play nice to other religions. You believe in Inanna, those guys believe in Ishtar, I believe in Astarte, and those funny greek guys we trade in believe in Artemis? It's cool, bro. We can work out some compromise in which she's the same goddess and we're all right. We just ignore the fact that those guys' Ishtar was heavily into sex (including a bit o' prostitution and bestiality) and the Greek's Artemis is just a huntress, and Astarte was really a goddess of _war_, and we can pretend it's the same one anyway.

And those other guys believe in Nana the moon good? We'll work something out. How about we say Inanna was Nana's daughter?

And then came the Romans with their _aspects_. Now that was an ingenious concept for pleasing _lots_ of people. They managed to reconcile such extremes as Venus (goddess of beauty and the personification of sexy) with Cloacina (the old goddess of the roman sewers.) If you can do _that_ with aspects, there are no other deities you can't merge that way.

It's hardly the same phenomenon as the intollerant, self-righteous, "we're right and all of you are wrong and going to burn in Hell" sects that fundamentalist Christianity has spawned left, right and center. In fact, it's the polar opposite. What Christianity has is one obnoxious self-righteous group splintering from another obnoxious self-righteous group, whereas the general historical tendency in those zones you mention with "all sorts of woo" has been more towards merging.

If you look at the religions that did take the hardline "we're right and all of you are going to Hell", then you could say the Middle East spawned about 3 of them total in more than 3 millenia. But even that's actually a bit wrong. It's really 3 versions of the same hardline monotheism. And there's a compelling case to be made that it actually started in Egypt with Akhenaten's misguided attempt at a monotheistic cult of Aten, and the 3 middle-eastern ones were just versions 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 of that one.

But at any rate, it's 3 in some 3000 years. Give or take a few. Hardly the same as a smaller zone that's been spawning several intollerant cults per decade.

[six7s]

[FascinatingReading/] Thanks!

Its thought-provoking replies like yours that keep me asking questions here :)

[blobru]

I thought it was because, as Goodman Brown might have told you, on a particularly misty night in the northeasten coastal climes, the moonlight can play phantastical tricks on your eyes.

Nocturnal swamp gas, of course! Spawner of devils and ufos. :D

I still think if one were to look at the actual data one would find, just as there really are not more ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle than one would expect by chance, there is nothing statistically significant about religion origins in NE. It just looks that way if one doesn't do the math.

Possibly. I don't have or know of any statistics on it. I wouldn't be surprised though if certain regions during certain periods did produce significantly more new religions.

It does seem to be the case today with California's cottage industry in New Age cults. Maybe modern Americans tend to look to California (and movies) for culture, the same way bookish Boston for much of US history was looked to (when literature was the dominant art form). If so, any new ideas out of California today, or New England formerly, would have that cachet: instantly upscale and trendy. More successful new religions in a region, more incentive to make more there, and so on.

My guess is kitty's OP is correct. But without statistics... just a guess. :con2:

You're right - George Calvert (first Lord Baltimore) and his son, Cecil Calvert (2nd), and his younger brother, Leonard Calvert, who actually led the colonization. After Virginia declared the Church of England as the only faith allowed therein, Puritans poured into Maryland, which had a toleration-of-all-christians policy (considered to be the for-runner of the 1st Amendment), and Calvert had to put down several revolts in which Puritans tried to turn Maryland into a Puritan colony. In one case the Puritans held rule in Maryland from 1650 to 1658, and burned all the Catholic churches in Maryland to the ground.

The founder of beliefnet.com, Steve Waldeman, wrote a book about the sorry history of toleration in America before the constitution. He is rather the history nut and his blog at http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/ is very often a good read.

Founding Faith (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-Politics-Religious/dp/1400064376). Argues Evangelicals were the most effective promoters of constitutional freedom of religion, not Enlightenment Deists. (Hmm...)

Thanks for the link.

:)

Well, the theory that religions are fraudulent overmemes designed to spread the meme to others suggests they will adapt or lose out to competing, similar overmemes. Thus they will try to adapt. Of course, an adapted one is one with a slightly different structure, which is in fact a technically different religion.

This is amplified by the overmeme's well-entrenched submemes about how any deviation whatsoever is Fail and deserving of death.

So the adaptation mechanism engages once remote from, and thus free of, threats from its almost identical and much larger siblings. Said overmemes even weed out the "kill anyone different" submeme, replacing it with a "live and let live" submeme, to aid in its own future survival.

Said overmemes then profligate.

Hideous pious goo scenario occurs. :(

Ya lost me at :) (but found me again at :()... which makes meme; all is well.

I agree with your last statement. The assumption that religion would be tolerated was a big reason so many immigrated to begin with. As noted in this thread by others, many were sorely disappointed.

I'm not sure boredom had much to do with it as they were tied up heavily in surviving.

Yeah, most settlers would be. I meant the established leisure classes would be more receptive, having nothing else to do, to exploring new religious beliefs; and there was early on, and still is, a lot of "old money" in New England. Throw in a legacy of religion, of the most oppressive sort, and you've got a recipe for heresy, and a receptive audience...

Maybe why. In part. Not sure. Just guessing. ;)

Well, _old_ religions are hardly the same things.
...
But at any rate, it's 3 in some 3000 years. Give or take a few. Hardly the same as a smaller zone that's been spawning several intollerant cults per decade.

Ditto what six7s said. Great overview.

[Pup]

I'm not so sure there's anything in need of explanation. Were more religions founded in New England on a per capita/per annua basis than elsewhere? More people have lived there and for a longer time than elsewhere in the U.S. (I'm assuming we're not talking about pre-Columbian or native American religions.)

I do think one can make a case that more major religions were founded in "the north" than "the south" during the 19th century.

Actually, I can't think of any major ones that were founded below the Mason-Dixon line in the 19th century. Can anyone suggest some? The snake handlers just miss it by a few years, though I'm not sure one could call them "major" anyway.

However, I think the founding of new religions was more of a symptom of a larger social difference. In that period, the north had a cultural mindset of telling others what to do and of being open to new liberal thought. Combine those two traits, and it's a fertile field for not only new religions to regulate behavior, but also the regulation of behavior through legislation as well: abolitionism, prohibition (19th century "Maine laws"), women's rights (Seneca Falls, etc.)

[Erigena]

Whoa, dude! WE don't want NY either!!!

The Mid-Atlantic, as is referred to around here, is DE-MD-VA, and sometimes NJ. The "Mid-Atlantic Region" may be expanded to include PA, WV, and possibly (though not usually) the Carolinas.

But we sure as anything do NOT claim NY!!!
According to the following New York is included as part of the Mid-Atlantic States.

http://www.nypl.org/research/midatlantic/

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/manmin/92area/mica02f.pdf

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/regdef.html

http://usa.usembassy.de/travel-regions.htm#midatlantic

You may not want it, but it's yours.

[Erigena]

Nocturnal swamp gas, of course! Spawner of devils and ufos. :D



Possibly. I don't have or know of any statistics on it. I wouldn't be surprised though if certain regions during certain periods did produce significantly more new religions.

It does seem to be the case today with California's cottage industry in New Age cults. Maybe modern Americans tend to look to California (and movies) for culture, the same way bookish Boston for much of US history was looked to (when literature was the dominant art form). If so, any new ideas out of California today, or New England formerly, would have that cachet: instantly upscale and trendy. More successful new religions in a region, more incentive to make more there, and so on.

My guess is kitty's OP is correct. But without statistics... just a guess. :con2:



Founding Faith (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-Politics-Religious/dp/1400064376). Argues Evangelicals were the most effective promoters of constitutional freedom of religion, not Enlightenment Deists. (Hmm...)

Thanks for the link.



Ya lost me at :) (but found me again at :()... which makes meme; all is well.



Yeah, most settlers would be. I meant the established leisure classes would be more receptive, having nothing else to do, to exploring new religious beliefs; and there was early on, and still is, a lot of "old money" in New England. Throw in a legacy of religion, of the most oppressive sort, and you've got a recipe for heresy, and a receptive audience...

Maybe why. In part. Not sure. Just guessing. ;)



Ditto what six7s said. Great overview.
You're probably right about the upper class. I was thinking about the settlers. You're right about there being a lot of old money there as well. I don't know if they still hold the celebration, but the Boston Brahmin used to have a big party every year. They claim their lineage as far back as the Mayflower.

[maddog]

According to the following New York is included as part of the Mid-Atlantic States.

http://www.nypl.org/research/midatlantic/

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/manmin/92area/mica02f.pdf

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/regdef.html

http://usa.usembassy.de/travel-regions.htm#midatlantic

You may not want it, but it's yours.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!




Ummmm.... we don't have to take the Damn Yankees, too, do we? :o

[Erigena]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!




Ummmm.... we don't have to take the Damn Yankees, too, do we? :o
As a damn yankee, what makes you think we want to be part of your region? :p

[MattusMaximus]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

Ummmm.... we don't have to take the Damn Yankees, too, do we? :o

Hey, watch what you say about Yankees. I was born at West Point ;)

[maddog]

Tthe "Damn Yankees" refers to the great satan, that evil baseball team whose home is over there down the Palisades and across the GW bridge from West Point, and their fans. It has nothing to do with geography.