I don’t think Sherman is to blame for the fundamentalism or the anti-science (anti-reality) bent there. It’s something else. I don’t really think you can address some of the problems unless you address the religion thing.

I choose to be pro-life all the way; you name it, I have a pro-life alternative.

My wife is from the South, not of the fundamentalist tribe (Thank god! ), but she does strongly respond negatively to the Sherman episode.

Perhaps a ‘bar sinister’ might be found but that is not a disqualifying factor.

Regarding compromise, forget it, as these folks are absolutists, based on their religious beliefs. Short of giving up on their religion, I don’t see them changing, ever!

Like I mentioned here the other day, I observe that there is a lingering anger in the South, where many of these folks live, over the Sherman ‘March to the Sea’, a slash and burn maneuver that was allegedly pretty brutal, for which an apology was never offered.

“This perspective remains powerful after the passage of more than a century.”
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

So both fundamentalist religion and this anger continue to be a powerfully divisive element in our national politic.

That said, this political segment will never be a majority, so their political influence, if continuously pushed back, can be limited, as is happening as we speak on the birther movement. They end up appearing to be unbelievably silly.

It seems that not legitimizing their idiocy is probably a good step in the right direction.