Y’know, you’ve gone all out on this stuff over a simple smart-ass remark.
You have now tried to have me accuse the State of Georgia of anti-Catholic bias, which I have not done.
You have now tried to have me accuse the South of anti-Catholic bias, which I have not done.
You have tried to have me accuse some “unnamed” (your words) group as committing a conspiracy to get the “creator” into Georgia schools.
I have not mentioned any conspiracy. Why have you?
In your next post I almost expect to be accused of racism because the bill’s primary sponsor was black.
I have also not claimed that Fundamentalist Christians march in lock step on all issues.
It is not a stereotype to note that the primary religious persuasion of the South is of the loosely collected assemblages of denominations that follow basic Fundamentalism tenets.
It is not a stereotype to note that every one of the attempts to put “creation science” into school curricula has been launched by groups funded by member associations of that loose association of Fundamentalists.
It is a fact that the religious opposition to Kennedy and Smith was organized by Fundamentalist Christians whose primary complaint was that those candidates would impose their own religious beliefs on the country.
I do not believe that there was a conspiracy, here.
I believe that a few individuals put together a list of characteristics that they would like to see championed in the schools. I believe that the “creator” phrase simply came out of their personal beliefs without a lot of thought and without a deliberate attempt to impose their religious beliefs. However, to have inserted that phrase at the end of over twenty years of bitter and loud battles over public prayer in schools and Creationism in science classes indicates that either it was deliberate or that they were not paying attention.
I would actually vote for the latter. The bill passed unanimously in both houses of the legislature with no debate and darned little discussion. I suspect that fewer than a dozen legislators even know that the phrase is there (if they know any of the text of the law that they passed). It was a feel-good law. I don’t believe that they were conspiring to impose their beliefs; I believe that with their religious backgrounds they simply assume that “respect for the creator” is a good trait to have, regardless of the political battles that have swirled around religion and education for decades.
No conspiracy. No evil intent.
However, when all the eyebrows on this MB were raised about that phrase, *Saint Zero’s response was to wonder whether we are going to start suppressing people’s chances based on their religion. My response: it has already happened. How did it happen? It happened because a lot of people with some common religious views (and one does not have to be part of a monolithic institution to share a belief in a number of basic tenets) were afraid that people with different religious views would endanger the country.
Fundamentalists can argue each other to death over dispensationalism and a host of other issues, but they choose the name Fundamentalist because there are some core beliefs they do share.
Now, if Carl von Epps is a Catholic, a Satanist, or even just a Lutheran, I will apologize for jumping to a conclusion. If he’s Methodist or A.M.E., I’m afraid I’m going to continue to figure he’s pretty well influenced by the Fundamentalist culture.
This does not mean that I believe he cannot think for himself. As I noted, above, I am not really into a conspiracy theory, here. It does mean that I would suspect that he would simply throw “respect for the creator” in as an obvious trait because he would not even notice that it conflicts with the current reading of the Constitution.
