On Generalities…

October 27, 2005

Elizabeth! You are not Sally or Sarah…which means a comment from you is a very welcome surprise. So, yay for you. Anyway…let me go down your list.

I agree with what you said about religion in schools. It is an obnoxious debate that will probably never go away. And religion is a large part of peoples’ lives, so granted it will find its way into the school systems, and why shouldn’t it…it is, after all, an important and powerful aspect of our society and therefore is worthy of being presented to students. I just think it is odd and illogical that religion, especially in states like Kansas, is being shoved into the science classroom, where it is arguably most innappropriate. Religion in schools is inevitable, and almost makes sense actually, provided all religions get a say, although that is unlikely. However, due to its nature, it belongs in English or History classrooms…or Religion classrooms. Public schools should have religion classes that present all major religions. Although, thats impossible, given the ever-decreasing budgets schools have to work with.

Second, I should apologize for generalizing. I meant SOME southerners. I thought the “some” was implied, but one shouldn’t assume, and it is my fault for not putting it there. But, I did not say they were against liberals and I did not say they hated them. I didn’t mean to imply that, although I may have been relying too heavily on implications. In 2004, Democratic presidential nominees did not campaign in the South as strongly as they should have, and they got called on it by Republicans who used it to their advantage to say that they were “elitist”. When Howard Dean spoke here last year, he even acknowledged that . Democrats in the North often write off the South as a hick-republican strong hold, and not ALL Democrats, but SOME, and that is bad. Very bad. The same thing happens in reverse though. One of Bush’s main talking points against John Kerry was that he was “a liberal senator from Massachusetts.” This statement apparantly didn’t even warrant explanation, it was just that patently negative. That is terrible. All I was really trying to say was that we shouldn’t entire write-off geographical locations based on any stereotypes we might have about some of the people in that region. That was the point of sharing that little anecdote about the guy…although I went through it too quickly, basically, because I was a “liberal from Massachusetts”, this guy extended that to me being a “typical non-believer”…just like Bush did to John Kerry, even though John Kerry mentioned God first in the debates. I just feel like this negative stereotype does not get called out as much as the silly stigma the north has about the south. Granted, I have a terrible time stopping myself from speaking in generalities…and I never pre-think what I’m posting…even now I’m just kind of typing. So, maybe I should stop. But, I understand what you said, so I tried to clarify my meaning a little bit.
Nice to meet you too.

On another note, Goodbye Harriet Miers. Indictments tomorrow?

Movies you must see: Capote
Goodnight and Good Luck

And nice to mee you, too.

Posted in life, religion by Reeve Hamilton