RE: "partisan liberal pieces"

From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 13:07:42 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: The forgotten verses"

    Rich,

    I'm glad Debbie questioned this, because I was thinking that is what I read
    also.

    I decided to keep my mouth shut though, since I was informed off list that I
    am a moron, or "ignorant" to quote the fellow.

    Thanks, Debbie for asking for clarifiction and Rich, I highly doubt that is
    what you meant, but could you clarify?

    Sondra

    >From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
    >To: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
    >Subject: RE: "partisan liberal pieces"
    >Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 09:22:44 -0500
    >
    >RFaussette wrote:
    >In orthodox Jewish communities eugenics is the norm and women are still
    >chattel.
    >
    >And this is good? Galations 3:23? Obviously the Jews do not accept
    >Galations.
    >The O.T.'s virtuous woman from Proverbs is hardly chattel. Deborah was a
    >judge. The O.T. has many strong women and the N.T. as well.
    >
    >It sounds as though you are saying, 'far better keep women as chattel' as a
    >solution to having homosexuals in society. Is that the gist of your
    >argument?
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of RFaussette@aol.com
    > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 8:24 AM
    > To: lfreeman@mbc.edu; asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: "partisan liberal pieces"
    >
    >
    > In a message dated 5/30/03 5:52:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    >lfreeman@mbc.edu writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > The liberal press is quick to praise the "biological basis for
    >homosexuality" as support for the view that the orientation is "natural"
    >therefore "good" (or at least "not bad") and quick to critcize the
    >"biological basis for behavioral and cognitive sex differences" as a
    >dangerous plot by right wing conspirators to keep women subordinate to men.
    >
    > My point is, the theories inspiring the research and the methodologies
    >by which it is conducted are largely the same. And one type is no more
    > "partisan" and no less "science" than the other.
    >
    >
    >
    > The liberal press is quick to praise the "biological basis for
    >homosexuality" because it weakens indigenous populations, feminizing the
    >male population and lowering birth rates. The neo-cons (liberals in
    >disguise, wolves in sheep's clothing) are mostly red diaper babies.
    >
    > The liberals are of course quick to criticize the "biological basis for
    >behavioral and cognitive sex differences" because that makes all races
    >equally capable. By doing that the liberals disguise the efficacy of
    >eugenics to advance the interests of specific populations who alone remain
    >to practice eugenics giving them a singular advantage by militating against
    >their being "spewed out of the land."
    >
    >
    > The liberal press should be studiously ignored except to guage how much
    >damage they are doing.
    >
    > rich

    _________________________________________________________________
    The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 31 2003 - 13:08:26 EDT