Re: Sociology of Science

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sat Dec 31 2005 - 22:02:14 EST

At 09:07 PM 12/31/2005, George Murphy wrote:

>One of my resolutions for 2006 is to spend less time in futile
>internet debates. So in my ~ 3 hours of leeway before that takes
>effect I'll note on the following:
>1) The concept of "rights" has little biblical basis (check a
>concordance) & more to do with the philosophy of Ayn Rand than with
>any serious Christian thought. Vgl. Mary Ann Glenson's 1991 book
>Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. Of course
>this doesn't mean it's of no value but "God given rights" is a
>concept of natural law, not revelation, & is at best of penultimate
>2) Back in the day I think I was as anticommunist as anyone could
>wish. But the communist threat has gone bye-bye. There are serious
>threats to Christian faith &
>(of lesser importance) to the United States. But they ain't
>communist. Update your rhetoric.

### Re: 1) Although we may have no rights that we can assert
before God, He Who owns us has given us rights before one another,
and has ordained civil government to protect His people from
injustice (Romans 13:1-7).

Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the
liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his
wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is
just: that his justice does not sleep

Re: 2 ) "...communism", per se??? No, dear -- I was talking about
the evil inclinations of men who want to dominate and control
others. Fascism is the dominate manifestation of that inclination today.

Update the components in your discernment meter - it appears to have
gone haywire. It's reading zero.

~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>Janice Matchett
>To: <>Gregory Arago ;
>Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Sociology of Science

At 05:00 AM 12/31/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:

>"......Hopefully, here at ASA, scientists, theologians and scholars
>can help to convey this knowledge to a public that polemicizes the
>Evolution or Creation or ID motives to a greater degree than
>anywhere else in the world. It would seem to be a way to spread
>peace instead of conflict about origins, processes and directions of
>our lives. "

### Peace means different things to different people. Who gets to
define it?

To people who cherish freedom, peace isn't an absence of
conflict -- peace is the absence of threats to their God-given
rights -- and -- the presence of justice.

To people who want to dominate and control others - peace means the
absence of opposition. According to the Dictionary of Scientific
Communism: "Peace" is a world that is totally communist.

No rational person - whose God-given rights and incentives are
suppressed by atheistic tyrants - and legalistic (politically
correct) religious zealots (who tell everyone they are "moderate
progressives") -- would agree with such an UNJUST definition of "peace".

The fact that there are always going to be those who are irrational
enough to believe that utopia is a option they can vote for presents
a threat to the those who cherish freedom.

Irrational, emotionally immature "utopians" - despite all the
evidence and proof to the contrary - prefer to believe that human
nature is "basically good" --- and that man is perfectible in the
here and now -- if only "the right people" are in charge and "the
right government programs" are enforced.

The Framers of America's Constitution, however, held the biblical
world view. They knew that fallen man is "NOT basically good" -
even though he is capable of doing good from time to time. They
believed that we can hope for the best from each other, but expect
the worst (caveat emptor), and they set our government up
accordingly, undergirding it with an objective rule of law based on
the NT Commandment of Christ, summed up as "Do no harm" . Romans 13: 8-10

If you love your neighbor only as much as you love yourself - you
will never do him harm - such as attempting to take away his
God-given rights. Matthew 22:36, 39 Mark 12:28, 31.

So as long as we have people who disagree on the definition of peace
- we will never have an absence of conflict (war).

Cowards are much more horrified by "conflict" than they are by
tyranny. The more feminized the males in a society become, the less
they have the stomach for conflict and the more likely they are to
exhibit other feminine traits such as a preference for "consensus".

Cowards can never stay free for long, and if they obtain power,
they'll take the rest of us down with them.

So I view feminized males and other "conflict-averse" mentalities as
a threat to freedom in America, and around the world. I make it my
business to do what ever I can to prevent cowardly mentalities from
obtaining power.

I say it this way: "There will be peace on earth, but only among men
of good will, while thinking: "the rest had better be afraid - be
reeeeally afraid."

Cowards say it this way: "Peace on earth and good will to all
men", while thinking: "because I don't want to offend anyone or hurt
their feelings."

~ Janice
Received on Sat Dec 31 22:04:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 31 2005 - 22:04:07 EST