Dear Ms Gilden,
Had you included my entire posting 're anti-Christian rant', your
point would have been answered. I never suggested that all Christians
were evil - though I don't think for a second you can simply dismiss
KKK, Christian Nazis et al as 'not really Christian' - but that the
vast majority of Christian / biblical ideas were -either-
throroughly nasty -or- available without the nastiness, superstition
and anachronism from more recent Enlightenment sources. Remember, it
was (often) Christians but not Christianity that came up with human
rights. And the KKK would only have to peruse the Old Testament (as,
no doubt, they do) to find refs to the mark of Cain, the cursed
'black' race of Ham, Israelite slaughter of 'enemies', etc etc. In
fact Christianity, in my view, is so historically and ideologically
embroiled in brutality - nice, progressive, house-rebuilding
Christians notwithstanding - that we'd be better off without it. I
suspect most progressive Christians are aware that most of their
'enemies' are in fact other Christians ...
Re. widespread belief in Adam and Eve, I have it on good authority.
68% of college-educated Americans from -all- parts (not just the
Bible Belt) claim to hold this belief. If not, how did Buchanan get
to be so big ?
Yours,
Greg Garrard
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 16 11:07:03 1996
From: "G.GARRARD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Wales Swansea
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:32:53 0000
Subject: Re: Replies to Mathews
Dear Ms Mathews,
It is actually extraordinary that this nature/nurture (also
biological 'determinism' vs 'social construction' gender argument)
has become so slewed on one direction. The fact that some role for
'nature' in gender (ie some link between sex and gender) might lead
to unfortunate consequences doesn't change the fact that it obviously
-does- have a role. The Y-chromosome is not some irrelevance, any
more than race is an utterly illusory biological category - although
both must clearly be handled with great care, given the abuses
attached to them in the past. Any pure 'constructivist' argument has
to overcome massive theoretical, physiological, endocrinal, political
, historical, reproductive and other objections. In fact, it would have to propose
a species of disembodied sexless beings, floating around inventing
their genders in totally cultural/ political fashion.
(Seeing as you posted a splendid 'bit of Fry and Laurie', you might
also remember the discussion of the male 'right' to have a baby in
'Life of Brian', another great Brit comedy .... ?)
And just in case you imagine that you need some justification from
'nature' to oppress and murder, take a look at the
racially-homogenous Bosnia, where mere 'cultural' difference seems to
be ample ... Yours,
Greg Garrard
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 16 11:40:57 1996
Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Suzanne Romey)
Subject: Re: Investments
I am getting ready to chose a plan for my retirement. I have never been
able to understand how Wall Street and the economy work. My question is
what do eco-feminists think of this system of people investing money in
companys in order to make profits? Is this a good system. Some people
think the ecomony is going to collapse and there will be a depression. If
anyone wants to make suggestions to me personally, please send e-mail.
Suzanne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
