USA wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 20:47:56 -0800, "bluesmama"

> wrote:
>
> >
> >Andre Lieven wrote:
> >
> >> But, as suffused with the brain rot known as Feminism, your making
> >> further continuing errors and fallicies, isn't news.
> >>
> >> Its just more proof that the President of Harvard was... *right*.
> >
> >
> >http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102194.html
> >Speaking of Harvard, feminism and news.
>
> I'm sure Annie must be a real feminist hero of yours and even more so
> around that ridiculous feminist bastion called Harvard.  But here's a
> slightly different take on your "heroine."
>
> http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0194_Anne_Hutchinson_Deba.html
>
> 
>
> On page 117 is an account of how Anne "got herself into difficulty
> when she launched a campaign against the minister of the Boston
> Church, John Wilson, whom she despised because she thought his
> preaching was not at all compelling ... according to her count there
> were only two truly Christian - 'sealed' - preachers in all of
> Massachusetts. They were John Cotton, whom she called the 'voice of
> the beloved,' and her brother-in-law John Wheelright. The rest were
> hypocrites, liars and on their way to perdition."
>
> The chapter gives many more details too numerous to quote in a
letter,
> the clashing of the two accounts regarding Anne Hutchinson and her
> views is loud and clear.
>
> Whoever wrote the report calling Anne Hutchinson, "Champion of
> Tolerance" should do more research and Faith and Freedom is a good
> starting place. If Hart is correct in stating that "she was expelled
> because she was a religious fanatic who spent much of her time
> slandering the reputations of good and honorable men" and "had
> violated both the laws of the Bible and of acceptable conduct needed
> to hold society together" then further study and an article
addressing
> this needs to be printed in your publication. I will be watching for
> just such an article.
>
> 

First off, Anne Hutchinson wasn't a feminist, but yes, in some aspects
of her life I think she's worth emulating. Not all, but some, but see -
I can make those kind of distinctions. You don't appear to be able to -
a case in point would be your discounting the institution of Harvard
because of its alleged position as a "ridiculous feminist bastion".

Where did your article come from? Media House International. Let's see
what their website has to say:

About Media House International

Media House International is a non-profit organization which is
dedicated to the training of student interns to produce media. Media
House International assumes an explicitly biblical worldview. Our long
term goal is to bring all types of media under the Lordship of Jesus
Christ. The officers and members of Media House International are
Christians who desire to see the kingdom of God advanced in the world
through the media. In short, our goal is to help fulfill the Great
Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) through the printed word.

Our Purpose

The purpose of Media House International is to train and equip young
people worldwide to produce media materials so that they may impact and
transform their culture according to biblical principles. Media House
International publishes The Forerunner International and works with
other ministries who make up a world-wide network of publications
proclaiming a victorious Christian worldview.

Frankly, when someone says they assume an explicitly biblical
worldview, I'd do a little more reading before I considered the source
worth quoting. Or do you believe we all came from Adam and Eve?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/1/05 6:10:09 PM ---