Gotta hand it to the ol’ boy …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Darwin has master publicists. He really does.

Coming home on the bus today, I suddenly realized how odd it is that the ol’ Brit toff racist – whose The Descent of Man is an open running sore of racism – is being celebrated everywhere as some kind of liberator.

Well, I guess he is – if you are a racist, and are looking for a “scientific” cover.

Look, this is a guy who thought black people were closer to gorillas than white people are. The idea is not only wrong and offensive, it is completely ridiculous.

He travelled all around the world and he didn’t realize that?*

A physicist friend actually spent some time getting through the book, and was astonished at the racism.

I knew about it, of course, but didn’t know how to tell him.

In the current era of worship of St. Darwin, you can’t tell people these things. You must just hope that they will somehow find out or figure it out for themselves. After all, there is an Internet ….

The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was?

They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?

After all, their theory does leave open the idea that different races could be more or less “evolutionarily”** developed, doesn’t it?

I would be happy to learn that, as a group, they have openly and publicly denounced and backed away from Darwin’s views instead of just covering them up and making coy excuses like “he was against slavery.”***

(*Note: I live in a city that hosts people from all over the world, and have seen just about everything you can imagine. Please don’t write to tell me what I supposedly don’t know. Human culture is everywhere different but human nature is everywhere the same.)

** “evolutionarily” – it grates on the ear as one of the ugliest adverbs in English. Only a Darwinist could have invented it.

***Lots of racists in good standing have been against slavery. There are perfectly good reasons for opposing slavery that are entirely consistent with racism – and that was true in Darwin’s case.

Comments

Allen MacNeill (#14): "And while we’re at it, Ray, please list the thread and comment # where you got this quote, and who you got it from: 'I have never said that Darwinism is, in principle, sullied by Darwin’s racism' Or did you make it up?" The quote was by O'Leary in #6 to me. It appears again in #10, quoted by me, to make a point to O'Leary. And I agree with you Allen concerning William Bell Riley, Billy Sunday and Bob Jones. I am not a Fundamentalist, who, like all Atheists, support microevolution. I supported Barack Obama for President; am against the death penalty; and I was glad to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of the White House and Congress. Ray Martinez, Old Earth Creationist, species immutabilist.R. Martinez_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill wrote:
They also pointed out that evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations’ 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945.
Emphasis mine. I wonder what scientific discoveries were made in 1945 that changed the minds of all those evolutionary biologists? I wonder if they're the same ones that Richard Dawkins, being the great scientist that he is, questioned a few years ago - seeing that retesting theories in the light of new evidence is how science is done.angryoldfatman_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Denyse: I've been having a look at The Descent of Man, as you invited your readers to do. It wasn't all bad; I found some passages such as the following:
I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours...
and
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works ... can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits.
I certainly found some racist passages in the book, as readers can verify for themselves, and I can't for the life of me see why scientific academies around the world don't simply issue a blanket condemnation of so-called "scientific" racism, no matter who propounded it - including any expressions of the idea by Darwin himself. But what struck me when reading Darwin's book, The Descent of Man, was that the racism was very casually expressed: Darwin seemed utterly unembarrassed about writing what he did. Which prompts me to ask: why? When did racism become intellectually respectable? It must have been long before Darwin. Take, for instance, the following observation:
Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.
Darwin cites this very diversity of opinion as evidence against the view that the different races of humanity are different species, but what interests me is that so many educated people, long before Darwin, were prepared to entertain such a wrong-headed notion. Which leads me back to my original question: where did they get it from? Some contributors may be inclined to answer that racism has been around since the year dot, and that the remarkable thing is that we have managed to make it socially unacceptable. I disagree. Since time immemorial, people have shown a chauvinistic tendency to prefer the art, customs and achievements of their own tribe above that of other ethic groups; but that is not the same thing as saying that other peoples are not even human, or that there is a hierarchy of races. As far as I am aware, the Romans were free of this disgusting notion: the fact that Severus (193-211) was an African Emperor seems not to have occasioned any comment at the time. Racism was also foreign to the Hebrews, as shown by the following verse: "Are not you Israelites the same to me as the Cushites [Ethiopians]?" declares the LORD (Amos 9:7). Thus the roots of so-called "scientific racism" certainly go back before Darwin, but appear to postdate Imperial Rome. Could anyone who is familiar with the history of ideas care to enlighten me as to when and where this pernicious school of thought originated?vjtorley_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 8
When a world association of evolutionary biologists formally acknowledges that “The Descent of Man” is one long racist tract and *disassociates* its members from Darwin’s actual views, I will be impressed.
I would expect that a "world association of evolutionary biologists" has better things to do than pander to the prejudices of a yellow journalist.
In the meantime, attacks on anyone’s character are entirely beside the point.
Precisely.
There is a huge, open, running, rotting Stage 4 sore here - visible to the whole world - that “evolutionary biologists” seem in no hurry to deal with.
No, what we have here is a standard ploy of tabloid journalism which is to manufacture a controversy for the sake of headlines and, hence, sales.
It is NO use telling me that no one agrees with Darwin if science associations are not prepared to make a formal statement about his actual views and disassociate themselves from them.
And just how stupid do you think biologists are? Do really imagine they cannot see straight through such a transparent deception? Do you think they don't foresee that any statement they issue along the lines you demand will be published under banner headlines screaming something like "Darwinists Admit Brit Toff Theories Racist!" You'll have to do better than that.Seversky_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

O'Leary also asked:
"The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was? They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?" [Emphasis added]
Are you ready for my answer, O'Leary? Here it is: (wait for it) No. Surprise! Now let me ask you a question, O'Leary: Have you stopped spitting on the African-Americans you pass by on the street? Oh, you think that question is just a tad unfair? That perhaps it might be just a little too close to the one you asked, in that it was what a lawyer might call a "leading question" that presupposed guilt on the part of the person of whom it was asked? Hmm, wonder why you might have asked that question, in just that way. Was it because it would be interpreted as a statement of fact by some of the "intelligent" design supporters here, who would snicker knowingly upon reading it? Somebody like Ray "all evolutionary biologists are gutter racists" Martinez? Just curious...Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Oh, right, that was O'Leary that wrote that. ROFLMAO!Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

I'll post this here, so that Ray can distort it on this thread as well: At this year's Darwin Bicentennial Celebration at Cornell the department of ecology and evolutionary biology co-sponsored a panel discussion on "Evolution and Racism". All four the the panelists, two of whom were African Americans (three were evolutionary biologists and one was a sociologist) agreed that by today's standards Darwin and most of his contemporaries were racists. And they also pointed out that evolutionary biologists today – people like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Will Provine, and Robert Trivers – are among the strongest and most vocal opponents of racism, especially "scientific racism". You can read about it here: http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=YjRlMHB0bWR2Z3EwNzE0YnFhN2tqdjVqYWcgbXVzZXVtb2Z0aGVlYXJ0aEBt&ctz=America/New_York Two years ago I served on a panel at the Cornell Darwin Day Celebration that dealt with "Evolution and Eugenics". All four of the panelists (three evolutionary biologists and a Tallman Prize winner) agreed that Darwin's ideas were used by eugenicists to justify their heinous policies. They also pointed out that evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations' 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945. You can read about it here: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb07/Darwin.lgk.html Now admittedly, the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell is not “a world association of evolutionary biologists”. However, it is widely recognized as one of the premier institutions of its kind in the world. How about this:
“The simple fact remains: there is no "inferior" race; the genetic differences between races are trivial.”
“ This statement comes from the National Center for Science Education, as part of a report on “Racism and the Public's Perception of Evolution”, available online here: http://ncseweb.org/rncse/22/3/racism-publics-perception-evolution (paragraph 31, second sentence) Even ID supporters might be willing to admit that the NCSE is a “world-recognized organization of evolutionary biologists”. After all, they complain about the immense political power of the NCSE, and the fact that virtually all evolutionary biologists agree with their organization’s views, including the one quoted above. There have also been multiple sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meetings on this subject, which have condemned the use of evolutionary biology to support racism. Here’s an announcement about one of them: http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/Race-And-Human-Evolution-15003-1/ Last, but not least, one could also read The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps the strongest indictment of "scientific racism" published in the second half of the 20th century, by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. Now let me make a prediction: none of these will satisfy O’Leary, because her demand is not made with the expectation that there will be any evidence to the contrary. No, her demand is that some unspecified “world association of evolutionary biologists” make a “public retraction of Charles Darwin’s views”, which would, of course, include his theory of evolution. Kind of like asking someone if they’ve stopped beating their grandmother yet… While we’re at it, perhaps O’Leary would suggest that all of the religious organizations that have opposed Darwin’s theories to do the same thing: that is, retract their previous support for racism, based on their religious views. Here’s a sample: • William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent William Jennings Bryan to Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 to prosecute John T. Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of Tennessee’s Butler Act- advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution. • Evangelist Billy Sunday endorsed the Klan Kreed of white supremacy and bitterly attacked evolution. • Early in the 20th century, Bob Jones Sr's revivals were supported financially by the Ku Klux Klan. Later, as most religious denominations in the US denounced the Klan, Southern Baptists - whose denomination was organized in 1845 as a haven for pro-slavery Baptists - were "unanimously silent on the question of the Klan" Southern Baptists opposed not only integration and other antiracist efforts, but also the teaching of evolution, denouncing Darwinism as "a soul-destroying, Bible-destroying, and God-dishonoring theory". Sound familiar? • Bob Jones University, founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927 (two years after the Scopes trial) as "a college with high academic standards; an emphasis on culture; and a down-to-earth, practical Christian philosophy of self-control that was both orthodox and fervent in its evangelistic spirit". Until a massive public-relations problem forced the university to reconsider its policy in 2000, it prohibited interracial dating, which was viewed as "playing into the hand of the Antichrist" by defying God's will regarding God-made differences among the races. So I’ll make a deal with O’Leary: every time she brings up Darwin’s racism and tries to tie it to evolutionary biology as a whole, I’ll bring up the racists who used religion as a justification for racism. And, if she’s game, I’ll work with her to get the issue brought up in our respective organizations, and see if it flies. Should be interesting… And while we're at it, Ray, please list the thread and comment # where you got this quote, and who you got it from: “I have never said that Darwinism is, in principle, sullied by Darwin’s racism” Or did you make it up?Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

O'Leary in message #8 says to Allen MacNeill: "You can be sure you will be hearing from me again - and again - on this. So why not just deal with it?" Darwinists refuse to recognize the severity of Darwin's racism because they feel their theory cannot handle the damage. With all polls and surveys showing widespread rejection of evolution, Darwinists have decided that the best path to pursue is to whitewash, cover-up, deny and/or ignore. RayR. Martinez_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg (#11): "Poor Denyse. She thanks Ray Martinez and then gets whacked by Ray for being insufficiently intolerant." You have, once again, misunderstood. O'Leary was being courteous while disagreeing with the main implication of my argument. My follow-up is attempting to secure her support. RayR. Martinez_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Poor Denyse. She thanks Ray Martinez and then gets whacked by Ray for being insufficiently intolerant.David Kellogg_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Regarding O'Leary (#6). To repeat (#3): The fact of the matter is that Charles Darwin rejected the Genesis Creator as maker of Adamkind before or during the two years 1837 and 1838 (Autobio:85-87). During this same two year period he then "notices" that apes in the London zoo looked similar to dark skinned peoples that he had encountered on the previous five year Beagle voyage (Larson 2004). Edward Larson quoting Charles Darwin ("Evolution: The History Of A Remarkable Theory" 2004:66-67): "Let man visit orangutan in domestication, hear expressive whine, see its intelligence...not understanding language of Fuegian, puts [them] on par with Monkeys....Forget the use of language, & judge only by what you see Compare, the Fuegian & Orangutan, & dare to say difference is so great'(bracket in original)." The point is AFTER God is rejected Darwin then relies on his pre-existing racism to answer a question that did not exist before: the origin of mankind. Darwinism is BASED on racism. So when you say: "I have never said that Darwinism is, in principle, sullied by Darwin’s racism"---I completely disagree. Darwinism is sullied by Darwin's gutter racism. Can you show my argument to have any error in fact or logic? RayR. Martinez_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Can I ask that we require a denunciation of the racism of scientists and philosophers before Darwin and 19th-century anti-Darwinians as well? Please: nobody mention the pre-Darwin Linnaeus or the anti-Darwinian Agassiz without discussing the important position of racism in their works. Also: nobody talk about Catholicism without a shout-out to Sepúlveda, the Dominican philosopher-priest who helped pave the way for the Spanish enslavement of Indians by arguing that the natives had no souls.David Kellogg_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Allan MacNeill, When a world association of evolutionary biologists formally acknowledges that "The Descent of Man" is one long racist tract and *disassociates* its members from Darwin's actual views, I will be impressed. Otherwise not. And lots of other people will not be impressed either. In the meantime, attacks on anyone's character are entirely beside the point. There is a huge, open, running, rotting Stage 4 sore here - visible to the whole world - that "evolutionary biologists" seem in no hurry to deal with. It is NO use telling me that no one agrees with Darwin if science associations are not prepared to make a formal statement about his actual views and disassociate themselves from them. I would have thought that the Darwin year was the exact right time to do just exactly that - especially if it is true that so few biologists are racists, as you say*. To me, the fact that it never occurred to them to do so is highly significant - given the world we live in. *I don't say anything one way or the other about all that except this: I ask for a general retraction of Darwin's views on race and *you can be very sure that I will know what to make of any failure to do so. And it is no use quoting high panjandrums against me.* You can be sure you will be hearing from me again - and again - on this. So why not just deal with it?O'Leary_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

"One would have to be incredibly naive not to believe that all of his colleagues are the same." [Emphasis added for the sake of clarity]
No, one would only have to be someone like Ray Martinez, whose only stock in trade is character assassination, guilt by association, and ad hominem argumentation, rather than rational debate. And what, precisely, does any of this have to do with the science of biology today? Is O'Leary asserting that evolutionary biologists today are racists? It's clear that Martinez is asserting this, but his assertions are simply bigoted rants, not arguments based on evidence. This is at least the fourth time that O'Leary has brought up the subject of Darwin's racist attitudes in what appears to be an effort to tar all evolutionary biologists with the same brush. She seems to have an obsession with "the old toff", but I'm curious: does the fact that she keeps bringing this up have anything to do with trying to convince you that all evolutionary biologists share Darwin's 19th century Victorian views about race? I think that might indeed be the case, so how about we cut out the "arguments by assertion" and see some proof. List off a dozen currently practicing evolutionary biologists, and provide evidence that unequivocally indicates that they are racists. After all, as Ray Martinez asserts, "...all [evolutionary biologists] are the same", so finding a dozen racists among the thousands of evolutionary biologists from around the world should be a trivial exercise. If you can't think of any living evolutionary biologists right off the bat, don't feel bad. Most of the commentators on this blog would probably be hard-pressed to name more than three. So relax, I can show you where to find some. Indeed, I can provide you with links to the faculties of the departments of evolutionary biology at most of the major universities in the US and elsewhere (there are quite a few; several thousand at last count). Let me be very clear about this: unless someone here can show some documented evidence that the majority of evolutionary biologists today are racists, then what Martinez and O'Leary are doing is lying about evolutionary biologists as a group, for reasons that should be patently obvious from reading Martinez' slanderous screeds. BTW, James Watson is not an evolutionary biologist, he's a molecular geneticist. But hey, if it makes you feel better (i.e. it panders to your biases), include him and find eleven more. That shouldn't be hard, since all evolutionary biologists (and, by extension, all biologists) are racists, right?Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Thanks, R. Martinez, for staying on the case. I have never said that Darwinism is, in principle, sullied by Darwin's racism. (I don't believe Darwinism, of course, but that is due to many, many problems with the evidence of the history of life, not only this one.) Re the racism, let me re-stress, it is the silence and cover-ups that are the problem. The more of that we encounter, the more the general public is right to be very suspicious of Darwinism - and especially of special interest lobbies' demands that it be taught in the school system. But the reason for suspicion is principally the inability to just admit that Darwin was a racist who believed that black people were closer to gorillas than white people are. Why can they NOT just say yes, he thought so, and we know it is not true - and just get PAST it? How hard is that, really? They knew the Darwin year was coming for a dog's age - and it never occured to them to do that? Why not? Seems pretty obvious to me - unless they are so used to fronting a barrel of lies that it never occurred to them to try telling the truth for once and just get past it. Instead, we hear the kind of thing Seversky writes - moralizing lectures about religion ... In other words, they are not prepared to admit it and just get past it. No one is saying that anyone today is responsible for what Darwin thought - we just want them to admit it. So the important question is, why NOT? No huffing about "science" is going to help this problem. They either have to face up to Darwin's racism or accept the entirely legitimate growing public suspicion about Darwinism.O'Leary_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

It is funny how atheists will run to the Bible as soon as their feelings are hurt, isn't it R. Martinez? LOL! Too bad they don't read it when things are going well for them. Seversky cites scripture:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…
Ms. O'Leary is not throwing rocks to take someone's life. On the contrary, she is telling a truth that may save lives.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
This is one of the most abused passages of scripture in regards to context that I know. Even so, let us take it as it is given. Let us judge Ms O'Leary as she is judging Charles Darwin. I doubt that she thinks Caucasians are more highly evolved than other races with darker skin pigment, unlike Charles.
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another.
Ms. O'Leary is denouncing Charles Darwin for his racism, which he supposed was scientifically based. She sees this doctrine as evil, as do I. If Christians are not supposed to speak out against evil, then they wouldn't be following the example of the Son of Man Himself and very well couldn't call themselves Christians. I'm sure Darwin was a nice fellow and easy to talk to. It would be easy for me to forgive him for any personal insult, which is what this Biblical passage essentially asks us to do. It says nothing about allowing a nice person to lead others astray with evil doctrine.angryoldfatman_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Regarding: Seversky (#2). The Biblical quote mining indicates that the truth about Darwin hurts Seversky, and the same presupposes the guilt of Charles Darwin, and it demands that he be given a free pass. Since Atheists slander all who oppose Darwinism to be Fundamentalists the answer is no: We will continue to tell the truth about Charles Darwin. We will not lie and cover up his egregious white superiority, proto-Nazi, beliefs.R. Martinez_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

O'Leary: "Coming home on the bus today, I suddenly realized how odd it is that the ol’ Brit toff racist - whose The Descent of Man is an open running sore of racism - is being celebrated everywhere as some kind of liberator." It is good to see you keep the truth about Darwin's brazen racism in the public eye. Darwinists from all walks of life seek to erase the truth and present a Charles Darwin that never existed. "Descent Of Man" (1871) is egregious racism packaged as science. Darwin gets a free ride because Darwinists control the microphone. Darwinism says apes first began to evolve into men in Africa. It is important to note that the proposition of human evolution from an ancient ape ancestor is made necessary AFTER the God of Genesis is rejected as Creator. That is, after God is rejected as creator of Adamkind, Darwin and Darwinists rely upon their pre-existing racism to answer a question that did not exist before. According to historian Edward Larson, Charles Darwin, in 1837-1838, saw a similarity between apes in the London zoo and dark skinned peoples that he had encountered on the previous five year HMS Beagle voyage ("Evolution: The History Of A Remarkable Theory" 2004:66-67). Of course it was during the same two years (1837-1838) that Darwin forsook the Bible (Autobio:85-87). MIT Professor Huston Smith: "In 1919 the Brooklyn Zoo exhibited an African American caged alongside chimpanzees and gorillas" ("Why Religion Matters" 2001:17). If human evolution was based on evidence, like we have been told by Darwinists, then why were they caging Africans and apes 37 years after Darwin had died? The point is obvious: there isn't any evidence. Human evolution was based, and is based, on gutter racism. Nobel prize-winning Darwinian biologist James Watson: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html "Watson was quoted as saying he was 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.'" From Darwin to caging blacks with apes to modern day Nobel winners: Darwinism is based on racism. The only surprise in the Watson incident is that he got caught. One would have to be incredibly naive not to believe that all of his colleagues are the same. RayR. Martinez_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

The author of this unfortunate piece of yellow journalism proclaims herself to be a Roman Catholic. If she wants to be Christian in spirit rather than just in name she would do well to pay closer attention to the teachings of her faith: John 8:7
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Ephesians 4:31-32
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another.
Seversky_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?
No. This has been an edition of simple answers to silly questions.David Kellogg_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply