Posted on 10/17/2002 5:18:29 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
| Robert Fulford | |
| National Post |
Connoisseurs of human foolishness will always cherish that giddy moment in 1987 when the California legislature, convinced it had found the key to understanding human failure, set up the Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. The assemblyman who promoted this idea, John Vasconcellos, believed that raising the self-image of the citizens would cure drug addiction, crime and many other social ills. This project, Vasconcellos argued, was as important as unlocking the secrets of the atom.
The task force's supporters considered it the takeoff point for the self-esteem movement, but it may instead have been the beginning of the end. This much-publicized example of California eccentricity made people reconsider a belief that had taken a firm grip on the popular imagination years before: That people who hold themselves in high regard will act well and those who don't will act badly.
That sounds like a reasonable notion, and millions still believe it, but it won't stand up under serious thought and it crumples under research. It now appears that those who peddle the promise of self-esteem, including the authors of some 3,000 self-help books, are the modern equivalents of 19th-century snake-oil salesmen. It also appears that high self-esteem can often be harmful rather than beneficial.
The term self-esteem goes back at least to the 17th century. Milton in Paradise Lost suggested that sometimes nothing profits us more than well-grounded self-esteem. In 1890 William James, in Principles of Psychology, outlined a relationship between self-esteem and accomplishment.
The idea as we know it began flowering about half a century ago. The ground was prepared by The Power of Positive Thinking (1952), in which Norman Vincent Peale claimed happiness and material success result from personal optimism and self-regard. Around the same time, clinical studies in psychology showed connections between high self-esteem and success in school, business, marriage and sex.
Low self-esteem, on the other hand, showed up frequently alongside teenage pregnancy, drug-taking, wife-beating and homicide. In the 1960s two books by psychiatrists, Morris Rosenberg's Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (1965) and Stanley Coopersmith's The Antecedents of Self-Esteem (1967), claimed that the right kind of parental attention produces high self-esteem, therefore success, in children.
Armies of psychotherapists leapt on that idea, and soon intellectual garbage began piling up around it in great quantities. In 1969, Nathaniel Branden, a psychologist from Toronto who was once the lover and acolyte of Ayn Rand, moved over to this burgeoning field with The Psychology of Self Esteem, declaring self-esteem "the single most significant key to behaviour." In 1996 Steven Ward wrote in the Canadian Journal of Sociology: "What started as a fragile statement made by William James had by the early 1970s expanded into an encompassing and heterogeneous academic network."
Unfortunately for all those who committed their careers to promulgating this idea, most of what they wrote turns out to be worthless. Low self-esteem often accompanies serious social deviance, but there's no evidence to show that the first causes the second. An often repeated belief of Oprah Winfrey, that poor self-esteem is "the root of all the problems in the world" remains entirely unproven. It's just something that got drummed into her head.
In 1990 California's task force turned in its report, Toward A State Of Esteem, predictably advising school teachers to make students feel better about themselves. More books appeared. Gloria Steinem, a bit late, contributed Revolution From Within: A Book of Self-Esteem in 1992. (It turned out that she too suffered from low self-esteem, despite her power, brains and looks. Who knew?)
The task force became a joke (Doonesbury made great fun of it) but the first serious criticism didn't appear until 1996. Three researchers, reporting in Psychology Review on a survey of studies in psychology and criminology, broke the bad news: aggressive people tend to think highly of themselves. Violent and hostile people -- neo-Nazis, wife-beaters, members of the Ku Klux Klan, etc. -- "consistently express favourable views of themselves."
Last year Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, said a close study of the research shows no evidence that low self-esteem leads to delinquency, violence, drug use, alcohol abuse, educational under-attainment or racism. As for high self-esteem, that's a real problem. High scorers on self-esteem questionnaires are often racists and often engage in antisocial activities, such as drunk driving. In one study, conducted in Massachusetts and California, researchers gave standardized self-esteem tests to men serving time for murder, rape, assault or armed robbery. They discovered that the self-esteem of these criminals wasn't notably different from five other samples of men the same age: Vietnam veterans, problem drinkers, dentists, college students and recreational dart throwers.
An article by Jennifer Crocker of the University of Michigan, "The costs of seeking self-esteem," in the current issue of the Journal of Social Issues, describes the two most disastrous effects that flow from "the vicious and costly cycle of seeking self-esteem." First, people pursuing self-esteem tend to avoid acknowledging their errors. They attribute failure to external causes and can't learn from mistakes. Because they are committed to a high opinion of themselves, they react to criticism by protecting their self-esteem rather than improving their work. Second, the pursuit of self-esteem makes it hard to get along with others. In hundreds of studies, people whose self-esteem is threatened respond with avoidance, distancing, blame, excuses, anger, antagonism, and aggression -- each of them a way of undermining love or friendship. "The degree of self-focus required by the pursuit of self-esteem," Crocker argues, "is incompatible with awareness and responsiveness to others' needs." So the quest for self-esteem stands in the way of fulfilling two essential human needs, to be competent and to form relationships.
Nicholas Emler says that in England violent criminals and racists have been put through every test the profession has developed. The results are always the same. The men don't lack self-esteem. They like themselves. "These men," Emler has decided, are racist or violent "because they don't feel bad enough about themselves."
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come, says the old cliché, and we might add that there's nothing more pathetic, and nothing more embarrassing, than an idea whose time has come and gone.
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" has endured longer than the fulminations of some obscure Canadian.
He ridicules psychologists for touting the effects of self-esteem, then uses psychologists to debunk same.
He can't have it both ways.
"The degree of self-focus required by the pursuit of self-esteem," Crocker argues, "is incompatible with awareness and responsiveness to others' needs." So the quest for self-esteem stands in the way of fulfilling two essential human needs, to be competent and to form relationships.
Love your neighbor? The narcissist is incapable.
Much of psychology is sound science. Much of it is junk "science." The self-esteem movement is not just a fad. It destroys the soul, weakens resolve, and is written about in the Bible as the Serpent's seduction of Eve, Satan's temptation of Christ and Peter's words to Jesus upon learning of His coming sacrifice. The self-esteem movement is a blanket excuse for not doing what we know we need to do, for taking the easy path, for blaming others.
Neither could Oedipus.
Those who truly value themselves, who have true "self-esteem," ironically don't think much about themselves at all. They are so confident that they are loved children of God that they know their worth, and they can't help but share the good gifts they have been given with others.
Whatever Crocker is talking about, he is not talking about true self-esteem. He is, as you say, talking about narcissism, which isn't self-esteem at all, but a loathing of self.
Bill Clinton was a perfect example of a self-hater. He simply couldn't live a moment without knowing what other people thought of him. A narcissist NEEDS people; he leeches off of people and sucks them dry, emotionally, because he has no sense of self-worth.
The self-esteem movement is a blanket excuse for not doing what we know we need to do, for taking the easy path, for blaming others.
On the contrary, a self-confident person, secure in his self-esteem, always moves outward. He doesn't need other people; rather, he gives to them because he is secure in what he is and what he has.
Mother Teresa was supremely self-confident because she knew she didn't have to hoard her gifts. Her path was not easy, but she loved it, because she knew she was doing what her life's calling brought her to.
We may be talking about semantics here, but self-esteem means knowing yourself thoroughly, faults as well as strengths, and sharing the strengths, while working to overcome the faults.
That's better described as "self-confidence".
"Self-esteem", however, is (or at least has been co-opted as) an ersatz form of self-confidence. It's a kind of phony self-confidence that is not based on any real ability or merit, but instead is form of constant patting yourself on the back, whether it's deserve or not. Maybe even *especially* when it's not deserved.
It's satirized in the slogan of Al Franken's SNL character, Stuart Smalley: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and gosh darn it people like me!". It's the self-conscious *forced* self-regard, the kind that becomes a practiced goal unto itself. It's someone who would rather learn to "feel good" about themselves than actually become someone worthy of genuine pride.
It's the liberal touchy-feely version of self-confidence, where how you *feel* about something is more important than what it actually *is*.
It's what leads to such Alice-in-Wonderland ideas as doing away with grades in school, and instead giving all the students gold stars for "trying" (even if they didn't) so that no one's feelings will be hurt and they'll all go home happy and full of "self-esteem".
No matter what "self-esteem" may have meant 100 years ago, it has long since been pirated by the "feel good about yourself even if you're a worthless bum" crowd who use that exact term as their ideal.
Those who decry "self-esteem" think they're demonstrating its falsity by going to prisons and interviewing criminals.
These people are, by definition, liars and self-haters. They manipulate and cajole, something Dr. Crocker seems not to take into account. Why on earth would you go interview a liar and expect to get an honest answer?
If I wanted to know about self-esteem, I would go to the saints, to the producers, to the successful. These folks are supremely self-confident and are as prominent as they are precisely because they are generous and gregarious.
No, he isn't.
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" has endured longer than the fulminations of some obscure Canadian.
Huh? Yours is a non sequitur. The article says nothing to the contrary. In fact, it points out that the "pursuit of self-esteem" (as a goal unto itself) gets in the way of "love your neighbor" and the author rightly considers this a bad thing. So what's your beef?
He ridicules psychologists for touting the effects of self-esteem, then uses psychologists to debunk same.
He can't have it both ways.
It's not "having it both ways" to use the findings of psychologists who have performed proper studies and research, in order to refute the claims of psychologists who had not and were just engaging in pop self-help sloganeering.
Bingo. Absolutely true.
Well, that's not self-esteem. A person who truly knows his worth is also aware of his failings. These failings, however, don't cause a person of high self-esteem to hate himself; rather, he succeeds in spite of them and works to overcome them because he knows he can.
Sinkspur, your talking about genuine self-esteem. The self-esteem movement produces a counterfeit self-esteem, not based on reality.
It's Dr. Spock and spare the rod, teachers and parents lying to (appeasing, spoiling) the children to control them, rather than doing the tough job of disciplining and real instruction based on hard work. It's 2+2=5, affirmative action, political correctness, victimization, moral equivalence, grade inflation, it's historical revisionism, "women's studies", "gay rights", today's NAACP, the DNC, PETA, Hollywood, Jack Nicholson's character in Carnal Knowledge, Kafka's cockroach salesman in Metamorphosis...it's the formula for the downfall of civilization, "poor baby."
These people are, by definition, liars and self-haters.
Feel free to present your evidence for your absolute claim. A few viewings of "Escape From Alcatraz" won't count.
While it's true that people who robe, rape, and kill don't often mind a bit of lying as well, all the studies (of various sorts, in verious disciplines) show that in general felons don't suffer from "self-loathing", they suffer from *arrogance*.
This only makes sense, as it takes a real superiority complex to think that you're actually so *entitled* to someone else's property, sexual favors, or life as to take them by force.
And consider the biggest "criminals" of the past century -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, even Saddam Hussein -- these aren't guys who showed any signs of "self-loathing", these are men who had far more egotism than the average joe, who felt that they *deserved* to rule as much of the world as they could get their hands on, and were qualified to judge the fates (and lives) of millions.
On the whole, it's not self-loathing that drives violence, it's an insane amount of self-confidence.
They manipulate and cajole, something Dr. Crocker seems not to take into account. Why on earth would you go interview a liar and expect to get an honest answer?
Read the article again.
It says nothing about "interviews" being the basis for the studies.
It *does* talk about *testing*, which is almost always done in a way that properly avoids the possibility of a subject lying about himself.
Not surprisingly, psychologists (who by definition study human behavior) are way ahead of you when it comes to realizing that people may lie, and finding ways to remove that as a factor.
If I wanted to know about self-esteem, I would go to the saints, to the producers, to the successful. These folks are supremely self-confident and are as prominent as they are precisely because they are generous and gregarious.
Um, okay...
Things are very simple to you, aren't they?
It is to the "self-esteem movement", which is the whole point.
You're too hung up on word choice, you're not paying attention to the actual mental states being discussed (which are made clear enough from the context of the article and subsequent discussions, even if the single term "self-esteem" in isolation may mean different things to different people).
A false sense of self worth (and the drive to promote it) *is* what's being discussed in the article. Don't let the fact that you may use the same word to describe something else confuse you. No one's denouncing true self-confidence.
It's like posting an article discussing the "gay lifestyle" and clearly talking about homosexuality, and then having someone keep responding, "but there's nothing wrong with being joyful, this is silly".
Simple things are simple. Self-confident people have every reason to be.
I notice you don't mention Bill Clinton in your list of personalities. He is the most glaring example of a self-loathing person who relied on the opinions of others for his every action.
Those who possess true self-esteem are not afraid of criticism; people like Hitler would brook no criticism because he really had no confidence in himself.
Those who abuse or seek to dominate other people are the worst self-loathers of all. No truly selfp-confident person would have any need to harm another person in any way.
I know I always have been.....
But this guy is'nt a George Carlin more of an AL Gore.
Self-esteem arises from being consistent with our own internal value system. It is the effect, not the cause.
The societal benefit comes both from people being consistent with their value systems and from having a value system which promotes health. Falsely encouraging undeserved feelings of self-esteem by our children prevents them from being able to form a healthy value system.
Ghost of Oedipus.
Are you a freshman English major?
Oedipus was obsessed, and you're obsessed with Oedipus.
But I think what noticing here and talking around is the facade of self esteem vs. the true person underneath... While you are talking about the true person underneath, who lives in self-loathing and compensates with an outward self esteem, liberals who taught this "self esteem" crap tried to teach just the facade, thinking it would give rise to *real* self-esteem. You cannot 'teach' true self esteem (I think it is better termed 'healthy self image') except by a long term relationship with someone who has healthy self-image. To try and teach it in school is ridiculous. This is a flower that grows in the soil, water, and fertilizer of virtue and character and morality, and *NOT* *EVER* without those things. You *can* teach some examples of character and morality (e.g. the Book of Virtues). But to teach "self esteem" to someone who doesn't have the proper growth medium of virtue, is an illusion, much like a plastic plant in an empty pot.
Indeed, "true believer" liberals(*) consistently fail to recognize that all human endeavors are driven by the need to "improve". Whether it be improving themselves, their pocketbook, or the world in which they live, the "spark of creation" that drives humanity is the need for improvement. Unfortunately, in seeking to make things "good enough", liberals consistently undermine the forces that would make them better.
(*) Unlike some people, I do not impart any altruistic motives to liberal leadership. While they cast their claimed goals in all sorts of high rhetoric, the real goal of the liberal leadership is to create a class of slaves. To do this, they must break the human spirit. It is truly distressing to realize the extent to which they have managed to do this while hiding their true agenda.Satan isn't a person. "He" is modern liberalism--the most deadly enemy of the human spirit.
One thing I've said before and will say again: Even God failed to create an Eden which was compatible with the human spirit. Liberals seek to create Eden--a magical state of being where nobody needs to worry about anything, because all their needs will be provided for them. What the liberal idealists fail to grasp is that not only is Eden unachievable, but if such an existence were achieved it would be Hell on Earth.
Much is encompased by the term "self-esteem". What really matters is that one recognize one's ability to improve. Sometimes "low self-esteem" is caused by a recognition that one can (and therefore shoot) improve oneself considerably, and a desire to do so before 'showing oneself off'.
What the liberals' false "high self-esteem" efforts have done is make people believe not that they can be who they want to be, but that they already are. If people see themselves as they want to be, while seeing others as they are, they will of course perceive themselves as superior--often far superior--to others. This, I think, contributes greatly to the psychopathic behaviors that all too often arise.
Clinton has a lot of psychological problems, but "self-loathing" is not one of them. Quite the contrary, he's supremely egotistical.
Yes, he craved the attention and approval of others to a pathological degree, but due to personality flaws quite different from "self-loathing".
Other than your... idiosyncratic belief that "self-loathing" is at the root of all bad behavior, feel free to point out any action of Clinton's which demonstrated his alleged "self-loathing".
Those who possess true self-esteem are not afraid of criticism; people like Hitler would brook no criticism because he really had no confidence in himself.
Gee, it's funny, no biographer of Hitler, no researcher into his writings, no psychologist analyzing his behavior is as fond of the "he acted the way he did because he had no self-confidence" theory as you are. Perhaps you could provide us with some of your original research and show us the evidence for your, shall we say, novel view.
Most everyone else familiar with the topic disagrees with you however. Here's one example of many: Instigators of Genocide: Examining Hitler From a Social Psychological Perspective
Even better, we can read Hitler's own view of himself in Mein Kampf, where we can find countless examples of his extreme self-confidence (and not a hint of alleged lack of self-confidence) such as:
[note: Each blank line represents a break in the quoting -- each block of text is its own book excerpt, separate from the rest]Oh, yeah, there's a guy filled with self-doubt... *snicker*Today it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace.
I believe that even then my oratorical talent was being developed in the form of more or less violent arguments with my schoolmates. I had become a little ringleader; at school I learned easily and at that time very well, but was otherwise rather hard to handle.
School work was ridiculously easy, leaving me so much free time that the sun saw more of me than my room.
How it happened, I myself do not know, but one day it became clear to me that I would become a painter, an artist. There was no doubt as to my talent for drawing;
At that time I regarded this as a natural complement to my gift as a painter, and only rejoiced inwardly at the extension of my artistic scope.
In my hand a suitcase full of clothes and underwear; in my heart an indomitable will, I journeyed to Vienna.
I had set out with a pile of drawings, convinced that it would be child's play to pass the examination. At the Realschule I had been by far the best in my class at drawing, and since then my ability had developed amazingly; my own satisfaction caused me to take a joyful pride in hoping for the best. Yet sometimes a drop of bitterness put in its appearance: my talent for painting seemed to be excelled by my talent for drawing, especially in almost all fields of architecture.
Now I was in the fair city for the second time, waiting with burning impatience, but also with confident self-assurance, for the result of my entrance examination. I was so convinced that I would be successful that when I received my rejection, it struck me as a bolt from the blue.
When after the death of my mother I went to Vienna for the third time, to remain for many years, the time which had mean-while elapsed had restored my calm and determination. My old defiance had come back to me and my goal was now clear and definite before my eyes.
I do not know what horrified me most at that time: the economic misery of my companions, their moral and ethical coarseness, or the low level of their intellectual development.
I was firmly convinced that I should some day make a name for myself as an architect.
Since my earliest youth I have endeavored to read in the correct way, and in this endeavor I have been most happily supported by my memory and intelligence.
Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands. Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
And so it was easy for me to imagine how this ' educated ' world would confront me, and in this I erred only in so far as even then I still regarded people as better than in cold reality they for the most part unfortunately are.
I was able to go on speaking. After half an hour the applause slowly began to drown out the screaming and shouting. I now took up the program and began to explain it for the first time. From minute to minute the interruptions were increasingly drowned out by shouts of applause. And when I finally submitted the twenty-five theses, point for point, to the masses and asked them personally to pronounce judgment on them, one after another was accepted with steadily mounting joy, unanimously and again unanimously, and when the last thesis had found its way to the heart of the masses, there stood before me a hall full of people united by a new conviction, a new faith, a new will.
In spite of all the interruptions, I was able to speak for about an hour and a half and I felt as if I were master of the situation. Even the ringleaders of the disturbers appeared to be convinced of this; for they steadily became more uneasy, often left the hall, returned and spoke to their men in an obviously nervous way.
And, above all things, the People's State will never be created by the desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, but only by the iron will of a single movement which has successfully come through in the struggle with all the others.
Of course here, as everywhere else, one must take account of those human weaknesses which make men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to submit to the control of a superior mind.
If, in the world of our present parliamentary corruption, [the Nazi party] becomes more and more aware of the profoundest essence of its struggle, feels itself to be the purest embodiment of the value of race and personality and conducts itself accordingly, it will with almost mathematical certainty some day emerge victorious from its struggle. Just as Germany must inevitably win her rightful position on this earth if she is led and organized according to the same principles. A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial elements must some day become lord of the earth.
Those who abuse or seek to dominate other people are the worst self-loathers of all.
So you believe.
No truly selfp-confident person would have any need to harm another person in any way.
I admire your childlike faith in such absolutes, but I'm afraid they clash with reality.
Um... You think he has it "exactly right" when he says that Hitler acted the way he did from a *lack* of self-confidence? *snort*
Most of those that do not agree with you here are confusing the false self esteem of narcissistic personality disorder with true self esteem (as you have properly described.)
Nonsense. As those of us who disagree have pointed out at length, we're entirely *clear* on the difference between the two. It is instead *sinkspur* who doesn't seem to grasp that the two are distinct from each other, it's the reason he's still baffled about how anyone who had "self-esteem" could possibly hurt a fly.
He fails to understand that while the latter type is constructive, the former type is destructive. I'm amazed that you would think sinkspur was "exactly right", since he's arguing *against* the position (and esteem-type distinctions) that Nathanial Branden holds (and you seem to be a student of Branden).
The author of the article mentions Nathaniel Branden, but goes on to prove that he hasn't understood his books. Is anyone reading this thread familiar with Branden's description of self esteem?
Yes, and nothing the author says about Branden's work conflicts with it. You're reading way too much into the authors short cite of Branden -- he's not laying the entire modern bogus "self-esteem movement" (which is based on a false, unfounded sense of self-worth) on Branden, he's simply listing him in a long list of people who helped make "self-esteem" a Big Topic in the 60's and 70's and helped hype (one might say overhyped) its significance. Here's his entire comment about Branden:
In 1969, Nathaniel Branden, a psychologist from Toronto who was once the lover and acolyte of Ayn Rand, moved over to this burgeoning field with The Psychology of Self Esteem, declaring self-esteem "the single most significant key to behaviour."Are you disputing that Branden holds such a position? Don't try, he clearly does. He has authored an avalanche of books on the topic:
A Woman's Self-Esteem: Struggles and Triumphs in the Search for Identity (1998)
Self-Esteem at Work: How Confident People Make Powerful Companies (1998)
Self-Esteem Every Day: Reflections on Self-Esteem and Spirituality (1998)
The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (1994)
The Art of Self-Discovery: A Powerful Technique For Building Self-Esteem (1993)
The Power of Self-Esteem (1992)
How To Raise Your Self-Esteem (1987)
The Psychology of Self-Esteem: A New Concept of Man's Psychological Nature (1969)
And contrary to your claim that the author "doesn't understand Branden", in fact the point the author is making is quite similar to Branden's own, concerning legitimate self-esteem versus counterfeit self-esteem
And that, in a nutshell, is the best one-line summary I've yet seen of the point made in the original article.
The passage might be clarified as "Love your neighbor as you would wish yourself to be loved." This is not calling for an extinguishment of the wish for love.
The key to being a peaceful member of society is the characteristic of submitting to a power or value higher than oneself. That higher power can be GOD, the POLICE, LOVE, REALITY, or simply TRUTH.
When self-love is greater than other values, welcome to chaos and evil.
The Liberal American obsession with self-praising is a principal reason for our decline.
Only with credible facts and accomplishment is self-praising warranted - otherwise, it is a deadly and corroding lie.
The American education system is a big part of the problem. Want proof?
In a comparison of math skills across several countries, hard test results showed Taiwanese children ranking top of the list. American kids scored dead last.
Yet in response to a self-assessment survey question attached to each test "I am good at math", the Taiwanese children thought poorly of themselves - they ranked last.
But Buffy and Bubba in America, however, saw themselves as the world's math top guns, proving that the self-esteem curriculum was alive and kicking, despite the facts.
Self-esteem is the effect, not the cause, of a life well lived.
From Alice Miller, "Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation?"
"It was in large part owing to Hitler and his history that I became aware of the dangers of our traditional morality. We are exhorted to honor our parents and never question them no matter what they have done. Yet when I realize that millions of human beings had to die so that Adolf Hitler could keep his repression of childhood trauma intact, that millions were subjected to humiliation in concentration camps so that he never had to recognize how he had once been humiliated, then I believe that one can't point out these connections often enough in order to shed light on this unconscious production of evil. How should young people be expected to recognize and reject inhumanity and crime if these continue to be disguised instead of being pointed out as plainly as possible? Only when young people are permitted to know exactly what happened and how it could happen, only if they don't allow anything to stifle their curiosity and are not afraid of the truth, can they free themselves from the burden placed upon them by their forebears' blindness."
I don't think you have a clue about narcissistic personality disorder or childhood psychology. But that won't stop you because you have a choir here to preach to.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.