Letters for September 19, 2019


The Macon County News letters page is a public forum open to a wide variety of  opinions. Letters are neither accepted nor rejected on the basis of the opinions expressed. Writers are asked to refrain from personal attacks against individuals or businesses. Letters are not necessarily reflective of the opinions of the publisher, editor or staff of The Macon County News. 

The science of evolution a proponent of racism

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), a leading evolutionist and Marxist (Socialist), as well as a staunch anti-racist, admitted, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths.” 

The Bible doesn’t mention “races.” Its divisions among men are those of “tongues, families, nations, and lands” (Genesis 10:20, 31). The vision of the redeemed saints in heaven (Revelation 7:9) is one of “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.” The divisions formed after the Flood were based on different languages supernaturally imposed by God, not any physical differences (Genesis 11:6-9). In the Bible, there is only one race—the human race! 

Charles Darwin’s subtitle for his book “Origin of Species” was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Certainly, he had races of animals primarily in mind, but also he thought of races of men in the same way. Leading evolutionist George Simpson said, “Races of man… have exactly the same biological significance as the sub-species of other mammals.” According to evolutionary biologists, each race is a sub-species, with a long history of its own, in the process of evolving gradually into a distinct species. This concept suggests that each race of men is very different from all the others, though still inter-fertile. If they continue to be segregated, each will compete as best it can with the other races in the struggle for existence, with the fittest surviving. Or, they will gradually become so different from each other that they become separate species (just as apes and men supposedly diverged from a common ancestor early in the “Tertiary Period”).

As the 19th century scientists were converted to evolution, they were also convinced of racism. They were certain that the white race was superior to other races, based on Darwinian theory. The white race had advanced farther up the evolutionary ladder and was destined either to eliminate the other races in the struggle for existence or else to care for those inferior races that were incompetent to survive otherwise. Darwin, though strongly opposed to slavery, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote, “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races…” 

Thomas Huxley, the man more responsible than any other for the widespread acceptance of evolution in the 19th century, wrote, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.”

Racist sentiments such as these were held by all the 19th century evolutionists. A review of a recent book says, “Afro-Americans were viewed by these intellectuals as being in certain ways unredeemably, unchangeably, irrevocably inferior.” Another reviewer says, “After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no…. the African was inferior—he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton.”

In an era when people practically worshipped at the shrine of scientific progress, such universal scientific racism was bound to have repercussions in the political and social realms. The seeds of evolutionary racism came to fruition in the form of National Socialism in Germany. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a contemporary of Darwin and an ardent evolutionist, popularized in Germany his concept of the superman, and then the master race. The ultimate outcome was Hitler, who elevated this philosophy to the status of national policy.

However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading evolutionary anthropologists of our century, said, “The German Fuhrer … has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” He also observed, “Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?”

“And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us…” (Acts 17:26-27).

Ed Hill – Franklin, N.C.

Troubling words for Democracy

As one of five military veterans in my immediate family I felt obligated to read and consider “The Art of War” by legendary Chinese warrior Sun Tzu. This classic is highly esteemed by corporate executives as well as military strategists for its inherent wisdom. 

Consider these words as they relate to our current national security: “In war, better to take a state intact than destroy it.” Could this be precisely Vladimir Putin’s strategy? Does Putin’s election interference follow this reasoning?

Why has Donald Trump refused/failed to acknowledge Russian interference in our 2016 election? Why have many Republicans backed this President in this historic failure? Do they not remember Nikita Krushshev’s claim “to take America without firing a shot?”

Had Krushchev read Master Sun’s book? Has Donald Trump?

Remember: “In war, better to take a state intact than destroy it.”

Troubling words for Democracy.


Dave Waldrop – Webster, N.C.

With Heartfelt gratitude

We would like to take this time time to express our sincere thanks to everyone who made “Stand with Kathy” such an outstanding night.  So many people, gifts, cards and just to be with you was a delight. An event of this magnitude could not have happened without many people giving of their time, energy and tallents to make it all possible. 

There were some very special people who began and coordinated this event and believe me we know the effort and  determination to bring it to completion. We applaud you. Thanks to all for everything. We will not soon forget. 

With grateful appreciation,

 Don and Kathy Moffitt – Franklin, N.C.

As a Christian – I was more an Atheist 

In my later youth I was drawn into believing Christ was to be part of my life, but life around me was in great turmoil and I couldn’t make sense of why or how this could be. The Vietnam war was in question and seemed without purpose and many were asking why? Society in general, and especially on college campuses, were looking for new found freedoms against past values that were in question. Drugs became the gateway for a new freedom and an escape from our world and life’s confusion. It seemed as though society was held captive and everything seemed to be at a stand still, but within a clouded reality,… it was moving rapidly. This uncertainty was felt even within government and religious systems which had little or no answers to the questions the modern culture was asking. I found what faith I had, went to little or no faith, adrift with nothing to fix my eyes upon, life as well as our society seemed to have lost it’s meaning and it’s purpose. Faith went silent within all the distractions our world was going through. It wasn’t only myself questioning faith and God, but it seemed many were questioning it as well. It seemed as life itself was grasping for breath when the air around was confusingly foul and stale. Little has changed, our culture seems to be just as confused as ever, only more so, in that within our confusion, hatred is the modern drug for the up and coming culture. This was once only for the young in rebellion but now it’s within our entire society, our school campuses, leaders within some religious systems , as well as many within the halls of local and federal government. There is no God, and if there was, He has left us, but in reality, we’ve left God, and do so with eyes wide open, because this is what we want. My confusion within has all changed and for the better, Christ had been someone I had looked to, thinking He would better my world around me but he didn’t. I had focused to my outside world when my confused world inside was in much deeper need of restoring. I see the world for what it is, hurting and being viciously hurtful and in need of a Divine guidance that can penetrate mind, body and soul, for it is evident we are in need of something outside of human reaches. I grow weary of us looking to man as savior in bringing in a better world because it all fades and all is vanity. For me, Christ has given me a new world within, where the confusion in meaning and purpose has been answered and laid to rest, and I rest in this daily. I can not tell you the depth of freedom this gives me, I only wish it could be taken hold of for the hurting world I see around me. 

I would love to hear your thoughts,… it’s your world too. 


Respectfully, Deni Shepard  – Franklin, N.C.

Clarification on a recent vote

The Governor’s veto of the budget was done on Wednesday and frankly I have never experienced more misinformation being spread about a situation. I would like to clarify facts regarding how and why I voted yes on the override of the budget.

First and foremost, we did not take the vote while Democrats were attending a 9/11 service. That was falsely reported by a Raleigh newspaper and picked up by all National Media before it could be corrected. Governor Cooper has since confirmed that he witnessed no NC Legislators at the service in question.

Additionally, reporter and columnist Colin Campbell reported that only one legislator was absent due to attending a service in their district. Reports of legislators being at services commerce the 18th anniversary of September 11 was totally false.

Secondly, the Speaker’s office has published an excellent piece giving the overall facts and dispels all the rumors of things that just didn’t happen. If you are interested in what happened, this will be a nice 10 minute read that will give you all the facts. http://speakermoore.com/facts-true-recap-n-c-house-overrode-budget-veto/

I stand by everything said here. All the post discussion is Monday morning quarterbacking when all info and opinions are in.

Here is my real time reality of how the vote occurred on Wednesday. I walked in to the Chamber at 8:30 a.m. sharp. We had no information that the veto override motion was going to be made. I am Deputy Majority Whip and I would have been one of the first notified. I was not. Remember, we are in real time now. After the opening prayer and pledge Rep. Saine made the motion to override the budget.

The Speaker asked the clerk to “open the vote.” As with all votes we are given 15 seconds to vote yes or no. Simple as that. I voted yes because I know the budget is great for my district. The truth is I had two months to make that decision. I was going to vote yes for the veto override whenever it came up. We did not vote on procedures, did not have time to think about who was on the floor and who was not, did not know Democrats thought there were no votes, we had 15 seconds to vote yes or no. I voted yes as I have planned since the veto came down to us.

I’m not crazy about the controversy or that the Democrats mistakenly thought there were no votes. The Speaker is the only one that can call for the vote. The announcement was made twice the night before that we would have votes. That is in the record and not debatable. The Democrats not being there was because their minority leader told them that there would “no votes.” He based that on a private conversation with the rules chair about whether 

two bills that were added to the calendar would be held from the 8:30 a.m. voting session so Dems could caucus before. The Rules chair said he agreed and the votes on those two bills would not be held at 8:30 a.m. I suppose he took it that there would be no votes. Again we knew none of this. All we knew was the override was on the floor with motion made. 

Finally, we could vote yes or no. A no for me would’ve been a vote against my district, my schools, state employee raises in my district including teachers and law enforcement and State retirees. I voted yes on the budget, not on the procedure. I didn’t have that choice, nor did I know it was coming. I will always vote my district first and party or procedure last. 


Deputy Majority Whip – Franklin, N.C.