Here, you're going to want this while waiting for an answer....
Posted on 12/08/2009 5:54:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
This recent BBC News header[1] was typical of the news headlines worldwide on the story:
Michelle Obama racist image sparks Google apology
Apparently, the image referred to was a photograph of Mrs Obama that had been manipulated to give her the facial features of a monkey. I say “apparently”, because the mock-up photo no longer appears as the #1 ranking on Google’s list of image search results for “Michelle Obama”.[2]
It is very clear however from the news reports of the “race row”[3] that in the last days that the picture was Google-accessible, it stirred many people. Such was the furore, Google executives issued an apology, even though they themselves were not responsible for the photo.
--snip--
However, it seems there’s a key part of the story that has been left unreported—at least, in the numerous mainstream media reports. What’s missing is an explanation of why likening America’s First Lady to an ape or monkey is considered “racist”.
After all, when the previous president of the United States, George W. Bush, was likened to a chimpanzee on various websites,[6,7] the mockery was never referred to as being “racist” in nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I keep hearing about that but have never found it.
Please cite the chapter and verse to support that.
Now you all are just being obtuse on purpose. Remember, this was 1821 — as I said, this was the height if enlightenment for the time.
And as I said, the fact one part of the Bible decries another doesn’t eliminate the racist parts.
The point is that painting anyone from 200 years ago, much less 4,000 is pointless — EVERYONE was racist (by modern standards).
My points stand unchallenged (as usual).
I am not going down this side road — either you understand or you don’t.
It has taken me a while for me to realize that when I say “the house is surrounded by a white fence” that you and yours seize on “WHITE? It was CREAM!” instead of the point the fence is surrounding the house is the issue. The last refuge of the terminally lost.
Deal with the underlying point or don’t waste our time.
Show where there’s racism promoted in the Bible.
Chapter and verse, please, that justify and condone it and teach that it’s to be practiced.
Answer my challenges first. I am dealing with the point of the article. You are just creating a side show.
Of course you're not, because you can't. You made a false claim (aka lied) about the Bible and have nothing from Scripture with which to support it.
Your pathetic attempt to discredit the Bible failed miserably.
LOL. Please retract your misquoting of the Bible with regards to Ham and his sons.
What challenges? All you did was post some condescending remarks by Darwin about Negros to try to prove that he wasn’t the racist his other writings show him to be.
You didn’t read my posts.
>>LOL. Please retract your misquoting of the Bible with regards to Ham and his sons.<<
You didn’t read my posts.
>>Your pathetic attempt to discredit the Bible failed miserably. <<
Yep — side road city. You can’t take on my argument, so you attack the minutia.
Here, you're going to want this while waiting for an answer....
Sure he did, just like I did, and everyone else who reads this thread.
You misrepresented what the Bible states (aka lied about it) in regards to Ham and skin color.
Sorry, this isn't a forum where posts can be edited. It is there for all to see in its glory.
Here is the quote and post number....
post 31 The “curse” of dark color as a punishment to Ham’s son is clearly racist.
Why not? You started it.
Does that mean that you think God is racist since He is the only one who could change someone's skin color?
Noah certainly couldn't be blamed no matter what he said, as that's not within his ability.
This was typical primitive tribal warfare. God used the Hebrews to punish the Canaanites for sacrificing babies to daemons (equivalent to abortion). Usually, the women of conquered Canannite tribes were taken as concubines and incorporated into the "race". King David's chief wife, Bathsheba, was a Canaanite and his grandmother, Ruth, was an Edomite. Later, God used other nations to punish the Hebrews for adopting sins of the Canaanites.
Now these are within the context of the day and we know that God also said to put these aside. But also did Darwin overcome the prevalent thought of his day as he allowed his logic to lead him
The main reason Darwinism was so enthusiastically accepted by the elite is for the pseuso-scientific, racist, classist doctrine of "survival of the fittest" that was used to overrule Christian requirements of charity and noblesse oblige.
Racism is thousands of years old — to visit it upon Darwin as an argument (actually an assertion, the author never backs up his/her claim) opens up visiting it upon any and all, including the Bible itself.
Racism has always been a facet of humanity but Darwin provided a pseuso-scientific justification that provided the philosophical basis for Margret Sanger's Planned Parenthood and Hitler's National Socialism.
I know I read racism from BTMS* yesterday when he was talking about why didn’t artists draw Ardi with a “normal nose”.
What’s missing is an explanation of why likening America’s First Lady to an ape or monkey is considered “racist”.
Heard this before and if you need an explanation as to why that is racist......YOU'RE A STUPID SOB!!! ....and if you don't see the difference in calling Bush a chimp and likening a black person to a monkey........YOU'RE A SUPID SUMMABICH!!!
Mayhaps it has something to do with a history or treating black people like nothing more than animals...to be sold/traded/beaten/whipped/killed. MAyhaps it has something to do witha history of balck people being called "jungle monkeys" as a perjorative.
Mayhaps callin a white persona lesser primate simply does not carry the weight of history.
Man, even asking these questions is frighteningly ignorant.
....but go ahead...."defend" your religion with this nonsense.
WOw...stooping to lower lows, eh?
Nor was it racism.
That kind of tribal warfare wasn't based on race. It was different "countries" (nations) for lack of a better term fighting, no different that the European nations fighting in the two World Wars. You might as well call that racism because the French fought the Germans.
Racism has always been a facet of humanity but Darwin provided a pseuso-scientific justification that provided the philosophical basis for Margret Sanger's Planned Parenthood and Hitler's National Socialism.
The kind of abuse of science that we speak out against, but scientists seem strangely silent on or are seen excusing.
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.