Interracial whatever

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Evolutionary theory didn't exist before Darwin because he was the first to truely forumlate a robust and natural mechanism to explain the diversity of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's right. Until Darwin, no one could explain why evolution happened. Long berore Darwin people knew that evolution must have happene; some of the early Christian theologians wrote about it. But the first theory capable of explaining it was Darwin's. And Wallace's. (both came to the realization about the same time)

If I'm wrong, I would certainly like to hear about an evolutionary theory previous to Darwin's that can account for the evidence.

Perhaps it's not limited to "college boys". Maybe we should all think about that, from time to time.

 

I am not defending the policy. I simply don't care.

I am suggesting that you have misdefined racism. To say that something is "bad" (if indeed that is what they said) is not racist. It is bad for black people to drink poison. That is not racist. It is bad for blacks and white to fight. That is not racist. I am not equating either of these things with the said policy. Simply suggesting that you have made racism something it is not.

 

Did you know that during the time period you are talking about, the vast majority of Americans thought segregation was good? Did you know that BJU was among the many private and public institutions of higher learning that was segregated? It is inconsistent(but typical) to make these kinds of arguments. Today, there are some (mostly black people) who argue that the schools should have never been intergrated by forced busing. Furthermore, did you know that it was the intention of Bob Jones Sr to start a school for blacks to provide them the same opportunity at Christian education? In other words, your assertion is not based in reality.

This is certainly true. It has become whatever people want to it mean. It has lost its original meaning. This is perhaps the worst thing about this discussion in society as a whole.

How so? Can you demonstrate how BJU believes otherwise?

 

Originally posted by The Galatian:
It's clear enough that Bob Jones didn't think segregation was racist, and later didn't think rules against interracial dating and marriage were racist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1990s? You must live in rural Mississippi.

Did you know that BJU was among the many private and public institutions of higher learning that was segregated?

Actually, it didn't accept blacks, until it became clear that its tax-exempt status was at risk. It was segregated long after legitimate universities had integrated.

It is inconsistent(but typical) to make these kinds of arguments. Today, there are some (mostly black people) who argue that the schools should have never been intergrated by forced busing.

What does that have to do with the fact that Bob Jones University was racist? The point is that we find creationism most firmly entrenched among racists.

Furthermore, did you know that it was the intention of Bob Jones Sr to start a school for blacks to provide them the same opportunity at Christian education?

My, how liberal. And those ingrates then insisted on being treated as equal human beings? Amazing.

In other words, your assertion is not based in reality.

Entirely in reality. Why do you suppose at racist institutions like Bob Jones U, we see creationism? While creationism is certainly not synonymous with racism, it appears that racism is certainly synonymous with creationism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, some people have highly personal defintions of that term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is certainly true. It has become whatever people want to it mean. It has lost its original meaning. This is perhaps the worst thing about this discussion in society as a whole.

When, as you suggest above, segregationism is not racism, that's a problem. Most people know better.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bob Jones U. and other entities demonstrate, some creationists (not all, certainly) have yet to learn that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? Can you demonstrate how BJU believes otherwise?

Let's see... They lost their tax-exempt status because they discrimintated on the basis of race in 1983. They recently dropped their absolute prohibition against interracial dating, but they now insist that any student wanting to date other races must have a parent's permission to do so. They don't ask this of same-race couples, so they still discriminate on the basis of race.

So yes, they are still racists.

From Student Rules, introduced into evidence in Bob Jones University vs. U.S.

So how is it that whenever we find racism, there is also creationism? Again, I emphasize that creationism does not necessarily entail racism.

But can you find a prominent group that accepts evolution committing this kind of racial hatred?

[ April 05, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Galatian,

Unfortunately you are operating a little short of the facts. The policies you are referring to are not 1990 policies. They were pre 1970s when many schools were first integrating after the civil rights movement. Get your facts straight. BJU began accepting black students in 1971 when the laws of segregation in the south were being revoked and integration was mandated. It was not “long after” legitimate universities had integrated. It was 7 years after Clemson the first college in the state to integrate. During that time, Jones Sr. arranged for black students to enter several northern schools where the segregation laws did not exist. Additionally, as I already said, he intended to start a school for exclusively for blacks to get a solid liberal arts education with a Christian worldview. While you mock that in your post, it shows your clear misunderstanding of the feelings of Jones towards blacks. It was not about treating them as “less than human” as your later remarks imply. It was about getting them an education under the laws of the United States.

But more to the point, there is no virtue in rehashing 30 year policies or laws. The 60s were times of change, poorly handled by people on all sides of the equation.

Simply untrue.

[

Wrong on several counts. BJU is not racist and your repetition of a false assertion will not increase its validity. Second, they teach creationism because of their commitment to the truth found in God’s word. While you might reject creationism, it is not because of the mounds of evidence against it for there are indeed none. It is because of your presuppositions against the worldview which creationism entails. Most creationist institutions, like BJU, are not racist so there is no clearly no relationship between the two.

I did not suggest segregation was not racism to my knowledge. Racism is unequal treatment of people based on race. That is all that I have said. I think you are using an expanded definition of racism that is convenient for your argument but not really helpful to meaningful discussion about these issues.

No. They lost it because they would not change their policies at the behest of government. There was no discrimination in 1983. The did not lose their tax exemption in 83. They lost the 14 year long court case in 83 that rescinded their tax exemption retroactive to 1970.

So where is the discrimination and who is it against? Is it against the whites because they can’t date blacks? Is it against the blacks because they can’t date whites? Which side is being treated unequally?

You see you have fundamentally misunderstood racism. Racism involves unequal treatment or unequal access. The whites are as discriminated against as the blacks are … which is none. The whites are not allowed to do anything the blacks aren’t allowed to do. Additionally, every student there is there of their own will and they can leave as they choose. They are not forced into this policy. They accept it freely.

You have yet to prove any connection between the two and your lengthy posts have yet to show any kind of racial hatred. My suspicion is that you have never visited BJU or spent any time on the campus. That’s typical … people talking about something they have never seen and know nothing about … kind of like evolutionists: Never been there to see it but by George it must be true because I like the argument I can make with it.

You ask about the age of racism and its origins.
Evolution of Racism

How about this quote from Darwin himself:

.

How about this from Henry Fairfield Osborn who was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University and President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees for twenty-five years (1908-1933).

The point is that for every link you can show between creationism and racism, one can be shown between evolution and creationism. Your attempts here are purely a straw man. These men, Darwin and Osborn, were simply stating the evolutionary thought of their time. It was as wrong then as it is now.

 

Wrong. I'm precisely on target here. Let's go on...

To be precise, the dating policy, which was instituted in 2000, rescinded the policy banning interracial dating, after Gov. Bush was criticised for speaking at a school that was blatantly racist and anti-Christian. The new policy says that people of the same race are free to date with no restrictions whatever. Anyone wishing to date someone of another race must have a signed permission from a parent. It's still racism. Sorry.

Ahem, see above. Maybe you should get yours straight. We'll get into the issue of using outdated policies in just a bit, however...

Yes, that was racist, also. The Christian thing would have been to repent and drop all racial discrimination.

The laws of the United States were that it was illegal to discriminate. Jones was seeking a way to continue that.

Nonsense. It took a lot of courage and moral strength to use civil disobedience to bring down illegal discrimination. It was very simple. Discrimination was evil and unChristian. The people who brought it down were heros. The best that can be said for the people trying to perpetuate evil was that they were deluded into thinking they were doing right.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that we find creationism most firmly entrenched among racists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Completely true. We have arch-Creationist Henry Morris asserting spiritual and intellectual inferiority to blacks. This was in the early 90s. Do you have an example of a prominent evolutionist doing that in the last 50 years?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you suppose at racist institutions like Bob Jones U, we see creationism? While creationism is certainly not synonymous with racism, it appears that racism is certainly synonymous with creationism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They continue to discriminate on the basis of race. That is racism. No matter how you want to spin it.

Actually, it's their commitment to an unorthodox interpretation of God's word. The majority of the world's Christians are quite willing to accept God's creation by evolution.

No, that's wrong. First, creationism is not scriptural, because it adds to and subtracts from God's word. And it is unscientific, because it denies the evidence. This is hardly the place to discuss the evidence, and we're probably pushing the patience of the moderator, but I'd be pleased to discuss that indetail where it was appropriate. Perhaps a debate?

Sorry, I've heard those buzzwords before. It's the old "we can't know anything from evidence, because of those bad ol' presuppositions." It convinces no one.

Most creationist institutions are not racist. Bob Jones U. is an exception. The point is not that all creationists are racist, but rather that racism is confined mostly to a minority of creationists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, as you suggest above, segregationism is not racism, that's a problem. Most people know better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See above. Bob Jones U. still treats people unequally, depending on race. They are, as you have seen, racist.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see... They lost their tax-exempt status because they discrimintated on the basis of race in 1983.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, because they would not end racial discrimination.

 

Thomas Cassidy,

Will you document your claims by providing links or references, please?

Since you are an educator, can you please enlighten us? Where in the "entire body of human literature for the past 3 or 4 thousand years" do you find the theory of evolution? You've got thousands of years of evidence; I'll accept anything pre-1800's -- what do you have? Who published the theory of evolution before Darwin? (answer: nobody.)

Darwin was first, but barely (a must-read book about this is Robt Wright's The Moral Animal.

 

It is amazing to me how out of touch you are, Galatian, with reality. You show no ability to think critically through the issues you are discussing. You do not address the facts, the definitions, or the issues involved. You rant on and on about old issues.

You are short of the facts and these facts are well published. The dating policy was not racist by definition. Racism by definition in common parlance is unequal treatment on the basis of race. You cannot tell me who was being discriminated against at BJU after 1970.

You continue to repeat that BJU is racist and now you add antichristian. You have given no proof of either. You later say, They continue to discriminate on the basis of race. That is racism. No matter how you want to spin it Yet you give no proof of it. Where is someone treated unequally on the basis of race at BJU? I am seriously curious to know this.

As for integration in the south, do some research into state laws and the repeal of those laws and then you will learn some things about this situation that you should know. IN the 60s the laws of the US were to segregate and they were in the process of being changed. However, you should also know that in 1971 all racially discriminatory policies at BJU were dropped and repented of. What else do you want? You say The Christian thing would have been to repent and drop all racial discrimination. Well they did that and you should be happy. But you are not.

It was unbiblical:

Romans 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

1 Peter 2:13-15 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

When we disagree with policies, it is our right and responsibility to change them through legal means. It is unbiblical and unchristian to break them. It is against the will of God.

Where?? I would like to see this. I don’t draw either my creationism or my theology from Henry Morris so I doubt it will make much difference to me. If he said this, I will repudiate it. I have shown you were people on your side said it. Are you repudiating everything they said as well??

Then you do not understand orthodox theology or Christianity. There are certain tenets of evolution that are wholly incompatible with God’s creation. This is an either-or situation. One can believe evolution to some degree and be saved probably. But as they learn more about God they should be repudiating it. When someone continues in “willfull ignorance” as Peter calls it (2 Peter 3), then it is hard to imagine that the Spirit of God is at work in their lives.

Where does it add or subtract from God’s word? Show me the place. And what evidence does it deny? I think what it denies is your “interpretation of the evidence. That is a far different issue. The evolutionists and the creationists all have the same evidence. It is interpreted through the lens of presuppositions. That is why differing conclusions result. As for a debate, I will debate a little bit with you but I really don’t have the time to reinvent the wheel. Everything that I would say is in print in numerous places. You are not going to agree with me because of your presuppositions.

No one I know ever said that we can’t know anything from the evidence. But if we are going to be scientific we need to limit what we say we “know” and what we deduce. We see a fossil; we can know certain things about it. WE can conjecture about certain other things. The problem with evolutionists such as yourself is that you are too dishonest to make this distinction. You tell people you find a fossil that is 60 millions years old. You never stop to tell them that you don’t really know that but you are interpreting that.

Then why did they pay taxes from 1970?? According to you they were tax exempt for all those years.

My honest point is that you have never seen how one person has been treated on the campus there. So you are operating off of hearsay (not admissible in court), opinion (when you are not an expert), and conclusions drawn from your lack of knowledge. That is quite unfortunate especially since you are so vocal about it.

As has BJU.

However, I don’t think you and I are going to get anywhere with this since we disagree on basic terms. However, let me ask you this: Do you support the racist policies of major universities and colleges who deny admission to students based on race? For instance, all universities have affirmative action policies that deny admission to white students with higher qualifications so that they can admit black students with lower qualifications. BJU has never done that. Do you react against this racist policy with the same vehemence you react against the voluntary policies of BJU? Additionally, why, if these evolutionist universities are so far past racism, do they practice racist policies? Do they think that black are too intellectually inferior to meet the same standards as everyone else? That is the only conclusion you can draw from this. The result of AA policies is that black students have a higher drop out rate because they were let in on the skin color rather than their academic achievement.

Do you support a race-based graduation gala? Is this discriminatory?

[ April 06, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

It is interesting how this works. You like my link because it proves your point but then you don't know whether we should trust it. So let's see ... the proof that it offers for your side might be wrong. HMMMMM ... I alwasy knew there was a reason to be an evolutionist and now I know what it is. I can argue with incoherent logic and get away with it.

BTW, I agree with you on the link. I think it does misrepresent some peoples position. The point of the link was to show Galatian that racism has its roots 3500-4000 years ago in ancient civilizations. It is not a product of modern times.

[ April 06, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

How can you envision this as equal treatment? The minority is at a disadvantage. Picture 50 whites and a black in a class or at a social mixer. How many of the others can the white students date? How many of the others can the black student date?

Whatever the numbers and whatever the ratio at the University, the students who are in the minority will be faced with a smaller pool of social candidates.

Though the rules are the same for whites and blacks, it's obvious the policy is not equally fair to both.

 

Of course discrimination is a facet of racism, but I'm going to state the obvious that racism is much more deep rooted. Slavery and segregation said to Black people, that they are inherently inferior to Whites. Even today, it's rare to see a Black model with natural textured (as opposed to chemically straightened) hair because subliminally (and at times openly) European features were seen as the beauty ideal. Such notions have been internalised and perpetuated by many Black people even today. Racism is and was based on ignorance, fear and pride.

If many people thought slavery and racial segregation thought it was a good thing, it still doesn't negate the fact that racism (of any form) is indeed sin.

 

Interesting definition of racism ... but not valid. Fairness does not guarantee that everybody has equal options but that everyone is treated the same and held to the same standard. It is not the responsibility of any institution to guarantee a specific number of people to date or whatever else. It is their responsibility to treat everyone to the same rules.

The policy is equally fair. But you are not addressing the policy here ... you are addressing the pool.

I ask you the same as I did the others: Do you believe that the racist policies of affirmative action should be continued or disbanded?

 

Partly so but not entirely. The slave trade in Africa was not only white selling blacks ... it was blacks selling blacks. No one talks about that much.

I don't think this is true at all. Most black men as models have straight hair as do a number of the women. I have never seen this argument before in my life. This is really reaching at straws. If the European is the ideal, then why do we have black models at all??

You won't get any disagreement from me about this. I absolutely agree.

 

You know, Larry, I can't help thinking that if you had something of substance to support you, you wouldn't feel compelled to call me names.

Let's take a look. You're telling me that the current racism at Bob Jones, and Henry Morris's attack on blacks in the 90s are "old issues". Yet to support your "so are you" argument, you brought up issues over 100 years and 76 years old respectively. How are we to take that, given your statement about "old issues"?

That's already been decided. The Supreme Court says it is.

Bob Jones U. continues to require different things of different people, based on race. That is racism. You can spin it any way you want, but it won't change. And Bob Jones U. asserts that this is based in Scripture, something that is patently untrue. That is contrary to Christianity.

No, that's wrong, too. As of May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that "Separate but Equal" was illegal. That ruling rendered all such laws void as of that date. It took a while to bring everyone in compliance, but segregation was never legal in the 60s. Again, you've been misled.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. It took a lot of courage and moral strength to use civil disobedience to bring down illegal discrimination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the Supreme Court had ruled all segregation was illegal, it was the authorities trying to defy the law, not the protestors, who were unbiblical. By your own standards, the people trying to maintain segregation were defying the will of God. I don't think you've given this very much thought.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have arch-Creationist Henry Morris asserting spiritual and intellectual inferiority to blacks. This was in the early 90s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Henry Morris's The Beginning of the World (1991), pp. 148, regarding “Hamites”
“Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

And yes, scientists a hundred years ago were completely off base on race. We've learned scince then. Isn't it a pity that creationists like Morris have not?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it's their commitment to an unorthodox interpretation of God's word. The majority of the world's Christians are quite willing to accept God's creation by evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horsefeathers. Even if you persist in rejecting God's creation, He isn't going to send you to hell for it. It's not a salvation issue.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, creationism is not scriptural, because it adds to and subtracts from God's word. And it is unscientific, because it denies the evidence. This is hardly the place to discuss the evidence, and we're probably pushing the patience of the moderator, but I'd be pleased to discuss that indetail where it was appropriate. Perhaps a debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it add or subtract from God’s word? Show me the place. And what evidence does it deny? I think what it denies is your “interpretation of the evidence. That is a far different issue. The evolutionists and the creationists all have the same evidence. It is interpreted through the lens of presuppositions. That is why differing conclusions result. As for a debate, I will debate a little bit with you but I really don’t have the time to reinvent the wheel. Everything that I would say is in print in numerous places. You are not going to agree with me because of your presuppositions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I've heard those buzzwords before. It's the old "we can't know anything from evidence, because of those bad ol' presuppositions." It convinces no one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one I know ever said that we can’t know anything from the evidence. But if we are going to be scientific we need to limit what we say we “know” and what we deduce. We see a fossil; we can know certain things about it. WE can conjecture about certain other things. The problem with evolutionists such as yourself is that you are too dishonest to make this distinction. You tell people you find a fossil that is 60 millions years old. You never stop to tell them that you don’t really know that but you are interpreting that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They still discriminate, based on race. And they lost their exemption in 1983, as I told you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said that? Nope. I said that they lost their exemption in the 80s. That's what happened.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never spent any time in the Gulag, either. Be honest with yourself here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry, they were segregationists. Over they years, they have continued to discriminate on the basis of race. They still do. It was (and is) in their own rules. That's why they lost their tax exemption. It's why they finally in the last couple of years rescinded their absolute ban on interracial dating. It's why they still insist on parental permission for it, even though they don't ask that of same-race couples.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't even have religion for their defense these days. The SBC is formally on record as opposing racism and segregation. So is almost every other evangelical group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But they still practice racism. And that makes all the difference. There is no scriptural support for treating interracial couples differently than others. It's just racism.

Darn right, they didn't. They just refused to admit them at all. Later, they agreed to admit them, but they were subject to special rules.

Affirmative action should be limited to actual situations were people were harmed by previous discrimination. It should only be a way to redress previous wrongs. The issue about test scores is another thing entirely. The evidence shows that ACT and SAT scores are not as accurate in predicting student achievement for other races as it is for whites. I have no idea what to do about that.

Bob Jones U. makes the racism mandatory. There is no option to be treated the same as everyone else. However, I find all racial discrimination to be wrong.

There are no "evolutionist universities". However, affirmative action was imposed on them by state or federal agencies.

You seem to be very angry and defensive about Bob Jones University. They largely brought it on themselves. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

 

Partly so but not entirely. The slave trade in Africa was not only white selling blacks ... it was blacks selling blacks. No one talks about that much.

I freely admit that; most Black people do. Unfortunately it is one of the reasons for tensions among African-Caribbeans and Africans here (although I think - and hope it's on the wane)

I don't think this is true at all. Most black men as models have straight hair as do a number of the women. I have never seen this argument before in my life. This is really reaching at straws. If the European is the ideal, then why do we have black models at all??

I'm not saying ALL of us think that way; growing up, myself and many others can testify to hearing that we have "bad" hair. "Good" hair usually meant not kinky. I wasn't attempting an argument, just stating my experience and that of many others.

You won't get any disagreement from me about this. I absolutely agree.</font>[/QUOTE]Peace, God bless.

 

Daughter is correct; even among blacks the ideals of beauty are skewed. Blacks with very dark skin and kinky hair are not considered as attractive. Blacks with lighter brown skin and 'good hair' are considered more attractive. Blacks feel this way and whites feel this way, when polled on standards of beauty.

The most successful 'black' models are actually mixed-race.

 

It's not "the lighter the better"; otherwise white models would be only blonde instead of brunette. It's that there is a *range* that's considered acceptable in the advertising industry, and it is skewed towards a European ideal. Within that range, you have fair blondes, you have medium brunettes, you have light-to-medium-skinned blacks, etc. What you do NOT see are very dark-skinned black models. That's considered outside 'the range'. Daughter is NOT 'reaching at straws'.

 

One wonders if the mixed race students at Racist University ever get to date anyone at all.

 

I also wonder how they determine which students are subject to this nonsense. A Native American student... would they be forced to jump through these hoops, or is it only the blacks that are discriminated against?

Let me guess. It's designed to discriminate against blacks specifically. It's also designed to discriminate against whites who want to date blacks.

Why do I suspect that student who is half Korean wouldn't be antagonized in this manner?

[ April 06, 2002, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: cricket ]

 

Pastor Larry, I agree with you about Affirmative Action. It doesn't work. NOT having it doesn't work, either. I wish I had an answer.