Monthly Archives: May 2013

Adam Goodes IS an ape!

Posted on by
6

Adam Goodes is an ape! Yes, you heard right. Adam Goodes is an ape! Now that I have your attention, maybe we can discuss the statement sanely and rationally?

The media is abuzz. The verbiage of a 13 year old child has thrown both the AFL and the media into an absolute frenzy. There are headlines about “racial vilification”, there is blame being pointed at parents. Football club presidents are disavowing words made by people wearing their team’s colours.

With all the evil present in the world, one would think that the media might have more to say on truly important issues, but apparently not! Why? Because the media live for a story; particularly the political hot potato!

So let us analyse this story.

During the Collingwood v Sydney Swans match, a 13 year old child called Adam Goodes an ape. Adam stopped and pointed her out to security and she was ejected from the ground.

So let’s cut to the chase. Why is calling Adam Goodes an “ape” racial vilification? Why is calling Adam Goodes an ape a racial slur? I am white. I have been called a “big ape” previously in my life – and not as a term of endearment. So, pray tell, what makes this innocuous word a racial slur or racial vilification?

Then comes the hypocrisy. This girl and her parents are vilified as being first rate bogans before anyone had bothered to really understand what had happened. That’s right; the self-righteous media once again appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner of this girl and her family. Statements like “what about the parents” or “it’s not her fault she is only doing what she was taught” filled the airwaves before the true facts were known. Self-righteous hypocrites the media. In the words of Hinch, Shame, Shame, Shame!

Okay, same game. Murray McLeod-Boyle is on the boundary and is called an ape. He points out the same lass for calling him the same thing. What happens next? What does the media say now?

I am guessing the girl would not be ejected. I am guessing the media would tell me to ‘get over myself’ and ‘stop being so prissy’. Someone would tell me to “grow a pair” and “man up”.

Now, before you get all bent out of shape, ask yourself this question: How many other people at that game were ejected for yelling something at a player or an official? How many umpires had their eyesight questioned? How many umpires had the legitimacy of their parentage questioned? How many other people yelled out something that could have been construed as derogatory and yet were not pointed out by a player and consequently ejected? Then for the curly question: How many other players had this young lass labelled in some manner before this incident?

I can well understand Adam’s dislike at the appellation given to him by this lass. However, I see no racism or racial vilification in it. Thus, I am left wondering if Adam’s emotions did not contribute to this whole saga in a negative way. Did he overreact? Did Adam allow the emotion of “Indigenous Round” to colour his feelings erroneously? Had Adam taken a little longer to process the situation, would he have arrived at the same conclusion?

Now, let’s be really provocative. I am a Christian. I am constantly vilified. My love of Christ is dragged through the mud daily. I am subjected to hearing the name of the One I love used as a by word. My beliefs are constantly and systematically ridiculed by the popular media.

Let us look at one example. As a Christian, I believe that this world was created by and Absolute Sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, God. This position is ridiculed by the popular media. Instead, they insist that I believe that the world occurred through random chance, chaos, and a process which is now termed as Evolution.

So, to the self-righteous, self-preening, self-promoting, egoistical media, I say, Hypocrite! Your lies, false accusations, and blatant inconsistency are all damnable. During this game, there was not one ape, Adam Goodes, on the field. There were in fact 36! Yes; 36!!! Then there were a few dressed as umpires, coaches, and substitutes. Most of all, there were several thousand apes in the stands barracking and cheering. So says the theory of evolution!

So, then, where is the problem? This girl has been vilified for stating an evolutionary fact. This girl committed no crime. In fact, her language would equate to a Christian shouting at another person with the hugely insulting term “human”. Such harsh words.

According to evolution, Adam Goodes, everyone at that game, every other man, woman, and child on the planet is indeed an ape or at the very least, a monkey’s uncle. So where is the problem?

What we witnessed shows that there is indeed a great problem in our society. However, it has little to do with this girl or her parents. It has to do with the fact that, as a culture, we have rejected God and His standards. In place of this we have attempted to institute another religion. In this case, Evolution. The problem is that we simply cannot live in a consistent manner with this new worldview. As stated, Evolution tells us we are animals. Man is not set apart from the animals in anyway. He is just a more evolved version. So, what did this girl do wrong? Why is she vilified for stating what she has been taught by the governmental school system, media, etcetera?

Equally, having come from random events and random chance, there can be no absolutes – Evolution, Postmodernism – so there cannot be any such thing as right or wrong. Tell me again, what did this girl do …? No, you cannot use “wrong”. If there is no wrong, then there is no transgression. Please explain to me why she and her family were persecuted?

Enough said, I think you get the point. Evolution is taught readily. Evolution is believed readily. Yet, when we are confronted with the obvious effects of this dogma, we feel shame and we react – even to the point of vilifying a 13 year old child.

How proud all the media experts and commentators must feel. I mean to say, it must take a lot to subdue the antics of a 13 year old child whose only crime was to let a word fall from her lips. “Man up!”, media personnel. Answer truthfully. Have you said worse than this little girl? Have you thought worse than this child? Have you ever let foul language slip past your lips? Have you ever directed invectives at another person? Of course you have. In fact you will have reported on more debauched acts by our very own politician. You hypocrites!

The reason that this whole saga became a media circus was precisely because those doing the reporting were in fact apes with monkey’s for uncles.

Addendum: I would also add a personal word to Adam. You are respected as a player. You carry an obvious burden for your people. These things are admirable. Yet, as an enthusiast of the game, I have witnessed your on-field antics, at times. Thus, I would urge you, Adam, to listen to the old adage: When you point a figure at someone else, you point three at yourself. It is easy to appear in the media and tell of how you were affronted. Not so easy to lead by example.

Racism

Posted on by
Reply

Racism! Now there is a conversation starter. There is little doubt that there is not a soul in the Western world who has not heard the term or witnessed an act that has been condemned as “racist”.

During the worship service on Sunday, Joe Morecraft raised the issue of Racism.[1] I must admit, it made me think. First, and woefully, it was the first sermon I had heard that made comment on such an important topic. Second, we live in a country where the “R” word is tossed about like political promises in an election year.

This led me to think that a few lines that might guide Christians through such a minefield may be of use. To this end, I endeavour.

Sadly, in the war to establish the mythical world of PC (Political Correctness), the first casualty was, indeed, the truth. People use much of the accepted nomenclature of PC, but do they ever really stop and ask what the term means.

A racist by definition is someone who considers their race to be superior and, consequently, all other races to be inferior. It is my contention that for such a view to be truly racist two elements must be prominent. 1. The viewing of external races must move from the idea of less to that of “other”.[2] In short, these others are dehumanised and therefore open to persecutory behaviour. 2. The persecution must be open and definable; whether this be aggressive and violent behaviour or the simple act of ostracising.

When we look around the world, we see many examples of true racism. Hitler is the prime example. It was also seen in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, when the Tutsis were murdered by the Hutus. That this example is civil, and therefore classed as genocide, makes it no less a racist crime.

I would like you to focus on these examples momentarily because I want to dispel the first myth. Racism is not about different skin colours. As the above examples show, people of the same or similarly coloured skin can and do perpetrate violent, racist acts against one another.

This must be understood. The idea that racism is black against white; brown against yellow; or any other combination thereof, is myth. Racism is a disease of the heart, not of the skin.[3] It is a clash of worldviews, ideas, and ideals. Thus, any notion of skin colour or any other external as a motive must be discarded.

What defines racism is that the invective is directed to a people of a specific cultural or tribal group. If I hate one Australian, I am just a bigot. If I hate many, or most, Australians, I am a racist. Please understand this point well. Racism is the hatred of many in a specific culture or tribal group. Note, please, it is the same hatred, the same intolerance, the same bias. It is simply that it is given a new label when directed to the group.

In this way, it is like the old joke: To steal one man’s work is plagiarism; to steal many men’s work is research! Here, the essence of the adage is to assert that both situations involve stealing. It is simply that the label is changed dependent upon whether he steals from the one or the many. So, when discussing racism, the focus must be upon the heart that hates, regardless of whether it hates the individual or a group.

This leads us to dispel myth number two. This being the case, patriotism and justice, as but two examples, are not racism. Am I a racist because I love my wife and my family above other wives and families? Why then am I a racist because I would love my country above others?

When viewing the topic of justice, the Biblical command is that justice be equal to all. Thus, if a white man and a black man rob a bank together, why should one be given a different sentence? How is it racism to punish both equally?

To argue otherwise, is to state that there is no justice and no equality of persons before or at law. It is to basically accept the bribe and to allow the false witness, both of which are condemned in Scripture.[4]

Last, we encounter the big myth, myth number three – racism is Biblical! The obvious untruth of this statement should not need to be addressed. Sadly, however, it does.

I have heard people, like those belonging to the KKK, try and justify racism and murder on a Biblical basis. I have encountered an incipient racism amongst genuine Christians also. The common denominator seems to be the belief that the “mark of Cain”[5] refers to God turning Cain’s skin black.

The logic goes something like this: 1. Cain murdered Abel; 2. God turned Cain’s skin black as a sign; 3. All black people are therefore the descendants of a murderer; 4. Consequently, all black people are second rate and deserve death.

Even the genuine Christian, who may not want to “murder” all black people, still has some reservation regarding “that” skin colour and in some way views them as less – which should not be the case.[6]

So let us look at this supposed logic:

1. If a mark on the skin of Cain is God’s sign of displeasure, then we are forced to ask, what did the Indians, Asians, and Islanders do?

2.Why is it that the only presupposition acceptable is that God made man white and His mark of displeasure was to make the skin black? Maybe all men were made black and God’s mark of displeasure was to bleach us “whities”! Hmmm!!!

3. Reality check! No one knows what the mark was?[7]  Speculation has led to the bizarre. Speculation has led to murder! Without any concrete proof as to what the sign was, how dare we take such radical action as to murder or to look down our noses upon another?

4. The stupidity of those who rely on this nonsense is seen most vividly when we look at the text of Scripture. Cain was given a mark so that his life would be preserved! The mark was not to set him apart for death, but to make sure that he lived. Thus, it is both stupidity and impossibility to argue that the mark is a sign that we can kill the one to whom it was given. In fact, to do so, according to the text, is to invite wrath seven fold.

5. Then we must come to some really startling thoughts. Anti-Semitism. Jesus is a Semite! White supremacists. I doubt Jesus is white! Then we have the wonder of Jesus death. For whom did Jesus die? Says Scripture: “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”[8] Oh dear! If Jesus died to bring men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, how then do we say that some peoples are less than people? How do we say that some skin colours are not worthy of temporal life, if Jesus died to give them eternal life?

If the Son of God loved peoples of all designs, how do we then say, on the basis of His Word, that it is alright to hate certain of these designs? One can only do so when love is replaced by hate.

Herein, we encounter the problem.

Of recent, at least in this country, the popular aphorism to counter the racist charge is, “I am not racist. I hate all people equally!” This saying came to my attention via a nephew. I confess that I have used it in jest. Yet, I now repudiate it. The simple fact is that when the Christian adopts such sayings as these, trite or otherwise, they are imbibing of the world’s standards.

The Christian’s response should not be one of hate toward his fellow man; nor should we be sucked into the modern jargon where the term hate is thrown around without care. Our maxim should be, “I am not a racist because Christ’s love constrains me to treat all equally!” If this is too long, then try, “I love until given reason to hate.”[9]

God judges the heart[10] and the action of the heart. As His people, so should we. As Christians, who know the depths and depravity of sin as well as the wonders of Christ’s redemption, we should never embrace any concept that judges another because of the colour of his skin, the shape of his face, or the colour of his eyes.[11]

Righteousness is and must be our only standard.[12] For this standard alone cuts true and straight. This standard alone looks beyond the morphology of man to see what he truly is. Moreover, the standard of righteousness applied must be God’s. Then and only then do we have an objective standard and a true measure.

The man who hates one is the same as the man who hates many. Change the label if you will, but it makes no difference. The heart that hates is the heart immersed in sin. The heart that hates is the heart untouched by Jesus Christ. Therefore, the heart touched by Jesus Christ must not hate any man on the basis of his skin colour or the region from whence he comes. The Christian, touched by redeeming love, must love. If hate becomes a necessity, it does so, not on the basis of outward appearance, but because of an ethical failure to adhere to God’s law.

The one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes (1 John 2:10-11).


[2] In other words, the external race is not just a lesser form of myself; It is wholly other. This opens the door to maltreatment and death because you are not attacking another human or another of your kind. The object is determined to be other and this determination removes all ethics from the situation, manifests the persecutor’s superiority, and reinforces their perceived right to do as they please with the object.

[3] The Bible calls this disease “sin”! It is but one more example of man’s rebellion against God and his desire to rule in place of God. Racism is therefore, at its heart, repressive and suppressive. It must subjugate others in order to be seen to stand tall.

[4] Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 19:18-19.

[5] Genesis 4:15.

[6] I have experienced this type of innuendo in regard to cross-cultural or mixed-race marriage. The one querying does not make overtly racist statements, however, there is a veiled concept that to marry into another race, is to marry down.

[7] It is particularly necessary to point out that the preposition used means “to”, “toward”, or “for”.  Thus, Yahweh gave a sign to or for Cain. Yahweh did not set a sign upon Cain or turn Cain into a sign. Consequently, the whole concept of the “sign” being upon Cain, particularly, in his skin, is one that does not have a high degree of Scriptural warrant.

[8] Revelation 5:9.

[9] Whilst deserving of an article in itself, it must be stated that it is not wrong for a Christian to hate, contra the modern view. God is said to hate six things; there are seven which are an abomination (Proverbs 6:16). God is also said to hate divorce (Malachi 2:16). Jesus is said to “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans”. More importantly, we see that Jesus commends His people for likewise hating these deeds (Revelation 2:6). In short, we must hate what God hates. Whilst our lives should be marked by love and charity, it is impossible for us not to hate that which God hates. To do otherwise would be utter unfaithfulness.

[10] Again, this is Biblical, not internal pietism. Jesus says that it is out of the overflow of the heart that evil comes (Mark 7:21-23). The evil action is produced by the evil heart.

[11] Some comment needs to be made about race and conduct. If you walk down the street every day for a week and on each of your journeys you are bitten by a purple, polka dotted dog, chances are that on the eighth day you will be very wary should a purple, polka dotted dog come into view. When referring to people, it is not racism to make the same mental note. This is where the whole concept of PC is an detestable. PC seeks to mask and thereby distort truth. Let me illustrate with regard to scientific principle. Science proceeds on the basis of observable facts. They also seek to establish credibility by observing said fact repeatedly. Why then is it racism if one observes a repeated fact amongst a particular ethnic group? As noted in the body of the text, it can only be racism when these people are ostracised or dehumanised because of that trait. Outside of that, you have a simple statement of fact – a truth. However, as noted, PC does not like truth, so it declares war on truth and seeks to mar it.

[12] “And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity” (Psalm 9:8). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne; Lovingkindness and truth go before Thee” (Psalm 89:14).