I think that from your point of view its a 'fact' that he is antisemitic, and that to argue that he isn't is foolish and ignores the evidence. From the little I know of his writings, he appears to me to have strong antisemitic leanings as well, and see value in the pragmatic approach of saying "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck", lets just admit he is antisemitic and move on.

Maybe I am splitting hairs, but to me they are important hairs to split when the word 'objective' is used in combination with what could be a character assassination.

I'm not sure its even possible to 'objectively' determine that any person is actually a bigot, given our lack of ability to truly read people's minds and the lack of precision in the word. The best we can say is that a person is a 'self-avowed, unapologetic' bigot (if their words indicate it).

Some people might call me a 'racist', simply because I believe that impoverished, bored, unemployed white people living in the same area are more likely to get involved in the same meth related petty thieving than most middle class black people are, or because I allow for the possibility that there might be genes effecting rhythmic ability which might not be exactly equally distributed amongst those of european and african descent.

Well, if your position is "racism is unacceptable", and you also find black scholarships to be acceptable, you can't very well also see black scholarships are racist, can you? Least not while perceiving yourself as logical.

I don't think your two sentences describe mutually exclusive possibilities - I emphatically agree that black scholarship are (amongst other things), a laudable "attempt to correct for long standing historic racism by giving an opportunity."

I also accept that they are racist, in the sense that they discriminate based directly on race. Maybe you are using the word racist differently.



I may seem pig headed, but I'm not comfortable with this sweeping statement. By whose definition? What makes hate speech hate speech? What if I have something of value to say, and someone else perceives it as 'hate speech' ? Also, just because something is labelled antisemitic by someone doesn't make it wrong.

Hate Speech defined:

hate speech Law Definition

n
Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

=-=-=-=

The above is a simple and useful legal definition but of course
there are always interpretations. It is the yelling FIRE in a
crowded theater kind of thing.

What you have to watch out for is that protected criticism
(even scathing criticism) is often how should we say - taken as
"hate speech" by those who are on the receiving end. Political
criticism is sometime frowned upon by those in power.

But in cases where widespread violence has been perpetrated against
discriminated groups like african americans or jews etc. It is
widely regarded as hate speech whenever known false stereotypes
are utilized to attack the historically abused group. This makes
the classification of Farrakhans words easy since most of his
themes can be pulled directly out of Der Sturmer.

There is no contextual issue here imho since it would not matter
who rants or under what circumstances the well recognized hate
speech of Der Sturmer is regurgitated. Der Sturmer can pretty much
be cited as the very definition of hate speech. So yeah.

WELL, some consider the bible hateful and some thought Jesus was blaspheming for speaking the truth, I dont

to each their own

The bible is not hateful and there is nothing particularly wrong
with Jesus' teachings. It is not hate speech. So what?

Matt 23:31-33 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"

This story is not hateful and does nor show anything particularly wrong with Jesus' teachings either...nor does it refer to jews. The bible has many ways of saying that unrepentant sinning is bad...
and this is one of them...



Doesn't make Farrakhan's crazy antisemitic conspiracies any more
palatable.

so who do you think Jesus was talking to,, who was the audience whom he referred to as the 'brood of vipers'?

would that group have a reason to consider this hateful speech?

Well this is where you need to actually know something about the bible and although I do not profess to be an expert I have read it
and I think there is a clear interpretation.

Jesus is talking to "hypocrites". He is saying that we should beware
of false prophets - of leaders who are not truly holy but who
advocate worship of material things and people over God.

Read Matthew chapter 23 again and you will see. He is not talking
about Jewish people. Even though he uses the term Pharasees he
uses this term to denote "hypocrites" he certainly does NOT
consider all Jews to be hypocrites and in fact advocates the exact
same ethical principles that are advocated in Judaism.

Jews also would caution against hypocrisy or worshiping idols,
material things or people.

So there is no conflict there at all. On the other hand,
Farrakhan repeatedly discusses his bigoted view of supposed
evils of "Jews" most of the time without making the distinction
or pointing out that almost all Jews are actually righteous
individuals following the same principles and teachings which
are also holy to Muslims and Christians alike and that this is
only reasonable as they all worship the same God of Abraham.



That is who Jesus is talking to and his point as described in
Matthew 23. It is important to understand that his audience is
sinners and not Jews.

Your second question - are the sinners correct in calling this
hate speech against sinners?



I don't think so since Jesus does not advocate violence against
them. Nor does Jesus "intend to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification"

So no, this is not hate speech. But Farrakhans quotes as given
accurately by the ADL for example are hate speech.

Woah, seriously? Websters went there? I'm surprised that webster went so far as to say that 'hate speech' is - by definition - not protected by the first amendment. That sounds like a political position to me, not a properly neutral definition. Oh, wait, this is the 'law definition' - which are usually quite different from how the word is used in everyday speech - so maybe that makes sense.



Thats the rationale, anyway - for those who buy into it.



Thats one thing you have to watch out for. I'd say we also have to watch out for people deciding that particular words are inherently hateful. This definition says "intended to foster hatred" - how can you measure a persons intentions, based simply on whether or not they use a particular word? Its absurd.

Which brings us to another thing to watch out for - overestimating our ability to correctly interpret another's intention.

What the hell is an 'improper' classification, anyway? Who decides this?



Several different conversations have emerged from this thread, 'what is hate speech', 'is hate speech wrong', 'can it be objectively determine whether speech is hate speech', 'did Farrakhan engage in hate speech', 'should we reject everything Farrakhan said', 'was there hate speech in the bible', etc etc etc. I have the feeling that your desire to demonize Farrakhan may color your approach to all these other topics in this conversation

I'm personally not a fan of Farrakhan. (Well, I admit I am always a bit pleased to see aggressive, scathing criticism of the dominate culture gain a bit of traction, even if the critic is a hypocrite and if their alternatives are unsavory.)

What I see here is:

A: [Insert minor ideological celebrity] is a bad, bad person. He is evil. He has [bad quality], and everything he says is tainted by [bad quality]. My evidence is [insert quote].

B: Lets look more closely at what he says, what his real meaning is. Lets look at the context for his words, lets try to be as careful, fairminded, and as thorough as possible.

C: No, I won't listen, because there is no CONTEXT where [bad quality] is acceptable.


And this is what I have a problem with. In general, position B is the rational and mature position. In general, position C is the reactive, prejudiced position. It is an 'us vs them' kind of mentality.



I believe I see your point, and I don't disagree that those words would meet the definition above, but I disagree that this, in itself matters. Citing one of the most extreme examples of so-called 'hate speech' makes it easy to agree that the example should be rejected, while avoiding the question of whether everything that might meet that definition, in someones eyes, should be rejected. Extreme cases are great for scaring people into agreement, but they aren't always the best basis for policy decisions.


To argue counter-point to my own statements above, I would agree that there is a danger, socially, to softening our rejection to certain teachings on the basis of 'taking a closer, fairminded, look'. For some people, maybe it better that they carry a judgmental, wholesale rejection rather than risk that they warm up to a dangerous and antisocial ideology.

It seems to me that Ms Harmony is simply stating a fact, which is relevant to the question of whether 'hate speech' status can be objectively determined. You may disagree with these people, but you can't deny that they exist.




This is clearly hate speech by the definition given above. By using such hateful, derogatory labels he is encouraging hostility against this group of people.

Oh, wait...should we differentiate between one's 'primary intention' and 'that which is an incidental consequence' ?





Is this what you fear? That if some people let down their guards, they might find Farrakhan palatable?

I think Ms. Harmony is making an excellent point. I've seen the anti-religious agenda's quote mining of the old testament - its easy to paint the bible as an evil book, and miss the valuable teachings within it.

Libs love that term "fear".

Fairykan is Muslim.

He's a separatist who hates whitey.

He has more hate for Jews than the Klan does.

He has dreams of be the lead Muslim to take down the US.

It's in his speeches.

Do they? And how is this generalization of yours of liberals relevant to this conversation?




True. I mean, if we discount the incorrect name.



And again, simple labels fail us. At least, those of us that are interested in truth, in all its uncomfortable complexity.

"[1] we want freedom, a full and complete freedom. [2] we want justice. We want equal justice under the law, and we want justice applied equally to all, regardless of race or class or color. [3] we want equality. We want equal membership in society with the best in civilized society.

If we can get that within the political, economic, social system of America, there's no need for point number four [separation]. But if we cannot get along in peace after giving America 400 years of our service and sweat and labor, then, of course, separation would be the solution to our race problem."





A useless phrase.



How can you even compare the feelings of an individual with the feelings of a group? Are you taking some kind of weighted average? With what measurements?



(gasp) Then he is a terrorist! Hang him!

It is worse. MsHarmony actually has stated that she agrees with
Farrakhan - and yes this is something we all should confront. Since
it is the words of Der Sturmer it is exactly the same as Nazi propaganda
and such techniques have been used in the past to incite deadly
violence that killed millions of people. I will always stand up and say
that these statements are wrong, immoral, bigoted and intolerant and
must be repudiated as they were by our President and the ADL.

I have no problem with looking at things in historical perspective or
examining context but I still insist that there is no context in which
Nazi incitement is acceptable because it is dangerous and unconscionable.
I've always been an ardent defender of free speech and take such matter
very seriously.

It is not hate speech as defined above see my explanation.



I will go further and suggest that as Matthew 23 is addressing
"hypocrites" and sinners that he is addressing ALL of humanity as
there is hardly human who is so completely godlike as to be without
any sin or hypocrisy.

Fairycan is as bad as, if not worse than Skinhead Nazis.
He's louder and has a greater following of his hate for whites and Jews.

Now.
Tell me this Jackasss isn't a hating bigot.

The Day of America's Downfall
By The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad | Last updated: Nov 2, 2010 - 12:03:06 PM
Bookmark and Share

What's your opinion on this article?

Printer Friendly Page
hem_3_15.jpg
Allah manifests the fall of America. He desires to make America fall as a warning to her brothers in Europe. White Americans and Germans—Allah has taught me—are the most wicked of the White race. The wicked deeds that have been performed and are still being performed by White Americans upon the so-called Negroes (their slaves) are the worst in the annals of history.

They have been clever enough in their wickedness to make the so-called Negro slaves love them—though they are their open enemies and murderers. Allah in the person of Master Fard Muhammad, to Whom be praise forever, now judges the American Whites and is causing America's fall and total destruction. Egypt under Pharaoh, is an example—fulfilling the signs and other prophecies of the doom of this people as foretold by the prophets from Noah to Jesus.

Moses and Jesus are the most outstanding prophets in the history of the Caucasian race for the past 4,000 years. There are several other contemporaries, but Moses and Jesus are the major prophets of the White race's history. The whole of the civilized world today—as prophesied in Isaiah—is against the White man of America. Allah hates the wicked American Whites and threatens to remove them from the face of the earth.

Since White Americans and the White race in general have deceived the entire world of Black people and their brethren (brown, red and yellow), Allah now is causing these people to wake up and see the White race as it really is, the created enemy of the darker people. As we see today, there is a general awakening of the darker people into the knowledge of self and the knowledge of their age-old (6,000 years) enemies all over the earth. The American White race cannot sincerely give the so-called Negroes (their slaves) a square deal. She only desires to deceive them.

False Equality

Today, America is trying—against her will—to give the so-called Negro civil rights (which is against the very nature and will of the White race) for the first time since the Black man has been here. America falsely offers him social equality in certain parts of the country. This social equality consists mostly of permitting the American Black race to mix openly with the White man and his woman (the devils). The actual idea, however, is to grant the so-called Negro social equality among the lower class of Whites. This is done so that the scriptures—wherein the prophecy that the White man tempts and corrupts the so-called Negroes with his women—might be fulfilled.

God has taught me that the White race was grafted unalike, and being unalike, it is able to attract the Black man and Black woman, getting them to do all the evil and indecency known to the White race.

Doom Prophesied

One of the prophets of the Bible prophesied in regard to America, “As the morning spreads abroad upon the mountains a great and strong people set in battle array” (Joel 2:2). This is the setting of the nations for a showdown to determine who will live on earth. The survivor is to build a nation of peace to rule the people of the earth forever under the guidance of Almighty God, Allah. With the nations setting forth for a final war at this time, God pleads for His people (the inheritors of the earth, the so-called Negroes).

The so-called Negro is the prey of the White man of America, being held firmly in the White man's power, along with two million Indians who must be redeemed at this time and will be, if the so-called Negro turns to His Redeemer. The problem of the American Black man is his unwillingness to be separated from his four hundred year old enemies. The problem, therefore, is harder to solve, especially with the enemy trying to fascinate the Negro with his lower-class girls and women, arraying them partly nude before the Negroes in every public news media (cheap daily newspapers and magazines, radio, TV) and the Negro is quick to imitate.

The problem between these two people—separating and dignifying the so-called Negroes so they may be accepted and respected as equals or superiors to other nations--must be solved. This is God's promise to the so-called Negro (the Lost and Found members of the original Black Nation of the earth). This promise was made through the mouths of His prophets (Bible and Qur'an), that He would separate us from our enemies, dignify us and make us the masters, after this wicked race has been judged and destroyed for its own evils.

But, as I said, the solving of this problem—which means the redemption of the Negro—is hard to do since he loves his enemies. (See Bible; Deut. 18:15, 18; Psalms; Isaiah; Matthew 25:32; and Revelations, Chapter 14.)

The manifestation of Allah and judgment between the so-called Negro and the enemy of God and the Nation of Islam will make the so-called Negro see and know his enemy and himself, his people, his God and his religion.

Rejection of Self

We hear the statement of Black educational, political and Christian classes, which express their love for the White man, publicly asking to be his brothers, if not his brothers-in-law. Now, this class wants to make it clear to the world that they really love the White race and not the Black race. This means they want to be White instead of Black. The devils have made them hate Black. They reject the thought of Black ever being the ruler or equal with the ruler. They ask boldly for inferiority—not only for themselves, but for their people.

They want to absorb themselves and their kind (especially the so-called American Negro) into the race of White people, thus ending the Black race. It is just the opposite with Allah (God), myself and my followers. We “want out completely.” We want no claim to kinship with a people who, by nature, are not our kin. Read from Genesis to the Revelations in the Bible and from Surah 2 to Surah 114 of the Holy Qur'an.

By no means are the so-called Negroes and the Whites kin. God did not create them brothers, nor did He create them to ever become brothers. One is created an enemy against the other, and since the righteous are more powerful than the wicked, Allah, the God of righteousness, set a time of reckoning for the enemy (the White man) of the righteous.

Separation

We want separation. We want a home on this earth we can call our own. We want to go for self and leave the enemy who has been sentenced to death by Allah (Rev. 20:10-14) from the day he was created (See this subject in the Bible and Qur'an). No one—White, Black, brown, yellow or red—can prove to me by any scriptures of Allah (God), sent by one of the prophets of Allah (God) that we should not be separated from the White race, that we should believe and follow the religion dictated, shaped and formed by the theologians of the White race.

The coming of Allah and the judgment of the wicked world is made clear by the prophetic sayings of the prophets. The so-called “reverends” and the proud intellectual class are doomed to destruction with the enemy if they remain with him instead of joining onto Allah, Who loves them and Who will deliver them and the Nation of Islam.

The so-called Negro masses must be warned of the grave mistake they make in following the leadership of those who love and befriend their murderers. This will not get them freedom or civil rights.

America is falling. Her doom has come and none, said the prophets, shall help her in the day of her downfall. In the Bible, God pleads with you to fly out of her (America) and seek refuge in Him (Rev. 18:4). It certainly will change your minds about following a doomed people—a people who hate you and your kind, and who call one who teaches the truth about them a hater. They are the producers of haters of us. We are with God and the righteous.

I take that to mean "what might happen is worse than people finding Farrakhan palatable". Is that right?




I must have missed the part where Ms Harmony says she agrees that Nazi incitement is a good thing. Is the fact that she finds something within Farrakhans words that she finds agreeable - is that what we must confront?

I'm wondering if the "composition" fallacy at play here. If we find some of Farrakhan's statements bigoted and objectionable, we must insist that nothing he says could possibly be correct.


I would judge based on the statements she finds agreeable, not the person who happens to make those individual statements.




I don't disagree with what you say here, so I'm wondering if we should focus our attention on specifics.

Isn't that taken from a book that is over FOUR DECADES old?

Surely you can pull up some more recent scary black racism.

Since you may have missed it here is where I posted some of Farrakhan's statements which MsHarmony argued were true
statements...



and earlier on the first page of this topic...
MsHarmony wrote:



Then read the OP again....

I think that it is astounding that anyone would agree with this
stuff!! What she finds agreeable is much of his antisemitic viewpoint!



So, I think it is very important that Farrakhan's abhorrent views
and false history lessons be aired and challenged lest they be
confused with legitimate truth. The ironic thing is that he is as
much of a false prophet as the other he rails against - worse even.