Farrakan and the "crazy" creation myths of Nation of Islam

[HamdenRice]

In the several Farrakan threads, one theme of the Farrakan bashers comes up again and again: that he preaches what appear to be pretty far out stories about mad scientists creating white people and being captured by UFOs.

But you have to keep in mind that Farrakan is first and foremost a religious figure, at the center of small but well organized religious group.

As I write this, Sunday morning, millions of otherwise rational Americans are engaged in a ritual act of cannablism, honestly believing that the crackers and grape juice they are consuming is the tissue and blood of an intinerant preacher and philospher who died two thousand years ago, who also happened to be the actual son of their God.

Other days of the week, otherwise rational people gather to mutually reinforce the notion that of the 6 billion plus inhabitants of the earth, God is really only the god of those who descended from a particular mid eastern tribe. Others will reiterate their belief that everyone was born a member of their particular faith, and therefore, anyone who doesn't practice their particular faith is automatically an apostate.

Watching Spike Lee's Malcolm X film yesterday reminded me of the conditions under which the original NOI and Elijah Muhammed developed their ideas: they were confronted with essentially one bizarre and fantastic religion which had the added detriment of making Black people feel very bad about themselves (Christianity), and decided to come up with a perhaps equally bizarre and fantastic set of beliefs that would on the contrary make Black people feel positively about themselves.

Frankly, I don't understand how you can say NOI's creation myths are bizarre without saying exactly the same about all the fairy tale religions of our world.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Thanks for the post, Hamden.

Here at DU was the first time I heard 'the white people made by scientist myth'. I have listened to a lot of Farrakhan's speech and I have never heard any of that tripe but unfortunately Farrakhan will always be labeled an anti-semite hatemongering separatist to people that will not research on their own. The first time I had heard about Louis Farrakhan was from Morton Downey of The Morton Downey show. He was very negative toward Farrakhan but over the years I researched and listened to his speeches and determined that he was not the bad guy that he was portrayed as. And just because I listen to some of his speeches every now and then doesn't mean I will join the NOI (that is not for me).

[LoZoccolo]

2. The "white people made by scientist myth"...

...is recounted in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. It's a Nation of Islam teaching that pre-dates Farrakhan.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Really?

Oh gosh and I read that book. That just goes to show you what I chose to remember. :blush:

[msongs]

3. agreed...all religious creation myths are bizarre...some are more

entertaining than others.

I like the one about the earth being on the back of a giant cosmic turtle.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ultraist]

4. The people freaking out about Farrakhan did not listen to his speech

It's obvious that those who are trashing Farrakhan did not watch the MMM yesterday. If they had, they would have stopped to think about the fact, that CHRISTIAN leaders and scholars, such as Cornel West were in attendance. It was not a march to promote Black seperatism or just the NOI.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701838.html?nav=rss_metro/dc

Those who had their eyes closed, Katrina opened them up," the Rev. Willie F. Wilson, pastor of Union Temple Baptist Church in Southeast Washington and national executive director of the event, said yesterday. "Those who thought we had it made will see that we don't. The masses of our people remain in impoverished conditions."

The focus of the event is not the only difference between the first march and this one. One key difference is that Farrakhan is no longer considered an outsider. Black leaders, including D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, fully support this march, seemingly without worrying that some of Farrakhan's past comments -- criticized by some as mean-spirited, sexist and anti-Semitic -- will tarnish them. Farrakhan, who survived a bout with prostate cancer, said he has also grown in the past decade. Instead of a purely black, nationalistic message, he said, his goal is to join forces with all like-minded people.

"We must attend to the needs of our people, but we must also form strategic alliances with Latinos, Native Americans and the poor people of this nation to find common cause, to pool our resources and to reshape foreign policy," Farrakhan said. Gay leaders will also be among the speakers, he said, a point of contention in the gay community for the first march.

[entanglement]

119. Many hate a strong Black leader like Farrakhan

That's essentially what it comes down to. And since he committed the unpardonable sin of anti-semitism in the past, they will go on attacking him and try to prevent his message from spreading. The man has some good ideas and isn't afraid to speak the truth and that alone makes him positively rare in today's world. He has moderated his political philosophy but don't expect people to listen to any of that.

[radwriter0555]

145. He's also a moonie, and cut from the same cloth as robertson and teevee

evangelists who live high off the money of their faithful.

And, once again, he's a moonie. He uses religion to gain control of people so that he can exploit them.

Farrakhan is a fraud.

[Kurovski]

128. I heard Farrakhan mention every race in his speech yesterday.

I heard him say we all must work together.

And I know what he knows , BushCo is our common enemy.

The OP is right on the money. All religions hold unusual views. Just because one has been heard for thousands of years does not make it any less strange.

Some are not meant to be, (nor are they in reality.) taken at face value. But many will say they do.

[sleipnir]

5. What we call Mythology, was someone's religion.

I always thought that take a trip 1,000 years into the future and you'll see a few new chapters in the Mythology textbook.

Most people don't even know a tenth of the actual history behind their religions. Ask any good Christian about Zoroastrianism, Manachism, Marduk, or even earlier incarnations in Mesopotamia and I bet they will stare at you with a blank face. Modern Christianity is really a evolutionary step on the religious ladder that started thousands of years before Christ. It really is an amalgamation of previously held beliefs and traditions. There's very little of anything "new" in Christianity if you look at the other Mesopotamian religions.

There are some sects of Gnostics who believe that the Hebrews picked the wrong god out of the pantheon to make a covenant with. They supposedly picked a lesser war god and not the most powerful of the gods. This failed choice, according to the sect of Gnostics, is why the world is full of so many troubles, as a punishment for a bad choice.

[Benhurst]

7. One man's religion is another's superstition. NT

:popcorn:

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. Amen :^)

[Solly Mack]

8. For some - please note the "for some" (that's for those about to go on the

defensive - it's called an "out", take it...I'm being kind, so be graceful in turn)

but for some, attacking his "crazy thinking" is what they do instead of attacking his skin hue - since it's more socially acceptable than attacking his skin hue. (never mind the hypocrisy of attacking one myth over another)Sharpton gets the exact same treatment - and you just know what they're thinking while they recount the "crazy words" - how they're just biting back the words "he's a discredit to black people" (which is racist thinking with a racist premise)


You're 100% correct, HamdenRice...a creation myth is a creation myth. Not a single one is any less bizarre than the other.

[Karenina]

99. Indeed. n/t

[leesa]

9. Thanks. I agree. They're ALL fantasies. Made woman out of a rib, eh?

[cwydro]

76. excellent point!

:rofl: A rib, indeed. And the snake and the apple...oh goodness, I could go on..

[goclark]

10. Recommended !

After reading the threads here at DU, I wonder if there really is a Liberal America.

[Tomee450]

82. Right

"After reading the threads here at DU, I wonder if there really is a Liberal America."

I'm beginning to feel the same way. Some of the posts have been quite disturbing.

[Karenina]

101. I been wonderin' that

all the years I've been on this board. There are some outstanding individuals here who make sincere efforts to "get it," ASK if they have and/or admit that they don't. They are VERY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

[Inland]

11. Well, all creation myths are bizarre. But Farrakhan's is also evil.

Really, a creation myth to explain away whites as less than human, or at least, of a different stock, is as bad as the worst racism that white Christians cooked up with their mark of Ham stuff. Yeah, I'm sure it makes some people feel better about themselves, and that's true for a lot of racist pronouncements. Why else would anyone make them?

Moreover, it's troubling to see you confuse "fantastic" religious beliefs with ethically challeged ones. You go out of your way to make some religious beliefs seem trivially stupid in order to make Farrakhan's seem no more stupid. Fine. Both Farrakhan's belief and the belief in transubstantiation are nutty. But the difference is that nobody is made less than human in the Communion service, nobody is made an alien race.

All the snide references to Ritz crackers, Welch's and the yummy taste of basted Christ isn't going to make the communion service anything more than deluded poppycock. It'll never be racist deluded poppycock.

[eallen]

13. Worse than a god ordering his chosen people to commit genocide?

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' <1 Samuel 15:2>

The Old Testament god set the bar pretty low on what kind of evil can be excused, when it is ordered or committed by a god.

:eyes:

[Inland]

17. And I set mine a SMIDGEN higher, I suppose.

After all, my point was that Farrakhan's story is not only factually unfounded but a justification for BAD. If you want to add that the israelites did the same, help yourself. There isn't any relevance to the nature of what Farrakhan said: there isn't a "other religions did worse" point to be made.

[porphyrian]

65. Oooh! I like these...

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces."
- Malachi 2:3

"If a man have a rebellious and stubborn son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not harken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. and all the men of the city shall stone him with stones that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[HamdenRice]

15. You should see Malcolm X or talk to any Black person over 35...

because Christianity as practiced was explicitly racist. God made man in his image and God and Jesus were white. Black Catholic friends have told me horror stories about their nuns constantly, constantly talking about "evil black hearts". And you yourself mention the mark of Ham, which was regularly preached in the South.

On the contrary, Christianity as practiced in the US before the 1950s was a vicious brew of explicitly racist messages and images. It may be less acceptable in mainstream Chrisianity today, but most other religions still explicitly consider others to be non-human or less than human.

I don't particularly like Farrakan, but I really don't see how NOI's fairy tales are any different.

[Inland]

16. Not different from any other religious justification for racisim.

because I don't believe in racism, whethere its in the chrisitianity as practiced then or now, or Farrakhan's stories.

There are religious beliefs that are factually bizarre and stimulate ethical behavior, and some that are factually bizarre and justify racism.

That's how they are different.

[itzamirakul]

21. Yes and there are some religious practioners that practice

stimulating little boys. I call that fantastical, unethical AND evil.

[Inland]

39. Would you also call it justification of racism?

Because I think that you were implying with the "AND" that a racist creation story preached by Farrakhan isn't evil, Because I can't think of any particular relevance to the discussion, otherwise.

Me, I find plenty of room to be against pederasty and racism, without one justifying the other.

[noiretextatique]

43. the poster is agruing that it's stupid, and most people understand that

and don't defend it. just as most people understand the myths of other religous are stupid. and the poster is saying the defense of pedophiles by some religious institutions, and their fatihful is evil.

[Inland]

66. And I'm saying that it's racist and therefore isn't "the same".

I don't have a problem with crazy myths. Pretending that a crazy, fallacious, silly myth is the same as a racist myth is a weird type of moral equivalence.

[noiretextatique]

75. yeah...it's racist, as are the biblical justifications for slavery

and the treatment of people of color, in general as lesser, which christians have been preaching for centuries, and still preach now.

[Inland]

89. And so one has to be against those, too.

That's all. But the OP, IMO, went exactly the wrong way. He said, "all religions have silly beliefs. I mean, come on, cannibalism, wheat thins, grape juice is silly." Well, yeah. But it's been a long time since that particular belief got anyone enslaved. The moral equivalence between a religious belief that is racist and others that are benign or harmless by deeming them all equally "silly" is alarming.

[noiretextatique]

97. c'mon...the xtian beliefs are playing out right now in iraq

and elsewhere. to equate farrakhan and the NOI to that particular tradition is intellectually and morally dishonest.
on the other hand, i can't condone his beliefs either.

[Inland]

159. I don't "equate" anything. I just note the racism of the creation myth

It's a little racist story. It isn't killing people in Iraq, but then again, it's still racist.

I'm really not getting the "other people have done worse" bit. The point of the OP wasn't that Farrakhan isn't a killer. It's that his creation myth was just another fallacious and silly religious belief. It isn't.

In addition to being fallacious and silly, it's racist. It dehumanizes whites and makes them of a different biological origin than blacks.

Frankly, I thought that pointing this out would lead to at least an acknowledgement that yeah, maybe Farrakhan's religious beliefs aren't exactly the same as other, not pernicious beliefs and that he should rethink. But no, it's either NOT important, or HE is not important (raising the question of why there's a post) or that he hasn't actually injured anybody our of racism to our knowledge (which only is true if one discounts any irritation of a creation myth specially constructed to say something bad about white people).

I think that under a defintion of "condone", I think that's precisely what is being done in this thread with respect to the creation myth, and I don't approve or condone of it.

[noiretextatique]

185. "think" what you want

if you actually read the first post, and several of mine, you will see that no one "condones" farrakhan's views. and yes...in the scheme of things: he is insignificant, because he doesn't now, and will never have the power to operationalize those views. i view him much the same as a view any number of assorted religious wackos. on the other hand, i am concerned about more mainstream religious wackos, like pat robertson, who not only have a following, but power...economic and political and social and cultural. and yes...they are of more concern to me than a handful of farrakhans.

[Inland]

189. I think you need to look up the word "condone"

Because that's precisely what is happening.

I said Farrakhan's myth of a separate creation of whites was evil and pernicious. The OP said is was merely false and wacky. You say it is insignificant. Neither of you will call the myth what it is, and do backflips to find reasons why one shouldn't make a judgment as to a person who would believe it or propagate it.

Your statement that you lack concern about Farrakhan as a marginal figure is belied by your numerous posts. You are very much concerned about Farrakhan. You simply aren't concerned about this one myth meant to dehumanize whites, as the OP isn't.

"Condone" is the perfect word.

[noiretextatique]

192. i think you need to look up a few words

projection, being the number one. how many times do you need to hear that farrrakhan has uttered racist views before you will be satisfied? that you need and expect some sort of condemnation of farrakhan from others that suits your needs sends a message about you. i got that message in your post about white folks' fears of retribution.

[Inland]

193. What do I need to hear.

Look at my response to the OP. Post number 11.

The OP minimized or ignored the racist content of the creation myth to declare it no different than any other silly and factually outrageous religious belief.

When I pointed out the fallacy, and the racism inherent (indeed, intended) by the myth, it's been minimized, ignored, or declared irrelevant.

Just admit the creation myth is not just silly and fantastical but also racist. Because it's true, for one. And because any stand t against racism has to include all racists without qualification of source or reason.

Your choice.

By the way, the "projection" thing is unfair, and I think you know it. After all, I didn't make up a story about black people being created in a lab of mad scientists, so I can't "project" onto the NOI creation myth. It is what it is.

[itzamirakul]

92. In your previous post you state...

that there are "religious beliefs that are factually bizarre and stimulate ethical behavior."

Just for the sake of my enlightenment, could you name one or two of the above?

As far as my post re certain religious practioners stimulating little boys, let me say that I certainly DO find this to be a racist practice since I have not heard of one single little black boy being stimulated. It seems that only little white boys are stimulated by these religious practioners whose beliefs MAY BE factually bizarre but stimulate ethical behavior.

I don't think stimulating little boys of any race is ethical and when done by religious practioners under the guise of divine holiness it is pure evil and far worse than any mere words that have been spoken.
The whole thing is based on what you consider to be more evil - words or actions.

So please, name one or two of these bizarre yet ethical religions for me.

[Inland]

190. Well, how about the belief in a heaven as a reward for good deeds?

Or a belief in karma?

Are you familiar with either of these religious beliefs? Perhaps you should go to the Theology section and ask for a primer. You could also find actual believers and you could ask them if those beliefs cause them to want to act in a more ethical manner. For the sake of your enlightenment.

[HamdenRice]

24. Kinda like the way the Old Testament provides the template ...

for American behavior in the middle east.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam all justify violent racist behavior. I don't see how NOI is any worse.

And if you are focusing on behavior, please remind me -- exactly how many people have NOI members slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, colonized, lynched or exterminated?

[noiretextatique]

31. well now, that's the $64,000.00 question, isn't it?

i too would love for someone to tell him how the NOI can be considered the equivalent of the KKK, considering the NOI never had the kind of mainstream (white) acceptance that the KKK did. and as you mentioned, as far as i know, the NOI isn't in the business of burning crosses, stealing people's property, and lynching folks.

[Inland]

41. Umm....

Nobody I know of is saying that the Nation is the equivalent of the KKK, or that it burnt crosses, stole property, or lynched anybody.

I said that the myth of scientists creating whites is racist and justification of racism.

[noiretextatique]

45. on the contrary, several people have said just that

in other threads. the NOI's religous beliefs are RIDICULOUS, and as the OP pointed out, so are the beliefs and myths of many religions.

[Inland]

49. Then you need to actually read my post on that.

Number 11

[Inland]

36. At least now you not confusing the issue.

Not whether Farrakhan's beliefs are goofy from a factual viewpoin, but whether they either justifies or stimulates racist behavior, or at least has the potential for doing so.

Are there other religious people with such beliefs and taking action on them? Sure there are. And I hope nobody defends racism or violence from them, even if it's saying that they are "no worse" than others.

And who exactly has accused NOI of murder? Why would you pretend somebody had? I just accused them of propagating a racist mythology, which is true, and last I heard, a BAD thing. I don't have any interest in making anything up.

[noiretextatique]

48. most black people agree with you

i think that's the point of the original post, i.e., farrakhan and the NOI have not been as successful in propogating racist beliefs as have the KKK, falwell, robertson, bennett, the republican party and bush, inc.

[Inland]

69. No doubt, farrakhan is largely irrelevant

Except as a distraction, where republicans and whites are able to point out a black "leader" to complain about. So there isn't much point in defending an unfortunate bit of mythologizing.

And even so, Farrakhan has calmed down a lot since his medical troubles a few years back.

[noiretextatique]

74. he seems to be trying to morph himself into something acceptable

and as long as he is trying to be productive, i'll keep an open mind. however, i am not fond of religious leaders as political leaders, especially considering some of that particular religion's views on some people.

[Inland]

91. I think he almost died.

I think he IS more acceptable, due to a near death experience that made him less interested in being controversial.

[noiretextatique]

56. christianity is evil, as practiced by many

it was, and is used as a justification for many evils, e.g., racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. i think what many don't see to understand is the the NOI's religious beliefs have little to do with farrakhan's appeal as a political voice. perhaps it's hard to explain, or perhaps it's hard for people to grasp, but i never had much interest in the NOI as a religious organization, even though i've been exposed to their views since i was a child. however, i do think they have some interesting things to say about the american poltical and social order...end of story. i am in no more danger of becoming attached to their views about creation than i am about any other religion...i tend to reject them all.

[malaise]

152. Bingo

I do think they have some interesting things to say about the american poltical and social order...end of story.
And I do reject all religions.

[Inland]

155. It is. And nobody has trouble saying so. So.....

If we can make that sort of judgment about christians, why not Farrakhan?

Why not?

You're right, it IS hard to explain. The fact they have interesting things to say about the american political organization..well, so?

[malaise]

151. And Willie Lynch and John Taylor were

good christian men right?

[Inland]

168. No, they weren't. I guess that means Farrakhan's A-OK.

I give up. From now on, absolutely no judgment can be made against any person as long as there was somebody worse in the history of the world. Because I can't say something true about a person without somebody bringing up some evil party and either pretending like I side with them or challenging me to compare. So I give up.

All standards are now, "Worse than Stalin" or "Better than Stalin".

Everyone can go home now.

[malaise]

174. Our support for Farrakhan's message

has nothing to do with who is worse than whom. We have war criminals in charge of this planet and I am watching some liberals attacking a man who is merely pointing out systemic racism at home and abroad.
When Sharon, Blair, Bush et al are in handcuffs in the Hague, I will entertain criticisms re Farrakhan. Until then I will listen to any message that points out crimes against humanity and crimes against people who look just like me.

[Inland]

181. You're speaking for yourself, then

given the number of posts that compare Farrakhan to other racists or criminals. Indeed, given the number of posts that DO NOTHING ELSE than make the comparison.

And if Farrakhan were "merely pointing out systemic racism", there wouldn't have been an OP and I wouldn't have responded. He isn't "merely" pointing out racism. He is employing a racist creation myth himself.

To the post you responded to, I said that the test that's being promulgated for whether one can point out Farrakhan's racist story is whether Farrakhan is worse than others. Your test is, you will listen to a criticism of Farrakhan when Bush is in handcuffs, that is, never. I don't know how that's really so different that saying that nobody can point out racism of someone you appreciate. It IS a racist creation myth, isn't it?

[malaise]

184. Who knows

maybe he has finally joined mainstream western philosophy with a few caveats - read Kant, Burke, Locke, Carlyle et al and there you find the psuedo-scientific justifications for white supremacy; read John Taylor and Willie Lynch and you'll see the bible in one hand and slavery, institutionalized racism, murder and genocide in the other. But you see I also recognize that a few of them also had ideals for humanity (even though my people weren't included) re life and liberty.

Unlike all of them though, Farrakhan merely talks - most of the others acted and destroyed a people. Some were actually owners of the enslaved and the quality of the lives of all were improved as a result of the enslavement of my people.

Should I throw out all of their ideas and Jefferson's as well. No I sift through the contradictions and identify what can take humanity forward. Why should I not do the same for one who speaks truth to power on behalf of an oppressed people.

[Inland]

186. Well, he has joined the mainstream of two hundred years ago.

One cheer for that, huh?

Don't throw out any of Farrakhan's good ideas. But don't ignore the bad ones by pretending that he's a good man for our times. He's not. If he tells the truth about Bush, it's only because his own nationalist ethic intersects with liberals on that one point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But unless "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is the only ethic we have, Farrakhan's racist creation myth cannot be ignored or explained away, and it shouldn't be. There's a difference between accepting the fact of contradictions and accepting the racism.

[Spinzonner]

12. Yep, L Ron Hubbard was just one of the latest in a long line of

crazies (like a fox)

[sam sarrha]

14. did Ron actually believe his book was bible or just his followers..

cause science fiction is ...fiction, isnt it??

[meow mix]

165. hush, XENU SAVES!!

you know its true! =D

[tjdee]

18. Chrisitanity makes black people feel bad about themselves? Wow!

I'm black and all these years I never knew that. :silly:

I'd admit that NOI's creation stories aren't any weirder than Christianity's, or Hinduism's, or whatever.

But I would question how Christianity makes blacks feel poorly about themselves--unless you're talking about the sort of biblical defending of slavery,etc. that went on.

[HamdenRice]

23. Do you remember Christianity in the 50s and 60s? Malcolm? Fanon?

Christianity is a lot more user friendly than it used to be. I still get a little sick remembering all those "white jesus" prints in everyone's home in the 60s.

But admittedly the black churches did a lot t reinterpret Christianity for its members.

If you really want to read horror stories, I remember reading a little book in the 70s called something like "African Reactions to Missionary Education" -- basically a scholarly study of African graduates of mission schools. Some of those missionaries were just evil racists, filling kids minds with self hatred.

But it is not a novel observation that mainstream Christianity inculcated white supremacy before the 1960s.

[ultraist]

25. The white Christian churches, yes. But Black churches...

have a long history of being a powerful political force and a key player in ending slavery and the Civil Rights movement.

From the involvement in the underground railroad, when many Black churches had secret hiding places under the floor boards & leaders who were influenced or worked through the churches to end slavery (Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth) to DuBois, to MLK, Jr. to current Black church leaders today, there is no question, that Black Christian churches have played a MAJOR role in empowering Blacks and working towards equal rights.

[noiretextatique]

29. what about women's rights? and gay rights?

not all black churches have been in the forefront of those movements, on the contrary, some still espouse homophobia and sexism as godly.

[ultraist]

44. True. They have not been on the forefront of those issues

But I still hold a lot of respect for the progress, that many Black churches have led up and quite frankly, I wonder if many of the relatives of my Black son, would have survived, if not for the Christian Black churches.

But again, despite personal religious beliefs, the large majority of Blacks vote for the party that best promotes pro choice and pro gay rights legislation.

I really don't care what people's personal religious beliefs are, as long as they do not try to impose beliefs, that conflict with our Constitution, into our policies/laws or put them out to the public sphere in such a way that creates hate and violence. I don't really see the Black churches doing that, with regard to abortion and Gays.

[noiretextatique]

52. you haven't looked hard enough

while i agree there are many progressive black churches, and i too respect the institutions, the church is essentially a conservative institution. and yes, there are even some black churches that are a part of the problem.

[ultraist]

60. I didn't say they are "progressive institutions"

What I did say however is, they have been major players in leading up the progressive issues of ending slavery and Civil Rights as well as helping to facilitate empowering the Black community in general. No doubt that many Black churches do not promote progressive stances on abortion and Gay rights. But at least they don't vote on those stances, but keep those personal beliefs behind when they walk into the voting booth.

Just to qualify, I by no means claim to be an expert on Black churches. My knowledge and observations are somewhat limited, particularly coming from a white perspective. I choose to focus on the strengths of the Black churches and leave the reform efforts to those who are directly involved. I'm not a religious person. ;)

[noiretextatique]

63. i am not religous either

in part because of churches :7

[ultraist]

68. LOL! Same here.

:toast:

[noiretextatique]

28. do you know why the AME church was started?

"The movement to organize a church separated from the white peoples' church was started in response to the "Africans" need for opportunities for self-expression and fuller involvement in the service of the worship of God, and in society as a whole. It was the answer to a cry for social recognition as human beings, and the means through which a group of people started on a program which gave them a growing sense of dignity and self-respect."
http://www.ame-church.org/amehist.htm

and of course the religions practiced by the africans brought here as slaves were banned. some still practiced those religions secretly, via catholicism in particular, but they are still considered "voodoo" to most. there are many pracitioners of ifa, santeria and voodun where i live...some claim these religions are gaining more members than traditional reiligions, like chrisitianity.

i came of age during the black power movement, and there was much discussion about religion, particularly praying and worshipping the images of white gods, but also the conservative nature of most churches regarding accpetable forms of dress and hairstyles. not everyone in black communtites were thrilled about folks wearing afros and dressing in african garb. imho, christianity is the religion of the enslavers, so was never much interested in it, however i do respect the black church, as an insitutition, and i think some churches have evolved considerably since the old days....but not all.

my cousins in texas are fond of emailing me the latest rantings of their local minister, who among other things, is a unrepentent homophobe. i know many black gays and lesbians who submitted themselves to anti-gay torture every sunday morning. one of my best friends has spent the majority of her life trying to find her place in that book (the bible) as a woman, as a black person, and as a lesbian. to her credit, she did some amazing and important work on the subject as a performance artist, and later as a minister in the MCC church.

another friend lived in terror for several years because she was director of the youth choir at her church and was afraid some of thos good christian folk would find out she was a lesbian. she eventually stopped going to that place, and found a religious science church where she is accepted for all that she is.

[Prajna Sword]

19. NOI Creation Myth

The problem with fantastical creation myths is not that the myths are crazy, but that people who believe them are crazy. Myths don't have minds, so they cannot be crazy. They are just stories. Stories lack any inherent existence. The main issue is how people relate to these myths and how those myths arise in the first place.

Myths are supposed to convey some underlying higher "truth." The underlying higher truth, however, might be something glorious or insidious. In the case of the NOI, the underlying view they wish to convey is this: black people are good; white people are bad, and they (white people) can't help it because they have a genetic predisposition for evil. It is racist at its core. To people surrounded by virulent racism and its effects, such a story may be far more compelling than an explanation based on a rational analysis of facts. It is the mirror image of irrational, white racist thinking about black people.

The human mind seems hard wired to create stories and narratives to make sense of the world. Instead of relating to the world based on apparent reality, people relate to the world on the basis of myth. These myths involve archetypes buried within the deepest recesses of the human psyche. Evoking these archetypes releases passionate, intense feelings about the world and one's relationship to it. The passionate intensity of the true believer is the fuel for action, whether that means changing one's life or changing the world. A cynic would say that religions purposefully create these myths to brainwash their followers to work feverishly for ends only known by the myth makers themselves.

I agree with you that many of the world's religions have bizarre creation myths, and the NOI is no exception. However, the NOI's creation myth is exceptional in that it is explicitly racist: black people good, white people bad. It is racist, pure and simple.

The real issue is whether Farrakhan is spreading this meme through the Millions More March or making this meme more legitimate among non-whites through his leadership role. In point of fact, he is not. Any strange talk about UFOs and Yacub are for NOI ears only. We do have religious freedom, and people have every right to believe in tall tales. The real double standard is that there are numerous racist myths that are perpetuated under the guise of science (e.g., the Bell Curve crap) that the media and society continue to perpetuate--yet no one seems to say a word about that.

[Inland]

47. Not unlike what I said, post number 11.

I'm not sure that most creation myths AREN'T racism in some sense, but nobody would excuse them, either: rather, they would be written off as the perspective of an unenlightened age--and that those that still believed are racists.

Such as, the Mormons who still believed that blacks bore the mark of damnation. They didn't change that until ten years ago or so.

[ErisFiveFingers]

70. Mormon racism...

If, by "ten years or so" you mean 27 years, and if, by "Mormon", you mean "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

There have long been Mormon branches that have rejected slavery and Racism (such as Community of Christ/RLDS), and there are still splinter fundamentalists (just like in most other areas of christianity) that still believes in either the "Curse of Cain" or the 'Curse of Ham".

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_Mormonism
For a thorough examination of the topic, it's a lot more intricate and detailed than can be reasonably discussed here.

[Inland]

79. 27 years, not ten. Still pretty scandalous, isn't it?

And as I referred to the "mormons who believe", you can point out the divergent sects. I'm sure there were plenty who thought it was a particularly piece of bullshit from J. Smith to 1978.

[ErisFiveFingers]

176. J. Smith believed in black preisthood members.

You are misinformed. Mormons didn't adopt the racist stance until the church headquarters moved south, then west. I recommend reading the wikipedia link.

[Inland]

191. Thanks, I read it.

Doesn't change anything I said.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

156. A pair of standard American Mormon Preachers tried to sell me that BS...

LAST FUCKING YEAR!

"Elders", they call themselves. White shirt, ties, squeaky clean, lobotomized smile.

Maybe it's my rather Nordic appearance. One of the things they said when trying to convert me was "Do you know how the Curse of Cain worked? Well..."

And don't tell me about splinters or rogues -- those guys were as "official" as it gets.

27 years my butt.

[Karenina]

161. It's so interesting to see

the unequivocal demand to fully renounce a man who took a public platform and spoke the truths we all know. There is great risk these days in doing such things.

I never paid him much mind as his dealings with his community did not affect me. Thought it was a shame that his very sound political concepts came in such a stinky fishwrap. His speech was an indication that he's shed the fishwrap.

It is also quite common for people who have faced a major illness to modify their views. I'm willing to give Minister Farrakhan the benefit of the doubt from a distance, and give him props for OVER A MILLION warm bodies in D.C. AND for convincing others I deeply respect that his current vision is one that should garner support.

The MESSAGE was SPOT-ON.

[ErisFiveFingers]

178. Was it like...

Original sin?

All people are sinners, and evil? Because of Eve?

Just curious.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

179. No. Cain's punishment for killing Abel...

...wasn't a weird tatoo on his forehead like the imagery we usually see.

His skin was turned black. His and all of his descendants.

That's why black people are black. They're cursed.

I shit you not.

Edit: good luck trying to whitewash this one.

[ErisFiveFingers]

188. No whitewash needed.

Did you see the wikipedia article I posted upstream? It goes into greater detail. I'm personally quite well aware of the history, as my father was a PR flack for the church when Kimball made the change "official". I know how to spin it using the "official lines", but the spin is fairly transparent... (In short: God said it was time for society to accept black high priesthood members *again*, as the church did when it first started, but *society* was too racist back then, and now that society had finally changed to be less racist, the church could change too... blah blah blah... spin spin spin).

Oh, and the Curse of Ham is cited as a scriptural reference slightly more often than the Mark of Cain, because everybody was killed during the flood except for Noah's family.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
You see, unless Noah or his wife was a black descendant of Cain, there wouldn't be any black people....and hardcore racists just couldn't handle the idea that everybody came from the same bloodline (as they would then be part black). Of course, the mark of Cain *was* also used by various churches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Cain

My offhand remark about Eve and original sin was there to point out that *all* religions have justified their historical oppression and/or violence (some, for quite a few centuries) using scriptural interpretation. Curse of Ham was used to reject black people and Canaanites, Original Sin to oppress women, Leviticus statements (18:22) to oppress gays, etc. Yes, mormons have done the same thing as the Lutherans, Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc. etc.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

Edit: typo, spelling

[itzamirakul]

20. Recommended! Good post...

It's about time that someone helped people see the "craziness" imbedded in each of our major religions.

To those who believe, no explanation if necessary.
To those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

[HamdenRice]

22. I love that aphorism at the end of your post! nt

[jonnyblitz]

26. yup, being an atheist ALL religious "myths" are equally

as nutty to me. I guess it depends on what the "majority" believe determines what is excepted. i always thought the psuedo cannibalism of communion (eating the body and blood of christ)was pretty bizarre as was the symbol of somebody nailed to a crucifix. I understand exactly what you are saying.

[Neil Lisst]

27. HamdenRice, I don't know why people give him a pass, but ...

... but they do.

The man is a hardcore racist, a hardcore sexist, and a hardcore religious bigot. He's as bad as Falwell, as bad as Robertson, and as bad as Mullahs who teach ignorance and hatred.

[noiretextatique]

30. i don't think people give him a "pass" at all

just as tom metzger has some interesting things to say about american politics, so does farrakhan. and unlike robertson and falwell, he isn't considered a maninstream religious leader (i don't consider them mainstream, but others do), nor does he have the following among average americans that those two do.

[Neil Lisst]

32. Of course they do. Read this thread.

You're giving him a pass right now.

He's a bigot, and one who spreads hate. Just because a lot of people listen to him doesn't make him any different from any other religious nut job.

He is a nut job. Does he do any good? Sure. Does he say some things that are sound? Sure. Does he get a pass from too many people? Always.

[noiretextatique]

35. was he "spreading hate" yesterday?

if he was, please provide the quotes. believe it or not, black people are sophistocated enough to separate the message from the messenger...it seems other should follow our lead in that regard.

[Karenina]

110. I-N-D-E-E-D!!!

Meine ficken Fresse...

[HamdenRice]

42. You are confusing two arguments

First, no one is giving Farrakan "a pass." As I mentioned in another post, if I did not make it clear, I am not a fan a Farrakan for obvious reasons.

But what is fascinating (in a horrible way) to most Black people is that white people tend to get a lot of different issues related to Farrakan confused, sadly, because of their pre-existing prejudices.

My main point in the OP is that Farrakan's mythical beliefs are not "crazy" compared to other religions.

You can say his dogma is bigoted, and I would agree. But as I've made clear, so are all other major religions.

And you just posted that he is a "nut job". Why is he a nut job? Why isn't the Pope a nut job? Aren't their views about origins equally bizarre? Isn't Billy Graham a "nut job" if he believes a dead Rabi who lived in during the late Roman can be your best friend?

You are confusing whether a religion has objectionable premises and whether a practitioner is crazy.

I think many white people go beyond saying that NOI has an objectionable premise (although no more objectionable than the genocidal Old Testament) to the idea that a person must be crazy for believing in it.

[Neil Lisst]

51. The Pope, Billy Graham? Sure, include them.

I never suggested either the Pope or Billy Graham were any better than Farrakhan. They aren't. Your defense of Farrakhan by mentioning other famous religious scoundrels falls flat.

Stop assuming you know what I think just because I call Farrakhan a nut job. If you've heard him speak on creation, or on the evilness of whites, you shouldn't have to be told that by me.

Farrakhan has his defenders. I'm not one of them. Deal with it.

[HamdenRice]

62. You totally missed the point ...

because if you say include the Pope and include Billy Graham as nut jobs, you also have to include the hundred million or so people who went to church this morning, or synagogue or mosque yesterday or Friday.

If that's true then no one is sane.

You can't seem to grasp that you are making two criticisms of Farrakan -- one that his religion is bigoted, the other that he is a nut.

But religion is by its nature the belief in the supernatural. As one poster above put it, many, many people have a strong need to believe in mythic archtypes. That's not crazy. That's the norm.

When you say Farrakan is crazy because of the beliefs of the NOI, you are singling them out -- those crazy Negroes will believe anything -- when, given the widespread existence of religion, they are no more crazy than any other religious practitioners.

And for that matter, they are hardly more bigoted, given the genocidal narrative and explicit encouragement of genocide in the Abrahamic religions -- which we seem to be acting out in Iraq.

By contrast, the members of the NOI have never hurt anyone that anyone here can actually account for.

[noiretextatique]

33. it was, and is the NOI's political message, not its religous one

that resonated, and continues to resonate with black people.

[Neil Lisst]

34. He preaches racial hatred.

and you accept it

I don't doubt that he appeals to some blacks on a political basis, and have so opined elsewhere on this site. But this topic is about his beliefs regarding creation, and his adherence to a very racist set of beliefs.

[noiretextatique]

37. excuses? the KKK wasn't always as the fringe group

that it is now. in contrast, the NOI had always been a fringe group with regard to its religious teachings. as far its poltical views, as i mentioned, they resonate with a lot of black people. as for the KKK, i am not so naive as to believe their views don't resonate with a lot of whites. and as far as i know, the NOI never rides around looking for white people to beat up oir lynch. if you have information to the contrary, please share it.
there are lots of people who espouse lots of things, but the NOI doesn't have the history of perpetrating racist acts against white poeple that the KKK does against black people.

[Neil Lisst]

38. If you want to defend Farrakhan's racism, you're wasting your time

Because he's a racist, and you can't defend that.

[noiretextatique]

40. farrakhan is a racist...how does he affect YOU?

has he burned a cross on your lawn? or barred you from attending school? or lynched your brother? or charged you a higher interest rate on a mortgage or a car loan? um...no. yeah...his racism has zero affect on YOU.
let's ask the people of new orleans about racism...i doubt farrakhan's name will be on their list.

[Neil Lisst]

46. Congrats. That's the weakest argument ever made here.

He's a racist, and you're his defender, which makes you a racist, too.

A racist impacts the body politic. He doesn't have to come to my home and slap my face. That has to be the weakest argument I've ever read anyone make at DU.

[noiretextatique]

50. he has ZERO affect on you

menawhile, the federal government allowed poor black people to die, with the consent of a portion of the white population of america, and continues its murderous and racist actions in iraq, again with the consent of a good portion of the white folks of america.
and yes...farrakhan is a racist.

[Neil Lisst]

54. If you can't understand the impact he has on all of us ...

Then there's no point in my talking to you, because your mindset is, frankly, terribly unsound.

As for the rest of that post, it is irrelevant to this discussion, and I don't disagree with those comments, anyway.

[ultraist]

57. What impact does he have on all of us?

Please explain. When I go to the bank, as a white borrower, I don't see any Farrakhan influence going on. When I send my kids to school, I don't see any Farrakhan influence going on. There are no "blue eyed devil" memes influencing our systems, legislation, and majority attitudes.

What I DO see however, is a white supremacist attitude permeating throughout all of our systems, laws and institutions.

Please explain where you have seen his influence. Can you cite any specific pieces of legislation, institutionalized racism against whites, etc?

[noiretextatique]

58. i want to understand it...so explain it, if you can

i am waiting to be enlightened.

[mondo joe]

64. Racism only matters if it directly effects you?

And here I was thinking racism is a bad thing on principle alone.

[noiretextatique]

71. yes...i would argue precisely that

because it's REALITY. an individual's racist beliefs have zero affect on me unless they put those beliefs into action.

anyone can say "racism is bad," and still act in ways that promote racist actions, like voting for bush, inc.

what i don't understand is how agreeing with a speech by farrakhan (about bush, inc's mishandling of the new orleans disaster) is being equated, by some, to accepting and defending his racist views.

[mondo joe]

77. It's hard to see why most people should care about racism at all, in that

case, since the majority are not directly effected by it.

[noiretextatique]

78. they don't care about it for precisely that reason

or haven't you noticed that? it was wasn't "morality" that forced america to change some of its racist traditions...

[mondo joe]

83. I have noticed that some not effected by it don't care, and some care

very much.

What I find interesting is that your arguments support the former and not the latter: if it doesn't effect you, you shouldn't care about it.

I rather thought the traditional dem view was that it does matter, even if it doesn't effect you personally.

[HamdenRice]

86. You are distorting her point ...

It is not that we should only care about racism that affects us personally. It is that we should care about racism that affects someone in some way.

She and other have asked whether the bigotry in NOI has affected anyone whatsoever. If not than it is of less concern than bigotry that affects any people.

[mondo joe]

88. To the contrary - I asked if it should only matter if it directly effects

you and the answer was YES.

There is a great deal of racism in the world that he no effect on me, and certainly not a direct effect on me.

Should I care?

[HamdenRice]

93. You are trying hard not to understand the rhetorical "you"

Why not try to deal with the substance of her point.

[mondo joe]

95. That, as best I can tell, IS the substance of her point.

And please refrain from your mind-reading efforts, as you are not very good at it.

I can only respond to the words posted and that is what I have done.

If I am not directly impacted by racism, should I care? So far I've been told no, I should not care.

[HamdenRice]

103. Replace "I" with "someone" and you'll understand her point

If "someone" is not directly impacted by racism, than frankly, no we don't care. It's a thought crime, not operationalized racism.

[mondo joe]

118. Why would I change the language used by another poster?

I leave it to each person to make their own statement and respect that they have said what they mean.

And if it's not "operationalized racism" I shouldn't care?

If someone teaches, preaches or espouses racism how am I to know if it will be "operationalized" or not in the lives of those who are taught it?

[noiretextatique]

120. the NOI has been around for a long time now

and to date, it's views have yet to be operationalized because of course, there is no power structure to operationalize those views.
i wrote precisely what i meant: farrakahn's racist views have no more effect on me than do tom metzger's. i asked another poster how farrakhan's racist views affected him, and he couldn't answer. if you care to answer that question, feel free to do so.

[noiretextatique]

106. like the other poster

he can't answer my question because: white people do not experience institutional racism. white people do experience institutional classism, and individual racism...however: there is no black power structure seeped in centuries of black supremacist thought in america that is capable of disenfranchising white people, for example. or asian, or indian or latino. the NOI is not the equivalent of the KKK, and farrakhan is largely irrelevant, in the overall scheme of things. the insistence on condemning him is curious, considering the nont-so-secret ties groups like the KKK and CCC still have to the republican party.

[Karenina]

112. It's the inability to discern

the difference between "affect" and "effect." A language/conceptual mix-up.

[noiretextatique]

96. what's more important?

farrakhan's racist beliefs, or tom metzger's?
or bush, inc's racist actions?
which type of racism affects you and me the most?
here's what i think:
i think farrakhan and metzger need to do their own work to eradicate their racist views, and that i can do little to "help" them.

on the other hand, i think what kathrine harris and jeb bush did in florida is criminal, and in a sane country, would have resulted in their arrest and jailing, since the kind of race-based discrimination they praticed to help georgie "win" florida is supposedly illegal.

i don't have to tell you what their actions led to...nor do i have to tell you about the official democratic response to those actions. a poster on another board recounted his story of going to vote in a primary, only to find his name wasn't on the voter rolls. practice makes perfect...practice makes one confident and bolder and gives one the impression that they can expand their practices, as we saw in the 2004 (s)election.

a homeless guy called me a nigger the other day because i wouldn't give him any money...i found that pretty funny, and in the scheme of things, not something i lost any sleep over. on the other hand, i can't tell how many times i've shown up at a company to do senior accounting work, which is what i do...and have to deal with someone's beliefs about my capacity to do that work because of what i look like. that's the kind of shit that is far more troublesome for me...especially since folks tend to be real vested in denial about it. so it's difficult to confront it without paying a high price for doing so.

my solution has been to raise my rates...it works pretty well, most of the time :7

[mondo joe]

98. I'm perfectly able to condemn all racism, from that which effects me most

to that which effects me least.

And condemning it all doesn't take away from condemning any particular example or instance of it.

It's not like the flood in NO in which there are major and minor leaks and one must tend to the major leaks at the expense of the minor. Condemning all racism doesn't allow any instance to flourish.

To the contrary, anyone who teaches, preaches or otherwise promotes any racism feeds into the whole of it, and there is IMO no reason to excuse the least of it just because it's not the worst of it.

[noiretextatique]

100. so...does that mean you can't listen to a farrakahn speech?

and does that mean that everyone who attended his march supports his racist beliefs? and does that mean i shouldn't listen to robert byrd's speeches either, a former KKK member? or if i do, must i "condemn" him?
as some others have mentioned, farrakhan seems to be distancing himself from his past, as byrd and others have done.

[mondo joe]

114. I don't know why you'd ask me as if I ever suggested those things.

But one thing you might consider is that Byrd made a definite break with his past and repudiated it.

When Farrakahn does the same, and acts in ways that reflect it, I'll grant him the same.

[noiretextatique]

116. as much as i admire byrd for some of his stances

he still doesn't get a pass from me, and not because of his racist past, but because of some of his recent votes. if farrakahn ever holds public office, i'd hold him to that same standard. some others in this thread dismiss anything farrakhan says because of his past remarks, which he has been distancing himself from of late. i doubt his will ever do enough condemning, distancing, and repudiating to satisfy some.

[Karenina]

108. If it stopped "effecting" you

and began to "affect" you, perhaps you would find yourself standing on a DIFFERENT corner observing the train wreck.

[HamdenRice]

72. The Racism Effect-U-Meter

Racism that puts me in concentration camp, kills me -- Rating +++++BAD

Racism that enslave me, murders millions, makes me pick cotton, sells off the kids -- Rating +++++BAD

Racism that kills me because I am Armenian, not Turk -- Rating ++++Bad

Racism that makes me dig gold, live in filthy hostel, wife and kids back in Bantustaan -- Rating +++Bad

Racism that lynches me if I look askance at Mississippi white women -- Rating +++Bad

Racism that segregates me into northern ghetto -- Rating ++Bad

Racism that makes me pay higher interest on car loan because of skin color -- Rating +Bad

Racism that causes congregation members of small religion to believe in evil big headed scientist, but otherwise has no effect on me -- Rating 1/2+bad


In other words, all prejudice and bigotry is not of equal moral evil, of equal pollution of the public discourse or of equal material consequence.

[mondo joe]

80. I would suggest all these examples feed into one another, and

I would further suggest that racism in prionciple is bad even when it doesn't effect you at all.

[HamdenRice]

81. I think a Jew in Auschwitz or a slave in Alabama would disagree ,,,

that they are equivalent.

<edited>

[mondo joe]

85. Why do you think I posted that they "are equivalent"?

What leads you to respond to a point I never made?

[Karenina]

117. If it doesn't affect you

it would behoove you to leave the definition of "What It IS" to those whom it does directly AFFECT. You might learn something new. That's ALWAYS fun!

[Karenina]

121. I would also suggest

that you have no ficken clue about what IT really is or any of IT's subtler manifestions unless you are directly AFFECTED by it.

It's clear that the EFFECT of rascism has not AFFECTED you in such a way that you can assume to define it. Sometimes it can be enlightening to listen to those who describe how the EFFECTS of racism have AFFECTED their lives...

[noiretextatique]

123. i asked a specific question

hoping to get an honest answer, as yet, no one has answered my question. manning marable, along with many in this thread, wrote a piece about understanding farrakahn in the context of the tradition of black radicalism in america. i posted it here a while ago...maybe i will dig it up again.

[Inland]

87. No. But it's still bad, and NOT same as merely silly or fallacious myths.

Bad is still bad. Therefore your OP, which argued that the myths of Farrakhan were no more silly and crazy than other religious beliefs, is irrelevant.

The real issue is whether the beliefs lead to racism, or some other abhorrent belief system, not whether they are silly as factual descriptions.

The silly, crazy beliefs that aren't bad don't hurt you at all, and indeed, some stimulate people to more ethical actions and are therefore a positive good. The silly, crazy beliefs of Farrakhan (re the scientists making white people) are pernicious.

That's really all one has to say about it.

[HamdenRice]

90. So tell us exactly how the NOI 's belief system

has affected someone. You wrote: "The real issue is whether the beliefs lead to racism". I can only assume you mean racist behavior, because the belief is already there.

Now, tell us exactly what racist behavior NOI members have committed.

When you have completed this, then please compare you results to, say, the level of behavior inspired by the Old Testament narrative of the Abrahamic religions -- from slavery, to the holocaust, to apartheid, to the treatment of Palestinians, to 9/11, to the war in Iraq.

Then please show how the bigotry in NOI dogma is the moral equivalent to the dogma in the Abrahamic tradition.

[Inland]

94. Why do I have to show that it's morally equivalent to say it's wrong?

Answer me that. This is America. We think racism is wrong, even if it's just housing or job discrimination. We don't need a holocaust, apartheid or whatever.

Now I'm really getting worried about you. First, it seemed that you were wiling to give Farakhan a pass on a racist creation myth. Now it seems you are willing to give him a pass on being actually racist, as long as there isn't slavery or a holocaust involved.

Apparently the standard is, as long as I can't find it equivalent to one of the great evils of humankind, Farrakhan's racism is A-OK.

Just what IS your position on racism? Okay, not okay, okay under some circumstances? Or are you only interesetd in teh holocaust/not holocaust distinction?

[HamdenRice]

102. My position on racism is the realistic position as a Black man in America

My position on racism is the realistic position as a Black man in America, which also happens to be the Constitutional position, and the position of the progressive tradition, which is rooted in realism and to a certain extent materialism.

That is, I know for a fact the majority of white people in the US are bigoted. When you say "we think racism is wrong" you are speaking for a minority. This has been demonstrated, for example, in studies of the housing market.

What matters is whether racism or prejudice is operationalized. This is how most black people, who are very realistic about racism, tend to think and seems to be what divides posters in this thread.

Do I really care if some hillbilly in a remote, all white county in West Virginia, hates black people? It is lamentable, but frankly I don't care.

Do I care more if the local policeman is harrasing our kids? Yes I care more.

"Just housing or job discrimination"??? That is worse than the most virulent abstract thought racism.

The Constition and the Civil Rights laws regulate behavior, not thought. White people in American will continue to have racist thoughts, consciously or unconsciously for many decades if not centuries.

If the NOI has evil bigoted thoughts, that is lamentable, and all of us have agreed on that. But what many white people seem unable to grasp is that operationalized racism is worse than those inevitable thoughts of our countrymen. Because you have never experienced operationalized racism, it's all the same to you -- slavery, or some NOI member not liking you because you are white -- an utterly abstract bad.

The point of bringing up slavery, the holocaust, etc., -- if you read the Meter -- is that these evils are on a gradient. Yes, slavery was worse than apartheid, which was worse than getting a bad deal on a car loan. Only if you have experienced none of them could you think otherwise.

Some of us have asked again and again, with no answer -- just how has the NOI operationalized its admittedly bigoted dogma?

And if you cannot demonstrate they have operationalized racism, then all you can accuse them of his having bigoted religious dogma -- how novel! And how could you prevent this pure thought, mythic bigotry without burdening freedom of thought and religion? How can you prioritize criticizing the religious dogma of NOI, when every religion condones genocidal racism? And how damaging is the ludicrous creation myth of NOI compared to the "thought" racism of the 90% or so of white American homebuyers for whom the absence of people of color in the area is the single most important criteria the purchasing a home?

We can regulate racist behavior, but not thought. So I think it is supremely silly to worry about the dogma of this small religious sect.

[ultraist]

115. Wow!

:applause:

[noiretextatique]

125. and there it is...straight, no chaser

this is one of the most honest, accurate, and direct posts i've ever seen on this subject here. it would make a great opening post for another thread. and yes...it is extremely silly to worry about a tiny sect and its racist dogma, especially considering what we all just witnessed in NOLA.

[Inland]

127. My position is based on your position as a Black man in america.

I don't understand your unwillingness to condemn racism as a belief system. Instead, you talk about "every religion condoning genocidal racism", which is certainly not true, or ask how it "compares" to where people purchase homes.

True, a person who is racist only in thought, and not in action, may not have hurt me. We could argue about it. But so what?

Your problem is, if racism is not morally reprehensible in thought, why would it be wrong in practice? If it is not morally reprehensible to believe that white people aren't related as humans, then who could possibly criticize Farrakhan treating whites as subhumans?

If your point is that a black man's racism is not to be noticed because he is a powerless black man unable to act upon the same, I have two comments:

1) Morally, the lack of the opportunity to act on one's bad impulses doesn't make them any less bad.

2)Rationally, then whites should make sure blacks don't get any power, economically, politically, or otherwise, because that's the only thing preventing whites from being victims of racism. Your definition of racism means that the only way to prevent black racism is white racism keeping blacks unable to act on their beliefs. Ironic, huh?

Is this splinter group important? Well, no, it isn't, and yet here you are unable to make a clear, simple statement that racism is wrong.

And of course, that's exactly we are: trying to justify racism on some ground. My guess is that I, as a white man and safely part of that majority, is going to personally do better than you, as a black man, in any society that accepts racism, whether as mere thought, or as long as one can't prove it is reaching holocaust or slavery type levels, or whatever.

That's why the title of my thread is based on your position as someone who really needs to take a moral imperative against racism instead of trying to excuse it or ignore it. Believe me, a comment from a black "leader" that even seems racist gets enormous play with whites for exactly the reason I say it does...it approves of racism as an order of thought. Once racism is approved as an order of thought, the only difference is which side you take, in their opinion, and gives whites an clear reason to keep blacks out of power.

It may be silly to "worry" about the dogma of a small religious sect, but in reality, I'm worried a lot more about the unwillingness to call it wrong.

Do really want to qualify and hedge a moral, social and political imperative against racism in order to save some minor figure from a small but legitimate criticism?

[noiretextatique]

131. what's up the need for him to "condemn" farrakhan ?

in order to prove to white people that their fears of retribution are baseless, since by and large, whites still hold the reigns of power in this country? and since blacks, in particular, are a relatively small percentage of the population.
as hamden mentioned in his post, there is no collective, american moral, social, or political imperative against racism, only the illusion of it. i do believe there is and has been a movement of comprised of people of all races who believe in that imperative, but there is and has been another movement that has been fighting that imperative tooth and nail...and that movement is the one in power now.
racism is wrong...there is a clear statement. please make a clear statement to me about what specific impact farrakhan has on you or any other white person, except as a reflection of your own fears?
and please tell me how saying "racism is wrong," changes any of the facts that hamden mentioned in his post about the continued existence of racist attitudes among white americans. or the fact that most black americans do not share farrakhan's racist views.

[Solly Mack]

132. Beautifully said!!!!!!

and it cuts to the heart of the matter - White people's fear of retribution

[noiretextatique]

133. that's what this is all about, isn't it? eom

[Solly Mack]

134. at it's heart, yes

but the *sock on the floor defense mechanism ("crazy talk" being the sock) allows for an handy excuse to vent the fear and outrage they feel without ever addressing the underlying issue directly

*the sock in the floor is what couples argue over when their needs aren't being met...the "sock" becomes the focus because it's easier than admitting their fears to one another (so they fight over who leaves their socks on the floor)

[noiretextatique]

135. that sock...i call it the fly on the pink elephant's ass

:hi: comes in handy for "discussions" about nader, among other things.
two americas...that thought has been in my head all day.

[Solly Mack]

136. it's amazing that people can tell you what maslow's hierarchy is

without ever applying it to their own actions, needs and wants...to their own personhood.

almost as if the human condition doesn't apply to them...just to others.

How can you delve into another person when you can't even look at yourself?

[noiretextatique]

137. denial is the superglue that hold is all together

that's how it's done...i see it action everyday at work, which is where i think it still plays out the most, on an individual and collective level. and the fact the i see it is not about a need to feel victimized...it's simple intelligence, i.e., recognizing a familiar pattern...and survival.
people are so conditioned to turn a blind eye or to deny, and in doing so, it perpetuates the thing itself. in that regard, i do reject farrakhan and his views, but i feel no need to "condemn" him to make white people feel comfortable.

[Solly Mack]

140. I call Farrakhan a "scratcher"

He scratches people (with his words) - like scratching a surface to get to what's underneath...Farrakhan ain't no fool.

layer by layer is exposed...and that can be a very uncomfortable feeling....the question isn't "why did he say that?", the question is, "why do I feel uncomfortable?"

I almost don't want to express my feelings about Farrakhan simply because people do need me to say "I don't like him", just to be comfortable with this discussion...and it is very telling in that a simple statement of "all creation myths are bizarre" took this particular turn.. almost as if people are really saying "just say you don't like him so I can feel good about what you actually said"

But why should I?

The point wasn't how I feel about Farrakhan or his views. And such has no bearing on the OP' assertion.

As I stated in another post from a day or two ago..I'm amused by the reactions to Farrakhan...because the reactions tell me more about the person than they realize.

[Inland]

141. If by "condemn" you mean validly criticize him, your post answers itself

Refusing to acknowledge the racist nature of the myth weakens the entire notion that racism IS wrong, just as defining racism as something that affects me weakens the entire notion that racism IS wrong.

And even more troubling is your statement that because blacks are a small percentage of the population, there is no collective, american moral, social or political imperative against racism. This seems to simply repeat the trick of defintion...that black people aren't racist because they lack power or that practical effect was important.

And saying racism is wrong certainly did, in fact, change racist attitudes among white americans. Do they continue to exist? Sure. But there was a big campaign, and to the extent it was successful, it was because it was cast in term of right and wrong. Without going again into the reasons why the gymnastics to excuse or ignore the racism of Farrakhan's myth, anything that qualifies the condemnation of racism to some sort of situational ethic, or based on who the purported racist is, detracts from that.

Because...and this is my final point...Farrakhan may not have the power to hurt me, but I always believed racism did, not in the sense that I expect to be the victim of racism from Farrakhan or anyone else in "retribution", but because it made for a worse world. What, therefore, has the power to hurt me, and my country, is someone trying to justify racism, in order to institutionalize it. Sure, racism exists, and will always exist, just as evil exists, but that's sure as hell different than somebody justifying it openly from the pulpit, and then it being justified again by those who want to write it off as just another kooky religious belief, and then written off as not worth one's worry.

So I suggest you simply stop asking people if racism has hurt them personally, and suggesting that they don't have a complaint if it hasn't. If Farrakhan's racism hasn't directly hurt me, the racism of whites sure as hell hasn't, and your implication that such is the test for being contrary to racism isn't helpful.

[noiretextatique]

144. no one is trying to justify racism in this thread

and your repeated accusation to the contrary doesn't change that fact. that black people don't feel the need to condemn farrakhan to suit your needs is evidence of nothing...except that your needs are not as important to me and others are they are to you. i have repeatedly stated that i believe farrakahn is a racist, and yet no one is able to answer my simple query about how his racism affects them personally...because it doesn't, expect in some abstract sense. that you are affected by the institutionalized racism that has been a tradition and practice in this country since its inception doesn't change that fact. and yes...no other group has the power to impact you the way white people have affected you and me because they have been the perpetrators and beneficiaries of the racism that affects most people...that is just the plain and simple truth of the matter, regardless of how much you clearly wish it wasn't.
yeah racism is wrong...tell that to the people who continue to perpetuate and benefit from it. to the extent that farrakahn does that, please continue to condemn him. but as the specter of NOLA continues to cast a severe doubt on this supposed american imperative of racism being so wrong, in principle and practice, i still insist that farrakhan is in fact the fly on the ass of the pink elephant in the living room.

[Karenina]

138. Your post displays

a very poor grasp of the dynamics of racism. Think NOLA.

What's Lou got to do, got to do with it
What's Lou but a guy who can construct a sentence
What's Lou got to do, got to do with it
Why shoot the messenger H-E-A-R the MESSAGE...

[Tomee450]

139. Great post but

some people still won't get it.

[malaise]

153. Well said

Still I maintain that racism is fundamentally different from prejudice.

[Tim4319]

107. Not to mention, noiretblu,

Has Farrakhan cut funding for school? Is he allowing corporations to rack in billions while soldiers die in Iraq? Does he have the power to no bid contract companies in Alaska to provide trailers to the people in NO when there are locally own companies in Louisiana could have done the job for half the cost?

If Farrakhan is a racist, what does that make Bill Bennett?

[noiretextatique]

111. and bush and the republican's party's agenda

to treat all americans the way some americans have been treated for centuries. farrakhan isn't in the position to do any of that.

[HamdenRice]

55. How is that a weak argument?

As one of the Farrakan critics put it in an earlier post, NOI dogma about race creation is bad because it leads to racist behavior.

But the NOI membership is notably law abiding and non-violent. They have probably engaged in less overt anti-social behavior than any other religous group.

On the contrary, you seem to be saying that action oriented racism (that leads to war, lynching or ethnic cleansing) is the exact moral equivalent of purely mythical racist thinking, such as practiced by the NOI.

I think they are of completely different levels of moral culpability.

[Neil Lisst]

59. Why don't we continue this when you guys grow up?

I've got to get back to talking to rational adults here.

You guys belong to a variety on message boards that I find unfortunate. Every conversation has to be you holding a banner high against some real or imagined foe. I'm not playing any more with either of you. Read my comic if you want to know what I think about New Orleans. As for Farrakhan, I've stated my beliefs. If you don't like it, then don't like it.

[ultraist]

61. LMAO!

So, you are incapable of expounding on your claim by citing any facts so you resort to an ad hominem attack, childish sandbox tactics?

Amusing.
:rofl:

[Karenina]

122. Please, do take your ball

and GO HOME!

[cantstandbush]

67. Just had to recommend this. What an open, thoughful mind.

More people should have the benefit of your thinking.

[H2O Man]

73. The movie Malcolm X,

like the autobiography, indicate that Malcolm knew only what Elijah told him about the genesis of the NOI. And the story Elijah told was very far from accurate.

[dretceterini]

84. As far as I'm concerned

and no matter that some of his "religious" ideas are no crazier than ideas spouted by many other religions, I believe the man is still a bigot

[wildeyed]

104. Good point, Hamden.

The other thing that seems to bother people is that Farrakhan claimed to have talked to god. But mainstream politicians claim to have "talked to god" all the time in my part of the world. Usually god tells them to do exactly what they wanted to do anyway, how convenient. But I guess that is fodder for another thread on another day.......

[HamdenRice]

105. LOL! At least God didn't tell him to invade Iraq! nt

[killbotfactory]

109. Didn't the NOI kill Malcom X?

Why do the have any respectability at all?

[QC]

124. Shhhhhhhhhh! n/t

[noiretextatique]

126. the same can be said of the republican party

and bush the senior's connection to JFK's murder. he was elected president after that, a feat farrakhan has yet to match.

[Solly Mack]

129. White people killed JFK - white people don't have any respectability

I'm just saying....

[H2O Man]

142. Not at all.

There is no evidence that George Bush called for or played any role in setting up JFK's death. More, they were not close associates at any time. Malcolm was Louis's mentor. Louis openly called for Malcolm's death. There is no doubt that a group of NOI thugs murdered Malcolm. The murder of Malcolm was obviously set up by forces that were external to the NOI, specifically by FBI agent John Ali. However, to argue that the NOI didn't kill Malcolm is foolish.

Louis may very well have changed in the 40 years since then. A number of the things he has said are controversial, but the same could be said of Malcolm.

Also, people do not have to like Louis. But the man has many, many followers and associates who are a important part of the progressive movement in the Unites States. We need to put our differences behind us, even as we hold tightly to our own values, and work together.

[noiretextatique]

147. no evidence at all...right

but, the fbi was involved in malcolm x's death, even though the NOI actually killed him, according to you :eyes: i did not argue that the NOI wasn't involved in malcolm's death. i responded to the poster who claimed that farrakhan should have no credibility because of his alleged involvement in malcolm's death by pointing out that the bush family may have been involved in JFK's death. according to some evidence, speculation, conspriracy theory, etc. i don't see much difference in what you posted vs. what i did.

[H2O Man]

150. I have no problem

believing that you can't see the difference. However, if you don't know, for example, that John Ali was an FBI agent, then it is simply because you don't know enough about the NOI's well-documented history. And that lack of knowledge renders you incapable of understanding what role the FBI, through John Ali, played. You could read more, if you are interested in learning more. Or you can make silly, eye-rolling faces, in an attempt to hide your ignorance.

An advantage I have in this discussion that you can't make up for by reading is a familiarity with some of the people involved in those strange days. That includes from Malcolm's associates, and with the gunman caught at the scene. Many years later, after taking an Alternatives To Violence course in prison, he changed his ways, as human beings are capable of doing.And he talked openly about the plot to kill Malcolm. There are records available through the Freedom of Information Act that show, without question, who he met with in the days and hours before the murder. I am confident that you have not read them. That is yet another difference in our ability to discuss this topic.

Perhaps -- if you are interested in being able to carry on an intelligent discussion -- you could start by reading "Make It Plain." You might find some of the things Imam Wallace D. Muhammad says interesting. Or you might prefer to not know.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

162. Ha-ha-ha!

Thanks. You are really funny. If you ever want to learn about Malcolm, let me know, and I'll recommend a few books you might benefit from reading. Same with JFK.

You know, people can't leave this earth alive. They have no control over that. But they don't have to die ignorant. Learning is a good thing.

[noiretextatique]

163. thanks for the offer

but given your reading comprehension problem, i suggest you heed you own advice. fuck off means just that.

[H2O Man]

164. Oh, I do.

I've read the books I would suggest. Perhaps you could recommend some that document your claims about Bush being involved in JFK's death? Even if you could list a half-dozen, I'd appreciate that.

[noiretextatique]

166. google is one of many internet search engines

if you type in the relevant keywords, it will provide some links for you. for such a self-proclaimed know-it-all, i ASSumed you'd be able to figure that out for yourself. it works for the keywords "farrakhan and malcolmx" too.

[H2O Man]

169. Now don't get huffy!

Relax and be friendly. You noted that Bush was tied to JFK's death in much the manner as Louis is Malcolm's. You made an error. There is no evidence that supports this -- none! No articles authored by George, calling for JFK's death. No friend like Imam Wallace, son of Elijah, saying Louis was calling for Malcolm's death. Almost every good book on Malcolm notes the ugly situation involving Louis' articles, and the NOI involvement in his death. You can't name a single one that supports your silly claim about Bush, not a single serious book. And your second error was making the cute "rolling eyes" regarding my statement on the FBI. People make mistakes. I showed you yours. No biggie. I am wrong sometimes, too. But not on this topic.

[noiretextatique]

171. look...the post i responded to mentioned "involvement"

that can mean a lot more than your narrow definition, and as i've told you several times now: i do not now, nor have i ever disputed the facts of farrakhan's involvement in malcolm x's death. you still seem to have trouble understanding that. i did not then, and i do not now equate farrakhan's involvement with bush's involvement...something else you fail to grasp as noted by your continuation of that annoying, arrogannt preachy style of communicating you seem so fond of. you found some links, and if they don't satisfy your definition of involvement...oh well.
i never ASKED you for any information, since i NEVER disputed farrakhan
s involvement...you offered because you made some assumptions which were WRONG. so, yes you are WRONG on this topic.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[H2O Man]

177. Actually, you are not

being honest. You did not say "involvement." Anyone can simply go back and see that this is not accurate. Perhaps you make an honest error, perhaps not.

Another error you continue to make is saying what I assumed. Like your falsehood about "involvement," it simply does not hold up to an examination. You said Bush was connected to JFK's death in the same manner Louis was Malcolm's. Not true. Not even close. And you did the cute thing with the "rolling eyes" in response to my comment on the FBI. You may find it an "annoying, arrogant preachy style of communication" when I correct your error. That is likely as closely associated with being shown to be wrong, as your cursing and insults are with a lack of verbal skills. I suppose we both communicate in a manner that reflects who we are.

Farrakhan himself might be accused of being annoying, arrogant, and even preachy. I would think that those who he so accurately focused his attention on and identified as creating serious problems for large segments of our population would find him particularly insulting. Some might even get stuck on their thought that he should not communicate with them, because they did not ask him any questions. However, in the theater of public debate, people are allowed to speak, even if that upsets the inarticulate. It's too bad they react by cursing him and rolling their eyes.

[noiretextatique]

187. didn't the NOI kill malcom X...why do they have any respectability at all

that's what i respnded to with:
the same can be said of the republican party

"the same can be said of the republican party...
and bush the senior's connection to JFK's murder. he was elected president after that, a feat farrakhan has yet to match."

ok...conection is the word i used, but he POINT was about respectability.
now some facts:
malcom x wasn't president, nor was he particularly well-loved or respected my most of his white american contemporaries.
farrakhan held no position of political significance either.
and finally, and most important, the NOI never had any credibility among most white americans to begin with, and actually very little among black americans.
i found it ironic, to say the least, that the word "respectability" was used, considering those facts.

[radwriter0555]

146. Yes, farrakhan is implicated in the murder of Malcolm X.

But apparently that doesn't bother people.

He gave a good speech, right?

[noiretextatique]

148. malcolm's life was a testatment to the power of redemption

and though i don't have much use for farrakhan personally, i think there are a lot of folks alive today who were involved in the murders of jfk, rfk, mlk, and malcolm x...among others. as long as farrakhan is making sense, i will give him the benefit of the doubt, the way some do with byrd and others with qquestionable pasts (and presents).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

157. Why isn't he in jail then? (nt)

[entanglement]

113. Thank you for your excellent post

:toast:

[StellaBlue]

130. AMEN TO ALL OF THAT

I was thinking the same thing myself.

IMO, they are ALL "batshit crazy".

[Ksec]

143. I agree. Farrakan is a fkin whack job.

I cant take someone with so much baggage and a whack religion seriously. Hes one step away from the Taliban.

[donheld]

149. This should be read by people on both sides of this debate.

Farrakhan is a human. He has plenty of funny ideas sometimes, but don't we all at times? His intentions are good I'm positive of that.

[Karenina]

154. And how 'bout the Mormons?

According to them, Cain got turned black as punishment and off we go!!!! :popcorn:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

158. See post #156 (nt)

[Inland]

170. Beat you to it, see my post number 47

After all, it's the analogy to what Farrakhan preached.

But I bet you a dollar you wouldn't call the mark of sin thing to be a religious myth no different from any other religious myth, in that it's false. You shouldn't.

In fact, the relegation of blacks as a different category isn't just a silly religious story, like Joseph Smith's magic glasses. It is different. It's racist.

And that fact doesn't change by noting that the vast majority of mormons are law abiding, non-violent, eminently happy and clean living people.

And doesn't change by nothing that I can't find any particular harm resulting from the religious tale to blacks, except being denied full Mormon membership, which..well, I suppose it bothers some blacks who wnat to be full members. I'm sure there are some.

And it doesn't change by noting that Mormons were basically run out of New York, and Illinois, and forced to live in Utah because no towns could accept them.

It's still a racist myth. WHICH they may or may not have dropped officially and many splinter groups reject, to be fair.

[rniel]

167. The flying spaghetti monster agrees

With all the posts here and we are touched by his noodly appendage.

[HamdenRice]

183. Pastafarianism is excepted because ...

it's actually the only true religion!

[Lilith Velkor]

172. Maybe mad scientists *did* create white people

I'm starting to think that makes sense, and I'm white. :tinfoilhat:

Then again, maybe it's just more comforting to think we're all preprogrammed by aliens with this genetic planetkill switch than it is to think we're all just plain fucking stupid. I dunno.

[HamdenRice]

182. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong! LOL

because you made me laugh out loud and embarrass myself at work!

[Fescue4u]

173. "ritual act of cannablism,"

yea, no bias here

/sarcasm off

The religion of atheism is no different in principle than any other religion.

[AccessGranted]

175. What do you really know about NOI or Minister Louis Farrakhan?

Read, research, learn, listen to a few speeches and then make your judgements. As the original poster said, Minister Farrakhan's myths and beliefs are strange, yes, but no more stange than that of any other religion. Also, I will never forget the impact NOI had in Harlem especially. You would have to have witnessed this transition and it's impact to understand how important NOI was especially during the sixties.

I read a lot on any topic on which I am not very familiar and form my own judgements by weeding out myth and fantasy as best I can. It's so easy to hate or disagree with something you don't fully understand or just pluck out the ugliness in it. Read up on NOI and its history. If nothing else it's quite interesting.

Here is a link to the official website.

http://www.noi.org/

[ComerPerro]

180. This theory damn well better be taught in schools alongside ID

If we want to hear all views...