I'd like to know you better. Lets do lunch.
~Rico
Hitler was a socialist, the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the Nazis. Since socialism is way liberal on the political scale, I think you picked a bad example, especially since Hitler hated communism with a passion.
Actually, I did not. National socialism with the Nazis is extremely reactionary, using examples from the past to further it's progaganda (constructing the "Third Reich", meaning they were basing their empire on being the successor to past empires, namely the Holy Roman Empire and the Kaiser/Bismarck-era German nation, which were NOT leftist governments) and highly conservative racial politics (Hitler and the Nazis kept harping on Marx the "Jew" and tests for "racial purity" up to 1740 - does that sound at all socialist?) to further its agenda.
The "socialism" in National Socialism is an oxymoron. They are not real socialists - just hyper reactionary fascists disguised as socialists in name only. If they were real socialists they would not have as much of a problem with communism as communism is an extreme form of socialism - a concept which National Socialism is very much not.
But what exactly does conservatism have to do with autism?
I figure a hard-right government would prefer to simply gas its political opponents than try to institutionalize them. It's more fiscally responsible.
Hitler was a socialist, the National Socialist German Workers Party, aka the Nazis. Since socialism is way liberal on the political scale, I think you picked a bad example, especially since Hitler hated communism with a passion.
My grandfather used to say, whether you're going left or right, if you go far enough, you'll always meet round the back. Next thing we know you'll be calling China a liberal welfare state.
Quote:
My grandfather used to say, whether you're going left or right, if you go far enough, you'll always meet round the back.
So by that logic, three lefts would make a right in political terms? Or would you prefer three rights make a left?
But in all seriousness, there's a difference between conservatism and extreme right (aka, the Ku Klux Klan). Same applies to the left as well (with an example of extreme left being Michael Moore).
On a side note, whenever I say Ku Klux Klan, I immediately think of chickens. Not the cowardly kind, but the poultry. Probably because of the 'Klux' in the middle.
But what exactly does conservatism have to do with autism?
Unfortunately, there are a few extremely conservative people I have met who believe that autism is a punishment of God for allowing gays to live. Or Muslims to thrive. Or legalizing abortion.
It depends on who I talk to sometimes.
Cooki,
While Hitler was first and foremost a fascist, but the policies of the Third Reich were also socialist.
Here is an english translation of the Nazi parties 25 points.
1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
I'm sorry if that's a lot of reading, but there is no way that we can call the Third Reich conservative with all the nationalization of industry, confiscation of firearms, centralization of government and power. It would be an interesting comparison between the Nazi party and the British National Party. One was national socialist, the other national conservative... But that is another thread.
Jimro
Eh, too much stuff to read and I already did one long post so I'm just picking something easy:
Quote:
thats the one I have the most sympathy with, seriously guys, HOW can you stand THAT MANY Ad breaks, I mean you even have ad breaks after before the credits at the end of the programme, have the intro seen of the enxt and just as things are ABOUT to start it's... oh, adverts...
I deal with it by getting snacks/drinks and also being able to see a couple different shows at once since broadcast & cable stations tend to air their breaks at different times (though I'll miss some of a show due to overlap). It IS annoying at times, but you get used to it when dealing with it for about 20 years. ;p
The relentless pushing of eradicating all religious signs from daily life in the name of 'separation of church and state' (which, FYI, isn't even in the United States Constitution) is only one example of 'judicial activism'.
Why, exactly, should your or anyone else's religion be a part of "daily life" in a multicultural society? And for f--k's sakes, provide an example.
But in all seriousness, there's a difference between conservatism and extreme right (aka, the Ku Klux Klan). Same applies to the left as well (with an example of extreme left being Michael Moore).
Hang on, I must have missed something -- when did Michael Moore start lynching people because he didn't like the colour of their skin? Last I checked, all he did was excercise his constitutional right to free speech by making a bunch of documentaries. He pretty much does the same thing as you.
(Although, now that I think about it, lynching black people, women and homosexuals isn't something I'd put past you.)
Quote:
Why, exactly, should your or anyone else's religion be a part of "daily life" in a multicultural society?
Why, exactly, SHOULD religious signs be excluded from daily life? Should a teacher be fired just because she happens to wear a necklace that has a Star of David? Should a town be sued because it has a cross on the monument that bears the town's name? Should it?
Heck, even John Adams had this to say.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Do you disagree?
Quote:
And for f--k's sakes, provide an example.
Ding. And you should follow your own advice.
Quote:
Hang on, I must have missed something -- when did Michael Moore start lynching people because he didn't like the colour of their skin?
?
Where did I ever bring up lynching? I'm talking about one's personal politics.
Quote:
(Although, now that I think about it, lynching black people, women and homosexuals isn't something I'd put past you.)
(laughs) I think it's quite telling that most of the personal insults in these political threads comes from you. I can't quite recall calling you a 'commie' or a Nazi.
Come to think of it, I think you called me a Nazi once. Oh well.
Just for the record, how does being against abortion equate to lynching a woman?
Its ok, he uses DD insults to hit people and you use AOE.
Bwahhaha, they have to decode gamer-speak to understand that one.
AOE = Everquest's Area of Effect? Is that the total area that a cast spell hits?
Hm. So he attacks with a single, high-power argument while I attack a wide-reaching, spread out argument. Is that what you're saying?
I must say, this is your most clever way of disagreeing with me as of yet. Kudos. 
Nope.
(shrugs) Oh well, I tried.
DD = Direct Damage = a direct attack on a person
AoE = Area of Effect = A blanket statement accomplishing the same goal and also insult other people outside the main attack.
FYI Ultra, Everquest isn't the only RPG. Much like Christianity isn't the only religion.
Why, exactly, SHOULD religious signs be excluded from daily life? Should a teacher be fired just because she happens to wear a necklace that has a Star of David?
Please provide an example of an "activist judge" firing a teacher for wearing a Star of David.
Should a town be sued because it has a cross on the monument that bears the town's name? Should it?
Hell yes. I mean, I dunno if you missed the second half of the 20th century, but we kind of came to a general consensus that Christianity isn't the center of the universe anymore and that we should at least try to make people of other religions and ethnicities feel welcome in our multicultural societies. The church is entitled to its position. However, the USA is not a theocracy.
Where did I ever bring up lynching? I'm talking about one's personal politics.
Michael Moore = left-wing political activist who is opposed to big business and Republicans, makes a lot of documentaries loaded with falsities and half-truths.
Klu Klux Klan = organization that advocates the genocide of homosexuals and people of colour, and the suppression of the rights of women.
Quote:
FYI Ultra, Everquest isn't the only RPG.
I know. AOE was listed as Area of Effect (Everquest) in Dictionary.com's acronym finder.
Quote:
Please provide an example of an "activist judge" firing a teacher for wearing a Star of David.
You asked if religious symbols belonged in the daily life of a multicultural society. I responded with an incident where people who even show any sign of religion in public are persecuted (mostly Christianity and Judaism).
Now if you want to talk about activist judges...
Judge gives child-rapist 60 day sentence
Judge: No jail time for 'gay' rapist teacher
Judge releases man charged with killing wife, son
Judge orders release of sexually violent predator
California Superior Court judge nailed for Kiddie Porn
U.S. Judge demands more for Ariz. students (Threatens to fine Legislature for 500,000 dollars a day if money isn't spent on students learning English; also rules that students learning English can obtain their diplomas without passing the graduation test)
Binge-drink women may lose right to claim rape (UK; Judge rules that drunken consent is still consent)
Federal Judge blasts mandatory minimum sentences
The Rule of Law vs. The Rule of Judges
Federal judge sides with atheist in dispute over Ten Commandments (Atheist claims monument in a city park violates separation of church and state. ???)
Basically, instead of administering and interpreting the law, there are a great many judges these days that make law. If they want to make law, they should move to the legislative branch of government. Otherwise, they should be doing their jobs.
Quote:
Hell yes. I mean, I dunno if you missed the second half of the 20th century, but we kind of came to a general consensus that Christianity isn't the center of the universe anymore and that we should at least try to make people of other religions and ethnicities feel welcome in our multicultural societies. The church is entitled to its position. However, the USA is not a theocracy.
The town I mentioned (it was on a History Channel documentary, I forget the name of the town, but it's in California) put the sign up after the town legislature had approved. It had stood for over 70 years without so much as a complaint. Suddenly, BOOM. Atheist claims it offends him and violates the separation of church and state, ACLU sues, and the presiding judge ordered the town to remove the cross. Last I heard, they tried to appeal, but they were denied.
The USA may not be a theocracy, but you'd have to be blind not to see the Judeo-Christian roots of this country and its laws.
Remember People v. Chen? A Chinese immigrant named Doug Lu Chen struck his wife Jian Wan Chen on the head with a hammer eight times after learning she was having an extramarital affair. His lawyer cited a cultural defense (saying he was allowed to kill his wife if she had an affair), and Justic Edward K. Pincus sentenced him to five years of probation.
Sorry? Five years of probation for MURDER? I don't care if you're from a different culture, you must respect the laws of the country you live in. As the quote goes, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Quote:
Michael Moore = left-wing political activist who is opposed to big business and Republicans, makes a lot of documentaries loaded with falsities and half-truths.
Klu Klux Klan = organization that advocates the genocide of homosexuals and people of colour, and the suppression of the rights of women.
And? Do you think I support the Klu Klux Klan's policies or ideals? Heck no. The KKK belongs in the trash bin of history.
You asked if religious symbols belonged in the daily life of a multicultural society. I responded with an incident where people who even show any sign of religion in public are persecuted (mostly Christianity and Judaism).
An incident which you most likely made up, since I've never heard of such a thing and even if it were true, the teacher could fight the ruling on the grounds of it being a violation of her right to freedom of religion, and would win. She wouldn't need a lawyer.
Judge gives child-rapist 60 day sentence
Judge: No jail time for 'gay' rapist teacher
Judge releases man charged with killing wife, son
Judge orders release of sexually violent predator
Binge-drink women may lose right to claim rape (UK; Judge rules that drunken consent is still consent)
How is this judicial activism? More like judicial stupidity. Courts hand soft sentences to dangerous criminals and make unfair rulings every single day -- this is why we have an appeals system. I think you're just reverting to the standard tack of claiming political motivation every time someone does something you disagree with
California Superior Court judge nailed for Kiddie Porn
What the hell? I thought we were talking about judicial activism.
Federal Judge blasts mandatory minimum sentences
A mentally-handicapped man working for a drug dealer sells some crack and is required by law to go to jail for the rest of his life. The judge reluctantly delivers the sentence, and later makes an angry statement about the unfairness of said law. What does this have to do with judicial activism, and how can you not agree with the judge?
Federal judge sides with atheist in dispute over Ten Commandments (Atheist claims monument in a city park violates separation of church and state. ???)
The town I mentioned (it was on a History Channel documentary, I forget the name of the town, but it's in California) put the sign up after the town legislature had approved. It had stood for over 70 years without so much as a complaint. Suddenly, BOOM. Atheist claims it offends him and violates the separation of church and state, ACLU sues, and the presiding judge ordered the town to remove the cross.
How is this judicial activism? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution expressly forbids actions that establish a state religion or prefer certain a religion. It is a violation of said clause to erect a religious monument on government property.
The USA may not be a theocracy, but you'd have to be blind not to see the Judeo-Christian roots of this country and its laws.
To hell with your Judeao-Christian roots. The fact that a lot of people who originally populated the country may have been Jews or Christians doesn't mean Judeaism and Christianity should be inflicted upon the tens of millions of citizens who are not Jews or Christians. We went through this in the gay marriage thread a while back. You're free to believe your beliefs and to practice your practices, in private or in public, as long as you are in compliance with the law. However, the government is not free to endorse them. For example, Falun Gong practicers have been camping out in Vancouver in front of the Chinese Consulate on Granville Street in a 24-hour-a-day continuous protest since June 2002, and every time the government or someone else tries to get rid of them or orders them to stop meditating in public, the courts refuse to authorize it because such a move would be unconstitutional.
And? Do you think I support the Klu Klux Klan's policies or ideals?
No, but I think it's totally unreasonable to think of Michael Moore as being anywhere near as bad as the Klan.
Cycle,
I hear what you are saying, but the issue is not that cut and dried on the so called "seperation of church and state"
On our money, "In God We Trust", it is in fact our National Motto.
"God save this honorable court" is part of the opening ceremony of the US Supreme court.
Supreme Court decision allows religious statues on government land, this is directly linked to the 10 commandments. As such a 70 year old sign with a cross on it is legal.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Remember that there is no "seperation of church and state" in the first ammendment. If a town or city wants to display religious iconography, then it is up to the state courts to determine the legitimacy of the issue, from a constitutional perspective.
Jimro
Quote:
An incident which you most likely made up, since I've never heard of such a thing and even if it were true, the teacher could fight the ruling on the grounds of it being a violation of her right to freedom of religion, and would win. She wouldn't need a lawyer.
It's a fairly old incident (from 1999), and my memory on it was a bit fuzzy. It was actually a student instead of a teacher, and he had been told not to wear it because it resembled 'gangsta' jewelry.
I CLEARLY remember an incident as I originally recalled the first one on the news. I can't quite recall how that one ended up, however.
Quote:
How is this judicial activism? More like judicial stupidity. Courts hand soft sentences to dangerous criminals and make unfair rulings every single day -- this is why we have an appeals system. I think you're just reverting to the standard tack of claiming political motivation every time someone does something you disagree with
That's why I added the 'Judge arrested for Kiddie Porn' link. Why would anyone in their right mind let a child molester or murderer off so lightly unless they sympathized with the accused?
Quote:
A mentally-handicapped man working for a drug dealer sells some crack and is required by law to go to jail for the rest of his life. The judge reluctantly delivers the sentence, and later makes an angry statement about the unfairness of said law. What does this have to do with judicial activism, and how can you not agree with the judge?
I probably should've clarified why I mentioned this article to begin with. The judge's opinion on mandatory minimum sentences is more a reflection on the aforementioned activist judges (but stupid judges works just as well) and their unwillingness to hand out proper punishment for crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences shouldn't have to be necessary, but when judges are unwilling to hand out sentences that fit the crime, measures have to be taken.
That said, although drug-dealing is a serious crime, I agree that this case was a bit of a travesty. The worst part for this guy was that he was originally sentenced for 20 years. His attorney appealed and the prosecutors cross-appealed, resulting in the life sentence.
Quote:
How is this judicial activism? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution expressly forbids actions that establish a state religion or prefer certain a religion. It is a violation of said clause to erect a religious monument on government property.
The Establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. Is the sight of a cross on a town seal (a cross that takes up about one-twentieth of the seal, and the seal is about eight feet by fourteen feet) forcing someone to participate in the religion of Christianity?
As for the Ten Commandments, there's an obvious link to Judeo-Christianity. However, there's also the the ties it has with morality and the system of laws (with the exception of 'Thou shalt not have any gods before Me' and the other two commandments that specifically mention God...and maybe the fourth, which says to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, what would be objectionable to 'Thou shalt honor thy father or mother?' Or 'Thou shalt not kill?'). Just because a cross happens to be on a town seal or a monument to the Ten Commandments exists at a courthouse does not equate to a state-mandated religion to which all must follow. Just seeing either of the two aforementioned monuments isn't forcing anyone to convert to Judaism or Christianity.
Quote:
The fact that a lot of people who originally populated the country may have been Jews or Christians doesn't mean Judeaism and Christianity should be inflicted upon the tens of millions of citizens who are not Jews or Christians.
My point still stands that this country was founded on laws inspired by the ethics of Judeo-Christian principles. However, it is not a government-sponsored endorsement of religion to use the more secular moralistic rules as the basis for said laws.
Quote:
No, but I think it's totally unreasonable to think of Michael Moore as being anywhere near as bad as the Klan.
No argument there.
It's a fairly old incident (from 1999), and my memory on it was a bit fuzzy. It was actually a student instead of a teacher, and he had been told not to wear it because it resembled 'gangsta' jewelry.
And I'm sure if he'd taken it to court, or even spoken to a school trustee, he would have won.
That's why I added the 'Judge arrested for Kiddie Porn' link. Why would anyone in their right mind let a child molester or murderer off so lightly unless they sympathized with the accused?
The mere possession of child pornography (not child molestation), if it is a first offence, and if the prosecutor is unable to prove that the accused is likely to re-offend, means the accused should be found and sentenced accordingly.
The Establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing a national religion.
The Establishment Clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This has historically been interpreted as the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion by the government or the preference of one religion over another. This is not exactly a new thing, and a judge respecting a long-established legal precedent hardly constitutes judicial activism. You're welcome to disagree with the courts if you want, but just know that given the choice between your opinion and those of thousands of judges and lawyers who have been through law school and possess decades of experience in law, I'll go with the judges.
Quote:
The Establishment Clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This has historically been interpreted as the prohibition of the establishment of a national religion by the government or the preference of one religion over another. This is not exactly a new thing, and a judge respecting a long-established legal precedent hardly constitutes judicial activism. You're welcome to disagree with the courts if you want, but just know that given the choice between your opinion and those of thousands of judges and lawyers who have been through law school and possess decades of experience in law, I'll go with the judges.
It was only within the latter part of the 1900s that towns began being sued for showcasing religious symbols, whereas no one had complained or even fussed for a long time beforehand. It was primarily a June 1962 decision (ENGLE V. VITALE) where Justice Hugo Black used a line "constitutional wall of separation between Church and State".
Here is the most interesting paragraph from ENGEL v. VITALE (my emphasis):
"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
It wasn't even part of the ruling (merely Black writing the opinion of the Court), yet it has been used as the basis for the suppression of religious symbols in the public circle. Before that ruling, you'd be hard-pressed to find a judge that would order a town to remove a simple symbol from its seal under penalty of a fine.
There's a world of difference between establishing a state-mandated religion and having a religious symbol on a town sign.
