What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

In September 1925, there was a discussion within the NSDAP about how to deal with other (SIC!) right-wing parties. (See letter of NSDAP Gau Schleswig-Holstein to the Reichs NSDAP office in Munich, as of 11 September 1925).
'Gauführer' Lohse wrote: 'No votes for the Left'/'No votes for the three internationals' could be interpretated that we support the operations of the right wing capitalism. Though this is correct, we can't justify this in regard of the workers, who still are Marxian (sic!). I make a motion to change these slogans. ..."

Well okay then, how does persecuting religious belief support a right wing agenda? Conservatism, at least here, strongly supports freedom of worship. It is in our Bill of Rights, it is clearly conservative.

So "you don't present opinion?" Thats funny, Walter, not only funny, it is very revealing about how you view yourself.

okie, Are you trying to tell us that all countries that have freedom of religion are conservative? You're an idiot!

Okay then, I think a reasonable request of you would be for you to provide a short list of things that delineate the difference between left and right. And I think your current understanding of it today, not from some other point in history. And I suppose you can use what you think is "mainstream" opinion? Of course then we can then perhaps argue whether the "stream" of opinion is "main" or not?

I think if Walter wanted to offer his opinion about what constitutes left vs right today, it would also help us all understand the arguments here that you are making. But we now know Walter does not present his opinion, ha ha, so maybe he can't do it?

Shortest list possible: left = liberal; right = conservative. In reality, every individual voter is a mix of both. There is no pure anything.

That's some of the most idiotic horseshit he's come up with here yet. The free expression clause and the no establishment clause (which, in fact, only bind the Federal government) were written in direct response to the situation in England in the 17th and 18th centuries, when conservatism dictated that if you were not Church of England, you could not hold public office, including military officers, and if you were Catholic, you couldn't practice your religion at all. In fact, the civil wars in England began precisely because of the issue of religious adherence and its enforcement by the state. In Europe of the 17th and 18th centuries, any degree of religious tolerance were a measure of just how liberal and enlightened a nation could be considered. The Test Act and the Occasional Conformity Act both sought to assure that no one who was not truly a member of the Church of England could serve in a public capacity. In fact, religious "emancipation" did not come to the United Kingdom until 1830.

Jefferson wrote his letter in which he spoke of the "wall of separation" between church and state to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, who complained that they were just barely tolerated by the Congregational establishment (many states continued to have established churches--the constitution only prohibits Congress from making establishment laws or prohibiting the free exercise of religion). The Congregationalists had a religious establishment in Massachusetts, too. When Thoreau claimed to have been jailed for not paying his taxes in protest of the Mexican war, it was, in fact, his church taxes which he had not paid, and later the poll tax, and he wasn't jailed because his aunt paid the church tax and the poll tax for him. (His tax deliquencies, by the way, took place before the Mexican War, so that was just more of Thoreau's self-promoting bullshit.)

What is most ludicrous, though, is this claim in the face of persistent attempts by contemporary conservatives to get around or simply demolish the "wall of separation" between church and state. Anyone who doubts that can find literally hundreds of pages of posts at this site alone to read. Conservatives have never been friends to religious tolerance--it has always been necessary to drag them kicking and screaming into a secular state.

Setanta, are you going to provide your list of differences of left vs right, as they exist today, or not, or are you going to just harangue more about what you think happened in Europe, or in the 17th and 18th centuries?

Here, let's remedy some more of Okie's ignorance on the history of religion in the United States. The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, who was a Christian Socialist. The pledge was first published in The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine of its day. Bellamy had been forced to leave his church in Boston because the congregation objected to his socialist views, and his inclusion of them in his sermons. One of his parishioners, Daniel Ford, published the pledge--he owned the magazine in question. Ford had hired Bellamy to work on the magazine's editorial staff after he was driven from his church.

Bellamy's original version did not include the words "under God." That was added by Republican conservatives during the 1950s red scare. Bellamy's original version just read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." He decided not to add the word equality to the pledge, because he hoped to promote it in the schools, and he knew the superintendents of education in Massachusetts were opposed to civil equality for blacks and women, and would therefore probably reject it. The words "to my Flag" were changed to "the Flag of the United States of America" in the 1920s, over Bellamy's protest. The words "under God" were added by Congress (who had nothing to lose, since they couldn't legally require anyone to recite it) in 1954, after the Knights of Columbus had put a great deal of pressure on them, and at a time when rabid conservative red-haters were squealing about patriotism in the schools. The Reverend Bellamy's socialist pledge, much altered, became a daily requirement in almost all school districts in the country.

Religious tolerance is not, and never has been a hallmark of conservatives.

Read my posts a little more carefully, Einstein, they have to do with the United States, too--of course, maybe you're not bright enough to understand that. You certainly don't seem bright enough to know that all that we are is a product of the Europe from which our ancestors all came.

Add United States to my quote from some other century, as you interpret it of course.

Can you forget that for now, and simply do the exercise? Is that too much to ask? After all, it could help clarify the debate here a little better. If I and others know how you actually define left vs right, it would help.

I don't have to play your witless games. Are you now claiming that Jefferson and Thoreau don't count because they lived in the 18th and 19th centuries? Are you claiming Bellamy and Congress and the Knights of Columbus don't count because that all happened more than 50 years ago? What idiocy.

No one here has to prove to you what a conservative is. You are the one making the idiotic claim that Hitler was a leftist, that the NSDAP was a left-wing party. People who make extraordinary claims have to provide their evidence. Not only have you failed to do so, many members here have shown just how wrong you are, and Walter has steadily produced one primary source document after the other to prove you are wrong.

But all you do is the old put your fingers in your ears, "La, la, la, la--i can't hear you" routine.

I'm all a-flutter re ad hominems. what's the problem? Okie says I am not very knowledgeable and I say Okie is stupid.

Witless game? That is a weird accusation. This is not a game. I am merely asking you to define what you think left vs right is. That is not a game. That is common sense. In order to determine why you consider Hitler to be a leftist, please provide the parameters by which you are making that judgement, thats all. If you can't do that, then yes, this discussion is over. Why get so irritated over a simple question, an honest question?

We talk about liberals and conservatives in this country. Is it too much to ask what defines you as a liberal? How would you define a conservative in terms of what he or she believes? Contrary to what Walter says, this is in fact a matter of opinion or perception, everyone has a slightly different take on it in my opinion, but in general I think some generalities could be agreed upon.

Okay dys, do you wish to provide your take on left vs right, or do you have no interest either? I am trying to find somebody here that is willing to give an honest opinion about it.

Okie, from your point of view, is the Taliban liberal or conservative?

no Okie, you're not interested in anyone's honest opinion about anything, you are only interested in opinions that support your opinion. You made this all very clear when you firs started posting here those many years ago.

Boy, why that question? I would rather you lay your cards out on the table dys. You guys offer no cards, but when I play a card, you find all kinds of ways to trump it with some kind of card.

Okay I'll bite. And possibly my opinion may not be in line with conventional wisdom in Afghanistan, as conservative can mean different things at different times in different countries. "Conserve" can mean to keep what you have, and maybe the hardliners want to keep the old narrow view of Taliban. But here is my take on it. I equate liberalism to socialism and collectivism, whether it be socialism of the economy, owning property, or whether it be in thought or religion. And so I would view the Taliban as socialistic in terms of collectivism of thought and religion, they do not allow individual expression, and so that is not conservative as viewed in a modern American context, no way.

What do you think?

and is exactly why I think your stupid

okie, if you really knew dys, you'd know he means that in an affectionate way...

not that he thinks you are brilliant.

(it is a rather odd way of looking at terrorists)