Far-Right Wing = Hate? (was...Now, this is scary.. )

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by Sunriser13
It is also popular with the "far-right" hate groups.
No, I haven't read it, but I have no doubt that it is a racist book. But a far right group and a far right <b>hate</b> group are two different things, believe it or not. ;)

[-Ken]

Let's talk about what's really "scary"...

Someone explain to me how this guy could turn a story about a potential
American terrorist into a rant about liberal newspapers. Talk about your
basic knee-jerk reaction!

And, as Coot pointed out, there is no difference between "a far right group
and a far right hate group" they are the same exact thing.

Hey Sunriser,

Why don't you provide a link for him to read Mein Kemp? At least he can
get his propaganda direct from the source. If he substitutes the word liberal
every time he sees the word Jew, he'll be happy.

[jamming]

I guess from your post Ken, you also see no difference between Greenpeace and the Uni-bomber? Since both are far left enviromental action supporters?

[-Ken]

I do not condone the use of violence either by Greenpeace
(or the French government, should they ever decide to do
something brave like sinking a ship again).

It is not the right or the left I am at issue with, it's the wackos
who think violence, terrorism and military action is the answer
to everything.

Is there a time when it is ok for someone to take up arms for a
cause? Shouldn't this be a new thread? After all, what we are
discussing is some lunatic (a doctor, no less) who had apparent
intentions to inflict great harm.

To me the danger is just as real whether he was extreme left or
right. Because his name was Ford and he was white makes him
no less newsworthy or for that matter any less dangerous.

To paraphrase an ex-president,
"It's the terrorists, stupid!"
<small>(Jim, the "stupid" was not directed at you or anyone else. Just part of the quote.)</small>

[jamming]

Not all extreme right winger's think that violence is the answer to the problem. So if an extreme right wing group avocated the end of welfare with no replacement program, you would consider that Hate speech or Violence?


And, as Coot pointed out, there is no difference between "a far right group and a far right hate group" they are the same exact thing.

Just because Haywire said it doesn't mean that you have to oppose it.


I have contacted the EL Mod about splitting the thread.

[-Ken]

Why would I possibly have any dispute with a group who peacefully
opposes war and violence, even if they were right wing?

I would think I would find that common ground and go from there. I
am not the one advocating divisiveness here. I don't see the right
wing/left wing as much as people who accept violence and hate as
necessary and people who wish to eradicate them.

I'm not sure where you're going here, would you be more specific?

[jamming]

I am confused about your quoting Coot, equating far right as far right hate group. Oh and by the way, doing away with welfare is one of the platform position of libertarians, along with legalizing drugs for adults.

[-Ken]

Regarding splitting this thread,
we have a problem. The first post
here is meant as a response to Haywire.

Taken out of context, it appears different.

[ethics]

Originally posted by -Ken
Regarding splitting this thread,
we have a problem. The first post
here is meant as a response to Haywire.

Taken out of context, it appears different.

Actually, it appears better on its own than when it was a response.

Perhaps in the future, if we do something like this, we can provide a link from where the thread was taken from?

[Sunriser13]

Yes, I asked for that before, describing certain threads as seeming like I was walking into a room in the middle of a conversation.

It can become disjointed and confusing at times...

[Ugly]

The problem is that political views and racial/religious hatred are confused with each other due to pendant issues where both/all sides are not <strike>careful</strike> precise in their speech.
It speaks quite poorly of one who accuses another of hatred merely for a political stand on a divisive issue.
And folks wonder why robust voter turnout and qualified candidates are becoming less common every election.
Blech - threads like this make me sick.
Ugly

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by Sunriser13
Yes, I asked for that before, describing certain threads as seeming like I was walking into a room in the middle of a conversation.

It can become disjointed and confusing at times...

I agree. If this thread resulted from another (as I suspect, because it makes little sense otherwise), then goshdarnit, the moderator that split it should add where it came from in the origional post of this thread.

Otherwise it's up to me to search down the thread of origional thoughts of the posters, to understand their developed intent before I interject my thoughts into the discussion. All I see is an interesting debate, but I have no idea what lead it to this point.
Not an easy thing to blend into.

This 'thread' splitting policy needs work, in my technically dumbass opinion.
But, I've said this before, to no avail. So, I guess I'm the only one that gets confused.
Please forgive my tirade, I'll just have to learn how to do 'searches' better, or something; if I brouse across an interesting 'split' thread too late in the game.

Regards,

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by jfcjrus
...the moderator that split it should add where it came from in the origional post of this thread...The moderator that split it <b>did</b> put where it was from...

Title of this thread... "<i>Far-Right Wing = Hate? <b>(was...Now, this is scary.. )</b></i>" ;)

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by -Ken
..there is no difference between "a far right group
and a far right hate group" they are the same exact thing....Wrong again. :rolleyes:

[RRedline]

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
Wrong again, as usual. :rolleyes: I agree. Far right groups and far left groups may or may not be hate groups. I have been called "far right" by some people, and I have been called "far left" by others. It just goes to show you just how "far off" some people can be.

I don't think there are any true definitions for those terms, so they are applied very subjectively by people who want to insult the other side.

[Sunriser13]

Here is a link to the thread from which this was split:

Original Thread (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3572)

It would be far easier to provide a link in the first post of a split; hell, the vein that this split took confused even me, and I'm the one who started the original thread that was taken so far off topic.

[Coot]

"Far" (left or right) groups generally have their own agenda and in this country attempt to hijack another party that has intentions most closely associated with said agenda. Far left or right are generally 'extreme' in their viewpoints and said agenda generally involves denying something to someone else...be it freedom to choose what happens in one's own body, the kind of car one chooses to drive, certain rights based on ethnicity....ad nauseum. The Christian Right attempts to hijack the republican party...the greenpeacers attempt the same with the democratic party. Watch for the greens to be back at the Democrats in full force in the next few years as African Americans on the extreme left are hijacking the green party for their own ends, based on the green's pro-reparations stand.

[ethics]

Ok, will do that in the future. :(

[-Ken]

Hmm, maybe we look at the spectrum differently.

On the far left, we have the unibomber, on the far right we have, Kopp (http://www.jameskopp.com/)?<small><--- Check out the link for some real abuse</small>
Please illustrate your position by naming a far right wing organization
that is not a hate group. By my definition, one is the other. This is also
true of the farthest extreme of the left wing as demonstrated by some
of the WTO protestors in Seattle.

While there are instances where civil disobedience is not enough (Nazi
Germany in 1939 for one) the use of force is where I define the people
who are at the farthest ends of the spectrum.

So, when is it appropriate to use violence? When the whales are almost
extinct? When they carry away your neighbor because he is the same
religion as you? Before they take your daughter away?

This is actually the direction I thought this thread split was actually taking.
Either way, it is an interesting topic.

[Jedi Writer]

Originally posted by Sunriser13
Yes, I asked for that before, describing certain threads as seeming like I was walking into a room in the middle of a conversation.

It can become disjointed and confusing at times... For this thread I agree completely with Sunriser. The "walking into a room in the middle of a conversation" is a good analogy.

[Forum Support]

All new threads, which are split, will be split from the thread which spawned it in the first post itself. This is in addition to the pointer from the original forum that points to the new thread plus the name of the original thread being included in the title of the new. If there are complaints after all those pointers, then you are complaining to hear yourself talk.

Here have a Dancing Banana :happy:

[jamming]

OK, It looks like to me that you consider far right/left wing is a group which advocates violence. So Rush Limbaugh would only be Right Wing? Michael Savage? Boortz? John Birch Society? What about David Duke? (he renounced violence, before he ran for Senator in Louisiana)

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
The moderator that split it <b>did</b> put where it was from...

Title of this thread... "<i>Far-Right Wing = Hate? <b>(was...Now, this is scary.. )</b></i>" ;)
My apologies.
Makes perfect sense, now that you pointed it out to me.
Sorry.
Regards,

[-Ken]

Jim,

You are correct. In my view, the farther one gets on the
spectrum is defined by the actions one thinks is appropriate.

People who light candles and quietly march in a town common
are far different from the lunatic who bombs an abortion clinics.

Toward the very edge of the spectrum is the person who believes
in killing the majority of humanity to reach their objective. The one
example which horrifies me is the far right fundamentalist Christians
who believe we need to start this blood bath so Christ will be reborn.
(The Second Coming) Think about that one! Doesn’t the Constitution
protect me from having their type of religion forced down my throat?

Right out there with them are the people who support (financial
or otherwise) these criminals and the people who publicly incite
this continued hatred. Surprisingly, when they get that far out
on the edge, it really doesn't matter who let the virus loose or
which end of the spectrum they were on.

-Ken

[ditch]

Isn't it more correct to say that the far right are more likely to, have a reputation for, are traditionally associated with violence and hate than the far left? The tag the "violent far left" is tanatmount to being an oxymoron I believe.

[jamming]

Ken, what your asking actually is not a protection you have by the Constitution. Our Constitution does not protect us from beliefs either religious or not. It was amended in the Bill of Rights so that the government wouldn't promulgate a State Religion, like the Catholics or Anglicans did at the time. However, it has been expanded/interpreted, in this case quite limitedly to include that no one religion or even no religion should be preferred over another. That is, if one religious/no religion organization gets a right they all get it. The common way of doing this is to deny the right to every such organization, because there is no way to grant it to everyone of them. Except in cases of Religious/Non-Profit tax exempt status which is able to be granted to everyone and other limited laws and regulations.

Like Prayer, can occur in School, if it is the students at no ones prompting, that conduct it during their free time. You are protected from that idea no more than you are protected from someone who believes that they have scientific evidence that at 10 mile wide asteroid is going to impact the earth in the next month, then after that month the recalculate and say within the next year. The only right you have is to oppose that idea, and not as the left does often to people they don't like in public settings by shouting them down. You have the right to show the fallacious nature of their arguments, the contradictions in logic and good order, but they have the right to act upon their beliefs as long as the obey the laws or are willing to suffer the punishment for civil disobedience.

See this is about controlling another's thoughts and speech is accorded the same rights unless it leads to a definable legal transgression. Like incitement to riot or commit a definable crime, not the general incitement that may lead to a crime in the future. We send people to court for what they do, not what they think.

Under your scheme I could demand protection from an atheist that says they don't believe in the value of human life, more than an animal who is butchered. Their belief is promoting the treatment of humans, as animals to be slaughtered. Directly encouraging others to devalue human life to the point it would be acceptable to murder. Just like old Joe Stalin and the NKVD in their athiesm.

[jamming]

Originally posted by ditch
Isn't it more correct to say that the far right are more likely to, have a reputation for, are traditionally associated with violence and hate than the far left? The tag the "violent far left" is tanatmount to being an oxymoron I believe.

The Unibomber was an example of the violent far left recently, before that the Weatherman, the SLA, Red Brigade, and other such organizations. Liberals can be as dedicated and as violent as any Conservative.

[-Ken]

Jim,

Im sorry, I was kidding about the Constitution protecting me from
people who would wish to bring about the Earth's end. I guess I'm
just going to have to resign myself to having to use dancing bananas
or something.

And while free speech is our right, people like Hitler have abused that
right to it's bitterest end.

[jamming]

Somedays it pays to be a Chronic Chemical Depressive, that way I am ahead of the Crowd ;)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by jamming
Ken, what your asking actually is not a protection you have by the Constitution. Our Constitution does not protect us from beliefs either religious or not. It was amended in the Bill of Rights so that the government wouldn't promulgate a State Religion, like the Catholics or Anglicans did at the time. However, it has been expanded/interpreted, in this case quite limitedly to include that no one religion or even no religion should be preferred over another. That is, if one religious/no religion organization gets a right they all get it. The common way of doing this is to deny the right to every such organization, because there is no way to grant it to everyone of them. Except in cases of Religious/Non-Profit tax exempt status which is able to be granted to everyone and other limited laws and regulations. I disagree with the intent of the amendment. <b>Prisident Thomas Jefferson</b>, one of the bill's writers, is the one who coined the phrase, <i>"wall of separation of church and state"</i>. That was not invented or reinterpreted by atheists who wanted to be protected FROM religion. It came from our then President who happened to have been one of its authors. On the contrary, it has been the religious right who has abused its overwhelming majority status over the years, and they continue to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what its authors intended. It is a very good Bill, but it is also very overlooked. I think one of the things that makes our society superior to others is the fact that our government takes a neutral stance towards all religions.

History has shown over and over and over again that RELIGIONS DO NOT MIX WELL TOGETHER. Let people worship and believe however they wish on their own time. That's why we have churches, mosques, etc. What business does it have in government? We don't have the Taliban forcing their twisted version of Islam down our throats, and I think another Inquisition is unlikely. Thank Zod, and thank the Second Amendment.

[jamming]

Sorry RRedline but you bought into a particular lie that has been fostered by those opposed to any religion.

The term "Wall of separation" originated with Thomas Jefferson in a "Private" letter to a Baptist Minister. In 1802 that letter was a response to a rumor that the new American government was going to establish a national church, as was and still is the case with the Anglican Church in England.

Jefferson explained that the Founding Fathers wisely set up a wall of separation of church and state to prevent such a happening. IE: No singular denomination will ever have official sponsorship of the US government or be officially sanctioned as the one and only official church (denomination) of the United States of America and or be financed by it. That was the long and short of it. Jefferson never indicated anywhere at anytime that Christianity as a whole should be BANNED from the public and national dialog, public places and American life as a whole. Neither did he ever intend this statement to have official standing or be considered a RULE OF LAW. It was a PRIVATE statement in a PRIVATE communication.

Two days later, Thomas Jefferson attended church services in what was then Washington D. C.'s most public building -- the Chamber of the House of Representatives in the Capitol Building. He was a regular attendee as was many of the others in the government of the time to Christian services conducted in several locations in the Capitol complex.

Clearly, Jefferson's meaning was NOT the absolute expulsion or eviction of Christianity out of American life as erroneously extrapolated out of it by the ACLU. Statuary hall and the Rotunda are filled with the images of the Founders who attended also those same services as Christians, some of whom also where Ordained active Ministers.

[ditch]

Originally posted by jamming
The Unibomber was an example of the violent far left recently, before that the Weatherman, the SLA, Red Brigade, and other such organizations. Liberals can be as dedicated and as violent as any Conservative.
Jim, I dont think individuals such as Uni bomber should be used as examples of politically left or right for the sake of offering evidence about extremist tendencies of the left or right. My point was with regards to the classification of groups or political movements into more or less aggressive. Isn't it also correct to say that McVeigh was more anti government and an anarchist than a far leftie. Th Red Brigade I agree with you on. Nazis, Neo Nazis, Franco, Pinoche, KKK are some examples that support the argument that the right wing are the more aggresssive in pusuit of their ideals.

[jamming]

See the Problem is that there are others, like the Marxist Rebels in South American Andes Countries.

But you must understand in the US the Liberals are seen as more mainstream and getting their way more than the Conservatives. They have great support in the Movie Industry, News, and even in many public school systems. Their point of view has advocates that bring it into the mainstream. When you see the advocates of the fair treatment of the right or pro-right views those sources are marginalized and considered destructive by these more main stream media. I mean if 80% to 90% of Television News personalities identify themselves as members of the liberal party, what do you think is going to happen in their reporting. I just know people are going to want to refute this (Pup, Ken).

Basically, it comes down to this, if you marginalize or shout down the opposite views, the more likely that people will choose extra-legal actions to do so. Protest outside of the law comes down to two choices, violent and non-violent. Except for Ghandi in India and Martin Luthur King, Jr. (both religous leaders) most groups don't choose the non-violent. Thoreau talked about there is no one so free as someone who has nothing to lose and who will accept any punishment. When you consider your opposition to your point, I always want to keep my opponent engaged and talking, that is the only way to gain ground.

So I try not to marginalize those who differ from me and sometimes I am more successful than others.

[-Ken]

"So I try not to marginalize those who differ from me
and sometimes I am more successful than others."

Excellent advice, please explain how you would apply
this to either Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Saddam.

There is a line, when crossed that needs to be acted on.
As surely as we cannot allow someone to scream "Fire"
in a crowded movie house, lies (with no other purpose
other than to spread hatred) need to be opposed - LOUDLY.

I find it hypocritical to expect the Muslim countries to do something
about their militant clerics yet we should be free to spew the same
crap from every Tom, Dick and Haywire. This is a serious problem.

[jamming]

Ken, I don't believe that we should ask Muslim countries to do something about their militant clerics, unless they move from talking about things to actually doing violence.

Re: Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Saddam, the difference is they are dictators of a foreign country and not citizens of our country. When they also moved from talking to actual violence, they also went to far. The goal I talked about is to prevent people from being marginalized in a free society. You don't give a shot of antibiotics to cure someone who is having a stroke, two different issues.

[RRedline]

Jamming, who is trying to eradicate Christianity(or any other religion for that matter) from the United States? All I see are people trying to keep it out of government, which again, is what the Second Amendment is supposed to do. Nobody is trying to close down all churches and forcing people to stop believing in God.

So what if Thomas Jefferson was a Christian? I am an atheist, but I support everyone's right to believe however they want - just not with my tax dollars. Just because Jefferson was a Christian does not mean that he didn't support separation of church and state. You may think that it is only an issue with atheists, but trust me, if the Second Amendment is not enforced today, it won't be the atheists who you will be arguing with years from now. It's going to be the battle of the religions as more and more people of other faiths immigrate here and as more and more people change their own beliefs.

You may support the Ten Commandments hanging in a court room today, but how will you feel twenty years from now when you appear before a judge, and hanging in the background is a statue of Vishnu? How about Islamic phrases taken from the Qu'ran? Our country is only going to become more and more diverse, and I think Jefferson and others probably understood this. You may not like it now, but you'd like it even less if we allowed it to continue.

I respctfully disagree with you on this subject. I guess my whole point is that it makes no sense to set up a nation of immigrants - people from literally everywhere - and then try to have a national religion - Christianity in this case. I just find it hard to believe that our founding fathers could not have seen this. It's hard enough at times getting people of different Christian denominations to be nice to each other(i.e.: Northern Ireland anyone), let alone completely different faiths!

What is so bad with keeping religion out of government? And why would anyone feel that they can't believe and worship the way they always have? My main problem is more with public school prayer and trying to teach creationism than anything else. I really don't get all worked up over small communities displaying nativity scenes or other harmless activities, but I don't believe for one second that those people who organize those things wouldn't get upset if I put a statue of Budhha in their town hall. There WILL come a day where all these people fighting to keep "God" in places that it never should have been in the first place are going to suddenly compromise and say, "Okay, let's keep religion out of government." It is not just atheists who get upset at having religion tossed in front of them by their gorvernments. I'm sure religious people will be even more upset and more vocal when it is not THEIR god that gets put on display with public funding.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by jamming
.

Jefferson explained that the Founding Fathers wisely set up a wall of separation of church and state to prevent such a happening. IE: No singular denomination will ever have official sponsorship of the US government or be officially sanctioned as the one and only official church (denomination) of the United States of America and or be financed by it. That was the long and short of it. Jefferson never indicated anywhere at anytime that Christianity as a whole should be BANNED from the public and national dialog, public places and American life as a whole. Neither did he ever intend this statement to have official standing or be considered a RULE OF LAW. It was a PRIVATE statement in a PRIVATE communication. Other than government, where is religion banned? i see religion in all of those places you've mentioned. If our Founding Fathers really meant to say that Christianity is our national religion, but no particular denomination, then why didn't they just write it that way? Do you really think that they made it intentionally vague so that we could fight over it two hundred years later?

Even IF it was meant the way you describe, we would be in very serious trouble. As I stated in my previous post, our country will only get more diverse. I think now would be a great time to either clear up any confusion with the Second Amendment or make a new Amendment which clarifies ambiguous things found in the Constitution. Heck, why not rewrite the entire Constitution? Are we allowed to do that?

By the way, I think now would be a great time to declare English as the official language. Am I a hypocrite for thinking there should be no official religion but there should be an official language? I have always felt strongly about both of those issues, and my stance on one does not influence my stance on the other. Oh well. :)

[EMIG]

Originally posted by RRedline
On the contrary, it has been the religious right who has abused its overwhelming majority status over the years, and they continue to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what its authors intended. Did you mean the First Amendment? I didn't know that the religious right took any position on gun control. Then again, I don't know much about the religious right...

[RRedline]

Originally posted by EMIG
Did you mean the First Amendment? I didn't know that the religious right took any position on gun control. Then again, I don't know much about the religious right... Oh my Zod, I can't believe I messed those two up! Thanks for pointing that out. I meant the First Amendment. Argh.

[pupowski]

Originally posted by jamming
Somedays it pays to be a Chronic Chemical Depressive, that way I am ahead of the Crowd ;) Electro-shock might get you further ahead by resolving refractory depression. It is unilobar , highly specific, and reasonably effective, particularly in cases where medication fails. I did pre and post op for the procedure at a large medical center, and assessed hundreds of patients. It's no panacea, but it is a viable treatment or adjunct for those who meet the criteria.

[jamming]

Actually the medication works it makes life bearable, but heavy stress will overcome the medication. I can live but working isn't really possible. I don't mind too much, I figure at least I still have my life, and I volunteer when I can.

[-Ken]

Jim said:

"Ken, I don't believe that we should ask Muslim countries to do something
about their militant clerics, unless they move from talking about things to
actually doing violence.

Re: Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Saddam, the difference is they are dictators of
a foreign country and not citizens of our country. When they also moved
from talking to actual violence, they also went to far. The goal I talked
about is to prevent people from being marginalized in a free society.
You don't give a shot of antibiotics to cure someone who is having
a stroke, two different issues."

I disagree. Hate is the problem. We hate them, they hate us, it doesn’t matter
which language we talk, the clothes we wear or what border we are behind.

Because Hitler was behind a "sovereign nation" banner doesn't mean his hate
filled crap didn't become a world problem quickly.

I don't understand how we could look at the genocide committed by Pol Pot
and said it was ok because they were "his" people. How about Rwanda?

Should people have the right to spew hate and violence speech around with no
ramifications? If a KKK leader incites a group to lynch a person but isn't there,
does that mean he shouldn't share the blame? Isn't sitting back and watching a
Hitler build up his military waiting for him to attack before we can do something
asking for it?

With regards to Iraq, we currently have that situation. What should we do? Allow
Saddam to remain in power? To what end? What if we remove him? Well? Can
you say we can create a viable government which we won't have to prop up for
the rest of it's existence?

I view this as a Band-Aid. The problem is hate and the willingness to use violence
as a means to an end. We ALL need to stop.

If we don't, we are maybe one generation away from disaster.
Maybe then we will learn.