The Observation Deck

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) I would know nothing about my religion being mocked on a daily basis. It's not like there is a award winning musical mocking our religion or anything. And it's not like it's socially acceptable to make fun of Mormons, even on the nightly news or by former presidents. Of course though we just let it slide off our backs, we aren't out killing those who make fun of us. This really needs to stop, I agree some people need thicker skin, people make fun of religions, they mock God and Jesus and yes Mohammed too but to kill people over it is beyond ridiculous.

Danielle Masters wrote:As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) I would know nothing about my religion being mocked on a daily basis. It's not like there is a award winning musical mocking our religion or anything. And it's not like it's socially acceptable to make fun of Mormons, even on the nightly news or by former presidents. Of course though we just let it slide off our backs, we aren't out killing those who make fun of us. This really needs to stop, I agree some people need thicker skin, people make fun of religions, they mock God and Jesus and yes Mohammed too but to kill people over it is beyond ridiculous.

quoted for truth.

Two things:
1. A brief rebuttal of Sharon. Hitler was a Nazi, yes, but Nazi is the English short form of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers Party.
Socialist Workers.
Socialist...
Workers...

2. One thing about what Will wrote stuck out as something I would highly recommend everyone read about. Will wrote, "Moslem resentment of the west (and of us a the perceived leader of the west) predates the creation of Israel..."

The Barbary Wars, which took place in the early part of the American history, were the first war on terror. Despite at least one treaty, pirates from the countries of North Africa (sultanate of Morocco, Ottoman Algers, Tunis and Tripoli) were capturing American ships and soldiers and ransoming them. At one point, they were asking for over a million dollars tribute from the US, a figure which, at the time, represented 1/6 of the budget. They wanted this amount every year to NOT attack our ships, and we paid for 15 years.
The Department of the Navy was formed in reaction to these attacks. The Marine Corp hymn still speaks of "the shores of Tripoli".

In 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with an ambassador from Tripoli, to negotiate before things got really bad. They asked why the Barbary would "make war upon nations who had done them no injury." The response, as reported by Jefferson to John Jay, was:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So is the lesson that Muslims have been misinterpreting the Koran for centuries, or that the Koran actually says that?

Paul Schrimpf wrote:So is the lesson that Muslims have been misinterpreting the Koran for centuries, or that the Koran actually says that?

I must admit that I have not read the Koran, so you must take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm pulling this info from my memory of books I have read and trying to cross-check it against Wikipedia or other Internet sources.
One of these books, full disclosure, is Shariah: The Threat to America a highly sourced and researched book which covers a lot of territory and focuses primarily on the Muslim Brotherhood which we have heard about in the media reporting on Egypt since last year's revolution.

The Koran is, like the Bible, a series of numbered chapters called Suras. Some deal with Mohammad's time in Mecca and some with his time in Medina. They are NOT in chronological order, rather the order is by the length of the sura. According to Wikipedia, this is divinely ordained.
In reading it, you find contradictory statements. Some sects of Islam (like Sunnis) believe in naskh, or abrogation, where later statements trump the contradictory previous ones. If an early Sura preaches peace, but a later one preaches war against non-believers, those that believe in this abrogation would believe in war.
It is my understanding that the particularly violent parts, taking place in Mecca, come in the later portions of the Koran.

I think different areas of Islam place varying weight on other key teachings. I may be incorrect about this part. The tenets of Shariah (Islam's moral code and religious law) are governed by 4 main bodies of teachings: the Koran, the Sunna, the Ijma and the Qiyas. The Sunna is a collection of writings by Mohammad's contemporaries (it contains the hadiths). Ijma is the result of early consensus rules by scholars and the qiyas are based on analytical deduction.

To answer your question more directly, Paul, yes, it appears to be. Sura 47 contains language very similar to what Jefferson said through John Jay.

the ambassador from Tripoli's response to the early American's inquiry into piracy is largely irrelevant to the current conflict. Piracy is a longstanding form of international relations.

British privateers were lauded for attacking spanish gold fleets and the occasional french cargo boat. Sir Francis Drake even won an award for it. The French attacked U.S. traders within a decade of our independence, leading to the long forgotten Quasi-War.

American emigrants flooded into Mexico-Texas and rebelled with double the rigor at Mexico's outlawing of slavery. Southern State "filibusters" launched expeditions against central America to expand slavery and were lauded in Southern Newspapers.

Nazi-ism is a form of facism. the socialist aspects were largely a name recognition legacy, and they competed with contemporary ideologically opposed "socialists". If you define "socialism" as the redistribution of property, America was the inspiration for socialism, because we were founded with the greatest and most egalitarian redistribution of property in the world.

as it is, middle eastern countries have experienced an unprecedented population growth, and are also very old civilizations. there will be riots and insurections and rebellions there regardless of the ideology. It was foolish of the world to think Qadaffi was worth replacing.

ryan costa wrote:Nazi-ism is a form of facism.

Yes, exactly.

I'm concerned that there are people on this thread who seem to think that Nazis were socialists...

I mean really? Did you ever have a class on German history or the Holocaust?

Thealexa Becker wrote:

ryan costa wrote:Nazi-ism is a form of facism.

Yes, exactly.

I'm concerned that there are people on this thread who seem to think that Nazis were socialists...

I mean really? Did you ever have a class on German history or the Holocaust?

I'm very confused. Have I slipped through a wormhole?

They called themselves socialists. Its in their name.
Guess why their flag is red...to represent their social ideals. Don't take my word for it...Hitler apparently wrote that in Mein Kampf. (I say apparently because I've never read it.)
What social ideals? The ones that aligned with the "reds." They hoped to appeal to some of the less hardcore Communists and bring them to their side in German elections.

One of the few differences between the Nazis and the Communists was the scope of their views. Communists put the world before their country. They want a united Communist government. Nazis put country before the world. Strengthen the country. (In the case of the Nazis, that country was then to spread across the world...)

In many other ways, however, their goals were the same. In the grand scheme of things, both favor big-government. Many argue that "Hitler and the Nazis destroyed the unions, just like you right-wingers." What these people fail to say (or know) is that the Nazis then consolidated all the workers into one national government-controlled union, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front). They weren't destroying the unions because they hated unions. They wanted the union (and thus the workers) under their control.

If you like, I'll repost my comparison between FDR's Second Bill of Rights, the 1940 Soviet Constitution and the Nazi's 25 Point Plan.

Thealexa Becker wrote:I'm concerned that there are people on this thread who seem to think that Nazis were socialists...

I mean really? Did you ever have a class on German history or the Holocaust?

concerned? losing sleep? im thinking hardly.

i dont take german history. i prefer classes that will translate into making a living. and besides, the revisionist history classes being taught these days...no thanks.

kate e parker wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:I'm concerned that there are people on this thread who seem to think that Nazis were socialists...

I mean really? Did you ever have a class on German history or the Holocaust?

concerned? losing sleep? im thinking hardly.

i dont take german history. i prefer classes that will translate into making a living. and besides, the revisionist history classes being taught these days...no thanks.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Didn't you take history in high school? Or were you not paying attention? I mean come on Kate, this topic isn't even controversial. Any moderately educated person in history could tell you that. Even a high schooler would tell you that.

Here's a fun fact from a well educated man with a graduate degree in history: The Nazis got lots of US support because they were ANTI-COMMUNIST. Also the Vatican was the first to recognize the Nazis because they hated communists. And yet some people on this forum want to argue how they are really similar. Yeah, ok.

Or you know, people could pick up a book and read themselves. That might give you the correct difference between fascism and communism. And how the Nazis aren't socialists. Roy works in a library right? Can't be THAT hard. Oh wait...

But if that takes away too much of your time, try the wikipedia page. Or you know, a google search.

Unless of course, you are NOT actually trying to argue that the Nazis were socialists and that the fascists and the communists have a good number of things in common. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting your really unclear, badly supported argument.

By the way, Kate, what classes are useful in making a living? Clearly history is out.

Anti-Communist <> Right-wing.
Key socialist figures of American history like Norman Thomas (ran for President as a socialist 6 times) and Walter Reuther (leader of the UAW and a strong proponent of universal health care) were both anti-communist at some point in their lives. I doubt either of these men would be considered right-wing.

Nazis got support in the United States because there were Nazi's IN the United States. I can find you the pictures of their Madison Square Garden rally in the 30s. I have no doubt there were also those that saw them as anti-communists and supported them for that reason as well.

I am looking at Wikipedia, actually...
"Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." So, if they combined left-wing and right-wing, why exactly are they NOT associated with their left-wing views but always associated with the right-wing ones? I hate to sound conspiratorial, but we do have a left-leaning educational complex...

I would recommend you Google the "nolan chart".

Roy Pitchford wrote:Nazis got support in the United States because there were Nazi's IN the United States. I can find you the pictures of their Madison Square Garden rally in the 30s. I have no doubt there were also those that saw them as anti-communists and supported them for that reason as well.

No, it was because they were anti-communist. Remember how the US was really scared of communists? That's why. Although you might not be wrong, that just isn't the whole answer.

I am looking at Wikipedia, actually...
"Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." So, if they combined left-wing and right-wing, why exactly are they NOT associated with their left-wing views but always associated with the right-wing ones? I hate to sound conspiratorial, but we do have a left-leaning educational complex...

I would recommend you Google the "nolan chart".

I have seen the Nolan chart, but that is not the point I am arguing with you about.

My point is that you are trying to say the Nazis were socialists and they WEREN'T. Try looking up the page for them on Wikipedia and you can find that Hitler hated that word "socialism". And you seem to not have as solid an understanding of the history of fascism vs. communism to really be accurate. And that kind of misinformation is painful.

Make sure you have the correct facts and aren't comparing apples and oranges and calling them both bananas.

In other words, get away from shock value and try aiming for accuracy.

i didnt say that history wasnt a way to make a living wage in america these days, i said that german history was.

when you are done apologizing for nazi's maybe you will come back to reality and see that they did in fact have socialist leanings.

roy already covered the essentials which obviously you discounted since you are so learned.

i can almost hear your screech in your posts...almost...hitler hated the word socialism!!!!

My point is that you are trying to say the Nazis were socialists and they WEREN'T.

what? because you put "weren't" in capitals that makes it so?

you can have your wikipedia, your quotes from unnamed educated sources, your google searches, all of that but that still doesnt make you right.

pitchford, you put it out there and this he/she/person will never look at what you say because....

Roy works in a library right? Can't be THAT hard

you are surrounded by books but because "that" is capitalized you must not be capable of reading. neandrathal.

And that kind of misinformation is painful.

so are posts from you

The difference between a fact and an apology for something:

Fact: The Nazis were fascists, not socialists.

The fact is a statement that does not explain, but rather, describes. Like saying "A banana is yellow" or "Water is a liquid, not a gas."

Apology: Jean Valjean only took the loaf of bread because he was starving. He would have paid for it if he had money.

The apology is an attempt to excuse or explain behaviors or actions and, well, apologize for them in a way.

So, no one on this thread is apologizing for the Nazis. This is just a debate about their political philosophies. I feel as though it goes without saying that their actions were horrific and inexcusable and some of the worst crimes in the 20th century, although whether they were horrible fascists or horrible socialists seems to still be a topic of debate, not that it changes that they were horrible.

But perhaps that comment was just an attempt to make me stop posting? Or maybe, you meant that it is my opinion that they are fascists and not socialists? I am not sure of your intention, but I hope it was just a poor choice of words rather than baiting.

It is ok to disagree with people, but I don't think that anyone should turn this into a series of acerbic one liners meant solely to insult others and not make salient points on the topic. I for my part will attempt to stick strictly to facts and make better reference lists the next time I post on a topic such as this.

BTW, Kate, I am in fact a woman, since you seemed a teeny bit confused there.