Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I recently met an Israeli woman who is fairly left wing and tolerant. She lives in a city and is distraught that her neighbours seem to be coming ever more right wing and militaristic. Is there an end to this, what do others think.
I was more concerned with your use of the word "and" in the first part: "fairly left wing and tolerant"Illogical reply, I used, as did she the "and" word. At no time did she or I indicate that the two were synonymous.
Illogical reply, I used, as did she the "and" word. At no time did she or I indicate that the two were synonymous.
Your friend is right, and there have been more than a few articles in the Israeli press commenting on this phenomenon.I recently met an Israeli woman who is fairly left wing and tolerant. She lives in a city and is distraught that her neighbours seem to be coming ever more right wing and militaristic. Is there an end to this, what do others think.
He made no such equation. Practice reading.First off, why is being militaristic equated with being right wing? ... Do you know the difference?
Good grief!I was more concerned with your use of the word "and" in the first part: "fairly left wing and tolerant"
Did you mean that the two are inherently connected or that the appearance of the two, together was unexpected?
What's wrong Charlie Brown? Would you rather I drew an inference, got it wrong, and opened myself up to criticism for not asking for clarification? There are two simple yet diametrically opposed readings of that phrase. Is it wrong to ask which one was intended by the author?Good grief!
He made no such equation. Practice reading.
No, I'd rather you had accepted the question as an honest one and responded in kind.What's wrong Charlie Brown? Would you rather I drew an inference, ...
Seemed pretty simple to me.No, I was just giving the general attitude of the person referred to.
Please should any further readers think I am trying to make some thinly disguised point - I am not! It is just a simple question.
I cannot respond if I don't understand the thinking behind the question.No, I'd rather you had accepted the question as an honest one and responded in kind.
Actually Hitler was a fascist, and that's always been considered right wing-- don't let the "NAZI" translation fool ya. The remainder indeed were socialists and was based on the teachings of Marx but was heavily bastardized so as to accumulate power.First off, why is being militaristic equated with being right wing? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro etc. are all socialists.
Actually Hitler was a fascist, and that's always been considered right wing-- don't let the "NAZI" translation fool ya. The remainder indeed were socialists and was based on the teachings of Marx but was heavily bastardized so as to accumulate power.
Rubbish.OK Folks. 1. Israel is not becoming "right wing"". Israel is a liberal democracy where even the right wing politicians are more left wing than our so called liberals here in the US.
Sorry:Fascism is just another name for Nazism, which stands for the German Socialist Worker's Party. Fascism/Nazism is socialism that differs from communism in that the government controls business rather than owning it outright. Much of the West is now Fascist. In fact, technically, dictatorships, monarchies, and olygarchies are all forms or combinations of one or the both. Kings usually owned everything and only allowed use of their land etc. as favors under the feudal system--and were thus just rough forms of socialism before the name was coined.
BTW, the term socialism was used in contrast with the liberal ideal of individualism. That was true right up until the time when LBJ soiled the label for ever after. Ain't that turnaround a kick in the head.