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.
It is not exactly same thing as the fat tax, but the basis of the ideas are the same. Hitler believed greatly in the promotion of physical health. It is also a known fact that he was avidly against smoking. He made it the state's responsibility to keep people in physical health. The idea behind the fat tax is the same thing. The idea is to find a way to keep people on a national level from consuming fatty foods. I found an article that said the main reason that Bush was against this fat tax was because it went against personal responsibility. In this article it said that this was something that the WHO (World Health Organization) was promoting, for the state to regulate people's health in that way. The point is that this is a socialist idea, and not something that conservatives encourage.
I'll continue with another point that I put up....
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.
This one was the main one that I wished to discuss. I was reading about the Anglicans and their dispute with homosexuality. Art told me how there seemed to be so much contraversy over this that it seemed that there might be a split into a American Anglican Church. We were talking about how it seemed that there was a trend of churches splitting in American society. I know that there were problems in the American Catholic community with giving communion to politicians that are known to be pro-choice. There is a trend of people trying to force homosexuality and women priests on the Catholic Church, and I know it is happening with others as well. Positive Christianity has its similarities. It was a promotion of how Jesus as an "Aryan". Also, according to Wikipedia...
They attempted to separate Nazi officials from church affiliations, banning nativity plays and calling for an end to daily prayers in schools.
This was only after the Positive Christianity movement seemed to not catch on. It ended in 1945. Now how many times have you heard reference to Jesus being gay or think of how the ideas of women leadership in the Catholic Church are promoted with either Mary Magdalene or Mother Mary. The point is the distortion of the ideas of Christianity to the personal goals of the state. When they do not conform there is this eradication of the church. United States was referred to as a Christian Nation at one point, but it seems to be widely accepted today that we are secular. In a socialist country it is difficult to keep with the ideas of Chistianity because it promotes the importance of the individual within the community. It does not promote the supreme importance of the state. I was taught at one point about the points of government structure in the Old Testament. Even within that structure there were levels of checks and balances that made sure that God was being followed. I think it should be noticeable how the Democratic party goes along with this. There seems to be a movement in this country to both eradicate Christianity from public view and to change the church to go along with other's political agenda.
Well, I wouldn't say that the Democratic party is the same as the Nazis, but the point is that they are socialist. One thing that I was taught from my first political science class in high school is that the difference between the main two countries in our country is one believes in more control of the state and the later the control of the individual. It is known that the Republican party is for reducing taxes and not for promoting more and more social programs. The democrats are for the central power of the state. They inherently do not trust people to take responsibility for what they do. With that comes welfare programs and the regulation of the day to day things of society. The main difference is that the Democrats are anti-military. Is there a situation which the liberals would be for military action? That is good question that is for another post at another time.
Well, I'm just finishing up on what I started a week ago. I can't stand the remarks of conservatives being Nazis. Maybe you guys can give me a better idea of how the Republicans could be seen as Nazis. Of course that means proposing an argument, not calling me a dumbass... So let me know. I'll actually comment back this time.
2 comments:
When did I say that the Nazis and the Roman Catholics were in agreement? I said that the Nazis tryed to change Christianity to conform to their own beliefs and when it didn't work out they dropped it all together.
Also, yes Nazis were socialists.Why else would they be called the "National Socialist German Workers Party"? History calls them two different things because it was the USSR and Germany against each other in the war, but the truth is that there were little differences between them.
Anyway I found this article on it and I thought it was interesting and to the point:
http://coastalpost.com/95/10/15.htm
Hey El, It took me awhile, but I got here, anyway. The Nazis did call themselves the National Socialists, but they did not adhere to any socialist values. They said what they thought the people wanted to here in order to gain power in the 1930's, but once in power they ruled as a fascist dictatorship. A socialist country puts it's people, their rights and needs above all else and the Nazis certainly never did that. Hitler did in fact hate communism, even though he felt it necessary to make a deal with Stalin which he later betrayed. As for why people compare the present administration and present Republican party to Nazis, here goes: Bush has taken more power onto the exectutive branch of our government than was ever intended and the Rep. Congress has done nothing to curtail this-which is part of Congress's job as set up in our constitution. He has illegaly wire-tapped, allowed torture (going against the Geneva convention and American values)and recently suspended Habeous Corpus, which now gives him alone the power to decide if an American citizen should be taken and held indefinitely without benefit of counsel or the right to ever appear in court. I'm sorry, but that's some scary crap and sounds awfully Nazi like to me. You disagreed with my comparision of the current tactics used by Republicans and the Goering quote, but I don't really understand how or why you would disagree, because Republicans do say things like, "you're unpatriotic", "you're helping the terrorists", "you don't love this country", etc. if you disagree with them on the Iraq war, or don't think we should follow the president blindly. Not every Republican says this stuff, but an awful lot do, including the administration and that is exactly the tactic that Goering was referring to in that quote. You haven't heard conservatives saying this stuff? Other reasons Bush and his followers are compared to Nazis: They started to first preemptive war in America's history, attacking a country that had not attacked us, using some very questionable and in my opinion completely bogus justifications for doing so. Hitler had his justifications for marching into Austria (reuniting the fatherland) and the Netherlands too, but they turned out to be false and a smokescreen to cover his real plans. I'm not saying that I believe Bush has plans to try and conquer the world or whatever, but I do think he had reasons other than what we heard for invading Iraq (I believe it was his pride-finish what his Dad started-and his belief that it was in his and his administrations best interest to be able to continue as a "war" president and to have an enemy he thought we could easily defeat, unlike Al Queda and Osama. Then he gets to be a hero and our country allows him to do whatever, like trash the constitution, because it's for our own safety and you're unpatriotic if you have nerve enough to speak out against anything he does). I would love to continue this discussion, because I think it's a interesting one, but I've already written a book here so I'll leave it at this for now. Maybe we can argue more on it at a later date. Take care!
Post a Comment