Don't look at me - I'm simply referring to the decision of the psychiatrists.
Again: Relevance? The fact that Breivik USED TO BE a member of the party is every bit as irrelevant as the fact that prominent social democrats used to be members of communist parties = not at all.
Well, the relevance is that the party held and holds positions which he endorses - although he thinks they are too soft, it is still his recommended party. That should ring a few alarm bells.
I think all political extremes, both to the right and left, are equally good at that. I don't know much about FrP, so I'm not able to contradict you, nor am I willing to completely accept what you say only on your word, because I know that leftists here tend to describe anything that isn't their own opinion as "racist", and "slander", etc.
Fair deal.
How about calling immigrants dogs, as the party's top representative in Bergen did. Or suggesting pig squeels and entrails hung up in the city center to ward off Muslims?
Racist enough for you? If not, what about the party's support of the Apartheid regime in South Africa?
So, the famous dictum of Voltaire is right out? Only room for those positions deemed "acceptable"...and who gets to decide what that is?
No. But there are certain things we should
not accept IMHO. We should expect and indeed demand civil behavior from our politicians and certainly no advocacy of certain evils, like castration of immigrants or other social groups.
I'm sure they're more than warranted.
Pardon my saying so, but you sound almost as paranoid as some Beckians here.
According to you, and.....what part of Scripture? Please back up your claim that Christ spoke to the lawmakers on how to organize and rule a society. Please do, in fact, I challenge you to do so. And I do so calmly, because I know you can't.
Erm. How about everything He said? We are the government now. How we are supposed to live is supposed to permeate everything we do. Which includes politics. And Jesus did touch upon the issue. How about, in Matthew 23 where Jesus gets rather irate about how the Pharisees have handled things. They were a political power in that day and age. And their unjust treatmend of others certainly got a thrashing.
Besides, your entire position is nonsensical. You claim to be a Christian and that you wish to follow Christ wholeheartedly. Yet at the same time you endore mammonism and vengeance in your political approach. That is not unifiable. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Matthew 23, or in other verses this did not go directly to the core of political organization. But it - and everything else He said - touches on it in the sense that it is supposed to permeate everything we do. So, to say you follow Christ and then be for a vengeful social structure, one based on materialism, greed, segregation and vengeance is nonsensical. It is a contradiction so big it is unfathomable. As I have said, either you follow Christ's teachings or you don't. And the right wing approach has chosen mammon and vengeance. Not Christ's mercy and compassion.
Scripture indicates that there are two seperate "kingdoms" as already Aurelius Augustinus and later Luther explained. You're not even being true to your own argument, because if you were, then you would want Breivik released unpunished. After all: "If someone strikes you on one cheek", right?
Hardly. You suppose that forgiving excludes protection of the innocent, Unam. Breivik is a danger to others and I should think to himself. To release him would not be good to anyone.
Only if one insists on anachronistic readings of Scripture, comparing it to our own ideologies. That's ultimately false.
The Torah is a comprehensive work, that isn't "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". It's neither. It's also interesting that it is the Torah that lefties often use as an excuse to dismiss Christianity out of hand. Because they know that its values and beliefs are incompatible with their ideologies.
How on earth is Christ incompatible with a compassionate political approach? It has been the foundation for many left wingers through the ages.
You seem to commit a rather bad mistake, Unam. It would appear you equate Stalin with left wing. Do you think I should equate Hitler with Right wing? Of course not. Should we do the opposite, perhaps, and consider Martin Luther King - a social democrat - or Desmond Tutu - a socialist - as a representative of the left, and Bill Gates as a representative of the right? Of course not.So why do you appear to do just that?
I...don't remember where it says in the Torah that everyone who wanted to, should be able to come to Israel? It DOES speak of "the foreigner", yes, but that's not the same.
And the sojourner. Tell me, why did Sodom and Gomorrah burn? And what does God say in Jeremiah 9? Ezekiel says: 49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
as to why Sodom burned. And Jeremiah 9 speaks of God's vengeance raining down on
nations - not just individuals. Yet it seems to me, you'd close your borders and nail them shut. Hoard your wealth and let the poor rot because 'who does not work will not eat'.
Secondly - taking care of those less fortunate is not something that the left-wing has a monopoly on. It is, however, part of classic conservatism.
Is it? Tell me, how did that work out? Compare right wing countries to left wing ones and tell me, where is it best to be least fortunate? Which society takes best care of one another - as a rule?
He did not go out to everyone and say: "Now I'm taking all of your food, and then the Pharaoh, in his infinite wisdom, will distribute what he thinks you need", as the socialists did, and do. He just made sure that of all the crops, some were put aside for the meagre years. That's not socialism, that's saving, and that's conservative, if anything.
Now now, that is nonsensical projection, excessively conservative republican style and you know it.
So can the 'boo hoo forced charity socialists is taking my stuff' crap. It's not that black and white. Which you as a Dane should be aware of.
Hardly left-wing, either.
Erm. Yes. By definition nationalization IS left wing...
Only if you can prove that they did so because they were forced to, and that no dissention on the matter was allowed. Oh, and you also need to prove that they tried to force this on the rest of the Empire, also.
Good luck with that.
I actually live in a "commune" as well. I do so because I choose to, not because the State or the Party demands it of me.
lol, man. You need to get out of your borders a bit if you think Denmark is being too restrictive.
Proof, please.
I know of no "communistic christian groups". I know of the fact that the RCC was heavily involved in the formation of some of the earliest labor unions in Europe, and that the Vatican at some point spoke out heavily against the exploitation that some industrial workers were suffering from. That's hardly communist.
So, perhaps you should get more informed, Unam. Here, this is all I can be bothered to dig up for you now:
Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, the weasel-statements.
I can just as well say: "Consider from Acts to today", for my view. There is not a hint of communism in Acts. The fellowship described in Acts was a VOLUNTARY one. No one was forced to join it, nor were anyone forced to unhand their property. People CHOSE to, freely. Re-read the story of Ananias and Safira, and take note of what Peter is ACTUALLY chiding them for.
Voluntary or not, it was still communist, Unam. Your perception of communism is severely flawed. You lump everyone left of a certain point into one basket, and that is simply not how things really are. You have plenty of different flavors of left wing ideologies.
Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
What is this "ubuntu philosohpy", and what are those teachings they're supposed to be in line with?
Of course you don't. So read up on it. Start on wikipedia why not. Listen to Tutu's words on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy)
Which, once again, has nothing to do with communism, because those living conditions were assumed volontarily. No one came running to some merchants house late at night, kidnapping him and forcibly abducting him to a monestary, where he was forced to sell everything he had.
Communism or socialism (being very different) do not require force. A voluntarily communistic society is still communist. Again you have fallen into the same old worn out ditch you right wingers love: You lump too much together into neat boxes.
Agreed.
Agreed. I've said nothing to indicate that.
Agreed. So, what do you choose? I've chosen Christ already.
So why are you a right winger? How do you reconcile the borderline social darwinism on the right with the compassion of Christ?
Ah, so Breivik should be released, you think?
I said no such thing
Have you checked Japan's crime rate recently?
Have you compared more similar cultures, recently?
No, I don't. And when someone treats me wrong, I do my utmost to act accordingly.
However, saying that those verses are meant to be applied to how a judicial system works, is utterly ridiculous. We have no indication of that, whatsoever. Not in the Gospels, not in the Letters, not in the Early Church Fathers outside of Scripture....nowhere at all.
So, you're a sunday Christian? Apply Christ's teachings so long as it is easy? But then, beyond a certain point - for example in an official capacity - you embrace human vengefulness and play on greed, is that it? We know that a compassionate approach to criminal rehabilitation has worked. We also see that a degree og financial equality is good for everyone in a society, not just the lower social tiers.
Ah, so you think Breivik should be released?
Never said that.
Yes. And communism is very much out.
Au contraire. Leninism and Stalinism are out, of course. Violent revolutionary marxism is not even remotely considerable, true. But neither is anything even close to laissez faire. And a degree of social responsability and justice does any society a world of good.
Rather: You cannot have BOTH Jesus, AND communism/socialism, envy, jealousy, greed, and hatred. Choose.
You do not appear to understand the concept of different ideological flavors. Are all right wingers fascists? No. But all fascists are right wingers. Are all despots right wingers? No, but a lot have been. And a lot have been left wingers. Is communism forced? It can be. Or it can be voluntary. Different flavors. Same core ideology. We can say that for example several flavors of satanism are inherently right wing, and very very extreme at that. Does that mean that all right wingers are satanists? No. Even if all satanists are right wingers - which I suspect, given Lavey and Crowley's positions as I understand them - but one cannot say that all right wingers are satanists. See the difference?
One can also say that Stalin and Mao were left wingers. That is true. But it is also true that so was Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, and a plethora of others. So can we stop with the whole 'left wing is inherently evil' nonsense. It can be, yes. But so can right wing ideologies and approaches. And as I have sid before, I cannot see how one can both endorse the capitalist position AND follow Christ. How can one support competition and a greed-centric political approach AND the guy who said that one CANNOT serve both money and God- I mean... Capitalism IS serving money. That is what it is all about, profit maximization. That's it. And you can moderate that, you can restrict it. But the essence is still the same: Monet reigns supreme and is the core goal of the position! Hence rendering Christ and capitalism utterly incompatible.
