students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden.

VICTORIAN students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden.
This is one of the new rules put in place by the Victorian government to tackle how religion is taught in schools.
Students will also be allowed to dress up for the Hindu festival, Diwali, or indulge in sweet delights from Muslim’s Eid celebrations.
But looking at the Bible, Koran or any other religious text will be strictly banned in class time from next year.
Prayers and instructions on how to live in accordance to a particular faith will also be unacceptable in the classroom.
Under the new government plan, Special Religious Instruction can be taught in schools in the hour before or after school or at lunch times by an accredited instructor approved by the Minister for Education.
A teacher must also be present and children must have permission from their parents to attend.
Fairness in Religions in School chief executive Lara Wood has been fighting to eliminate Special Religious Instruction from state schools and while she welcomed the changes, she still had her concerns.
“We are worried about the lunchtime classes because we know from past experience the volunteers do try to convert the kids and don’t stick to the curriculum,” she said.
“We are concerned that could happen.”

Principals get to decide whether they want Special Religious Instruction within their school at all and Ms Wood commended the government for giving them more power.
“If a school did decide to take it on, it would mean a lot more work for schools because they will have to closely monitor the program to make sure the rules are being followed,” she said.
In Victorian state schools previously, children were being split up to learn about their religion during class time.
Ms Wood said school work was impacted and children were segregated.
“The new guidelines will remove this problem altogether though and I think it’s fantastic,” she said.
It will now be the teacher’s responsibility to educate children generally about religion and the main holidays and celebrations.
On occasion, guest speakers who are representatives of a particular faith can explain their religion further to students but they must not promote it.
Ms Wood said teaching children about all religions would make them more tolerant, respectful and accepting.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes I've just been saying that to Ben ^^^^

But like I am saying, going too far back is muddying at times...you know?

Going back, however far, is relevant if it makes a point.

This whole thing started because my point was...do you realize how far back your motives are?  It's ancient history.  Time to put it to sleep.

nicko wrote:To listen to the left wing here all the right wing are Nazi's

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Going back, however far, is relevant if it makes a point.

This whole thing started because my point was...do you realize how far back your motives are?  It's ancient history.  Time to put it to sleep.

Right I'm going back to a conversation we had two years ago.....when you missed a comma.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:To listen to the left wing here all the right wing are Nazi's

I would say everyone on the right (the true right) are at least somewhat like the Nazis. Hear me out:



This chart shows the results of a survey in which liberals (on the left of the chart) and conservatives (on the right) were asked morality questions and ranked in several values categories. You can see that considerations of "purity," "authority" and "in-group loyalty" are far more important to conservatives than they are to liberals.

An authoritarian figure making appeals to in-group loyalty and purity?! It's not hard to paint a picture (and a toothbrush moustache onto that picture).

nicko wrote:Ben,   right wing in America bears no relation to right wing in Britain.  After all, your yanks!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Going back, however far, is relevant if it makes a point.

This whole thing started because my point was...do you realize how far back your motives are?  It's ancient history.  Time to put it to sleep.

Right I'm going back to a conversation we had two years ago.....when you missed a comma.....

I don't know what that means.

I'm talking about this whole invasion of the Middle East going on, as we speak, in Syria and Iraq.  It's the Crusades all over again.

It's not me who is using history.  It's the RW, who can't seem to forget about the past.  Time to put it to rest.  That's the message.   Fogettaboutit.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know what that means.

I'm talking about this whole invasion of the Middle East going on, as we speak, in Syria and Iraq.  It's the Crusades all over again.

It's not me who is using history.  It's the RW, who can't seem to forget about the past.  Time to put it to rest.  That's the message.   Fogettaboutit.

It was just a joke. Don't worry about it, I'm not that funny

nicko wrote:Your so far to the left it's a wonder you don't fall over.

Saying that Ben,  to tell the truth i'm nether right or left.  I don't give a fuck about any of 'em!

Quora wrote:Why are Nazis considered to be right wing parties?

Many of their political views seem more socialist than typical right wing.

4 Answers
Isidora Müller

This is an excellent question, most people seem to have a problem with correctly understanding the definitions of Left and Right. Part of the problem is that political ideology is not one dimensional - it's at least two dimensional. Later more to that.

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime (Monarchy).

In other words back then the definition was:

Left: Against the government aka monarchy (more freedom and equality for the people)

Right: For the government aka monarchy (conservative = everything should stay as it is)

Why did I write back then? ... Well actually it depends which part you are looking at, if the government part it is pretty much the opposite today:

Left: Want more government (but still: more freedom and equality)

Right: Want less government (but still: conservative = everything should stay as it is)

So what did change?

Earlier the government was seen as a tool for oppressing people, today we see it reversed and (think we) need the government as the tool to grant us freedom.

In short: left means more government (more regulations) and right means less government (less regulations)

Let's go into details:

There is one major problem with this definition. What is meant with freedom? Freedom of the people or freedom of the markets? Unfortunately the words are not used unique and therefore one never can really know, what the countpart means with Left or Right. Some mean with lefties, people acquiring a free market and others mean people acquiring a welfare state and others again mean acquiring an authoritarian state (= strong government and lots of regulations).

What is usually understood under 'Left' and what it really should be called: Collectivism, fights for: strong government; social equality.

What is usually understood under 'Right' and what it really should be called: Neoliberalism, fights for: economic liberalization / privatization and conservatism / reactionarism; social hierarchy.

So let us make it very easy and differ it this way (I call it PSE-Model):

Politically left/right = much government/less government
Socially left/right = much social security/less social security
Economically left/right = controlled market/free market

Since a 3-D model is a bit over the top i castrate it to a 2-D model which fits for most explanations (besides extremes):

Social scale left => authoritarian state - a lot is controlled by government (authoritarian government but often liberal about society and a welfare state (strong gov. grants equality))

Social scale right => libertarian state 'subsidiarity' - everyone for oneself (liberal government but often conservative about society (since there is no strong gov. which could grant equality))

Economic scale left => controlled market

Economic scale right => free market

Whereas left always = strong government and right = weak government.

This 2-dimensional system in a graphic:



There are also dozens other models trying to solve the left/right problem (see Political spectrum for details).

Here is another one. The typical "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" are NOT correlated with either fascism or communism, since the 4 of them occupy separate sides of the square.



Now let's look where Hitler belongs to:



from The Political Compass (this graphic is not completely identical with my model above)


The chart makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy). The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing.

Authoritarianism is not necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region.


Hitler changed his ideas over time, and had to give up his free market (in Germany) idea [economically slightly right] during WW II [and became economically left] even though he was a strong anti-communist [economically right].

All in all I would say he was first economically slightly right then left.

He built some kind of a totalitarian state [completely left] which was highly authoritarian aka fascistic [socially left] and was national socialistic (welfare state but only for Germans) [national socially left] but was on the other hand conservative and anti-liberal about society [socially right]

He was (national-) socially left. But not that kind of socially left we normally have.

In other words, since Left and Right are not clearly defined, and pretty everything between radical left and radical right would anyhow fit to Hitler, I wouldn't use these words. To describe Hitler I would say:

He built a totalitarian state which was highly authoritarian aka fascistic with a keynesian economic system.

Hitler changed his ideas over time, and had to give up his free national market idea but still was a strong anti-communist.

National socialism = socialism but only for ones own nation (goes against the true definition of socialism, but we talk about a infamous mass slaughterer ... not an economist)

Now we have seen Nazis were not really right, but why does everyone say that?

Remember how Nazis came to power: Dolchstosslegende - the communist Jew was the devil in person. What was the ideology farthest away from this? - A social-democratic Right (today we would rather say a national conservative Right). - They defined themselves that way to be a counter part to the so called Jewish communism, and neo Nazis still continue to consider themselves far right today. Media does what they always do and copy paste - Voilà, most without a degree in political science think: nazism = being far right.

[Personal opinion]

My own interpretation:

But where is Hitler in the PSE-Model? I Quote myself:
Politically left/right = much government/less government
Socially left/right = much social security/less social security
Economically left/right = controlled market/free market

Let's see:

politically very left (loooots of government)
socially pretty left* (hello, this guy ruled the first anti-smoke campaign, KDF etc.)
economically first right than left

*But wait... there was something. Ah yes, he was only socially left to his own people, to his own nation - he was therefore a national socialist. But since he killed a few million others, who belonged to Germany (not according to him) he was very far right - not that far, even further!

Conclusion: He was socially so much right, the rest doesn't matter: He was an extreme right. But please remember this is only my own interpretation, it is still pretty wrong to say Hitler was Right. So the next time someone says "Hitler was right" just answer: "No, he was wrong!"

[/Personal opinion]

Also keep in mind; Everyone can use these words, if they fit or not. Yes 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' I am looking at you...

I finish with a quote:

"Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms."
-Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf. Bottom of the Hill Publishing, 2010. p. 287.

Update:

Made small changes to make it clearer (I hope) thanks to questions in the comments. I worked a few hours at this text in total, I know it is not perfect, but the best I can offer you atm. I personally would prefer a 3-D model as written above (PSE-Model), but I have only seen 2-D models in political science so far (yes I know, it is already difficult enough). Feel free to comment.

Wiki wrote:The Austro-Prussian War of 1866 had resulted in the dissolution of the 19th-century German Confederation, a loose association which had included Austria as well as the various independent German monarchies, such as Prussia and Bavaria.