The thing that I don't know about is the nuances of these kinds of parties.  In American, it is easy for me to understand what the right is all about.  In Europe, I'm not so sure.  For example, on the issue of race – in America, conservatives have adopted the principle of living in a color-blind society, one which recognizes that basing decisions on race exacerbates racial problems and removes the benefits that merit-based decisions provide.  I think that this kind of principle is rooted in justice and a harmonious society,In Europe, do views on race from the right arise out of this same sense of justice, or is it rooted in a desire simply to segregate and exclude?  I would say the latter is wrong.Also, what are the views on other issues for right-wing parties in Europe?  I simply am not that familiar with them.

True; even if the name only meant they disliked socialism, it would be a step in the “right” direction.  😉

I have spent almost 10 of the 15 years in Europe and I cannot begin to figure out what "right" means in European politics.One of the problems is that Europe has been infiltrated by non-Europeans to a great degree.  Such a degree in fact that non-Europeans have the ability to influence elections in some countries.

Isn't that the case everywhere to some extent? I mean don't the Armenians or mexicans influence the elections in California, and the Irish in Massachusets?I believe it's just an effect of globalization. Almost all nations have some sort of diaspora living abroad in other countries. And these people are usually more fanatical in their beliefs and defense of the "motherland". For example the nationalists in Turkey historically get anywhere between 5% to 15-16% of the votes at general elections. But in the voting done at the borders (by Turks living abroad) they get about 40%-50%. Adn you're also right about "right" not having the same meaning in europe as in the states. Again I'll give an example from Turkey so as not to make any mistake; in our political spectrum the CHP is the social democratioc party which calls itself "leftist" however has very strong pro-state and pro-establishment policies they are more conservative than the "rightists" and usually get their votes from well to do areas of the country. Whereas the right is more liberal, less idealogically and more economically driven, with the exception of the nationalists looks more favourably to EU and is more willing to talk to the other countries to resolve problems.

I am not a big fan of globalization if that means the watering down of traditional cultural and moral institutions.  I can live alongside those of other cultures but I don’t wan them dictating my actions any more than I want to dictate theirs.  A case in point is Sharia Law, which has recently been introduced for Muslim Britains.  I disagree with this and think that if Muslims want to live under Sharia then they should go where Sharia is the law and not try to co-opt a legal process in England that has worked well for almost 1500 years.The problem as I see it and have said before is a lack of integration.  This is worldwide.  If you move to another country you should accommodate to the society in which you live and not try to force it to accommodate itself to you.  This applies just as much to Mexicans in America as it does to Turks in Germany, Pakistanis in Britain, or Algerians in France.  It is not a matter of which culture is better overall; it is a question of toleration of norms within a larger society.

In theory I agree 100%, I mean if you want to continue living under your own cultural norms than don't go abroad. On the surface this seems to be sensible but I think the problem arises because most of the people living as foreigners do not really want to be living in the country they reside in. They are mostly there because they are either running from some sort of persecution or because of economic reasons. So they become more entranched in their old belief systems. That being said I do agree that one should conform to the basic norms of the society they live in but they should also be able to exircise basic individual freedoms within their individual sphere of life. I am not aware of any Sheria law to be applied to muslims in Britain but if that's true I find it to be moronic. The Ottomans had a multifaceted legal system, the greeks were judged according to their own rules, the armenians according to their own and the muslims according to their own.How can you even talk about a notion of justice when the penalty for a crime differs on the basis of your ethnicity.

From what I've read you seem to be a practicing Christian, but some hints of Darwinism creeping crept in there with the implication of only the best adapted to change will survive. I've just read the piece about Sheria. It's pretty ingenius actually the way they formulated it. I mean in all the legal systems that I know of which recognize arbitration you can choose the law to be applied as well as the procedural law. So in effect they are just saying that where the next guy is picking Geneva as the seat of arbitration and Swiss law as the applicable law, we're picking London and Sheria. I really can't see how you could outlaw this practice for commercial cases but as far as things like criminal offences and marriage and divorce are concerned they should be regarded as being within the realm of "public order" (or at least they are under Turkish law) and a tribunal would not be able to decide on such matters.With respect to your rant, I have the following problem with it. To continue with the Turks in Germany examlpe, it's not the Germans fault that those people couldn't find work in Turkey and left to work in Germany. Therefore you shouldn't expect them to conform to your belief system as much as you should conform to theirs. After all it is their house. Of course when we get to the second and third generation Gastarbeiters then the problem changes. It's understandable to tell a fresh off the train foreigner to learn the language, respect local customs. But how can you tell a German citizen whose father was born in Germany to respect the local culture. Wouldn't he say I'm as German as you, my culture is at least a part of the local culture? I honestly don't know where to draw the line. Sheria (which is actually a bad example becasue we've had a secular legal system in Turkey for almost a century now) is bad but doner kebap is good? Whether we like it or not the world is a much smaller place and is getting smaller by the minute if you ask me. And expecting every country to stay the same in the faace of such a huge populace interaction just isn't realistic in my opinion. 50 years ago we would've needed 6-8 months to carry on this "conversation" thru letters. IF those letters didn't get lost on the way. 500 years ago we'd be obliged to kill each other.  ;DBut now you're conversing with a real life "infidel" about developents in a country which neither of us live in. So even if you send the foreigner "home" physically, the cultural interaction remains. All I'm saying is that all our respective cultures need to adapt to this change.

You are right; the world is becoming a much smaller place.  Tolerance is needed even more.  Notice I do not say agreement but tolerance.  I don?t agree with everything but I do try to tolerate it.  I actually like talking to people of different viewpoints it makes my own worldview expand.  I spent a year in Iraq in 2004-2005 and I met some very interesting people.  I didn?t agree with them on everything but they did have some interesting and thought provoking things to say.  The fact that we can communicate without name calling and derogatory arguments shows that we are both tolerant.  Religion and ethnicity can be enriching and should go some way to define an individual but in the end we are all still members of the human race and that should count for something too.  I am a Catholic and American but that does not mean that I cannot have a civil conversation with someone who is not. 

I can't think of a sane, civilized person who'd disagree with this. But now we come to the real question: when does tolerance becomes intolerance by virtue of the things it tolerates. When the brits tolerate sheria is this a form of intolerance because the women concerned will not be able to "opt out" of becoming subjects to such arbitrary (in every sense of the word) legal system and thus not being able to enjoy the rights and freedoms other women of their own nationality enjoy. I can guess your answer to my hypothetical but exactly where exactly would you draw the line?ps: I really didn't mean to cause offense by the Darwinism comment, it was meant as tonge-in-cheek but I forgot to put one these  😉 at the end. Altough I consider myself deist and don't believe in organized religion of any kind I respect the institutions and what they mean to believers.

Ok, now I have had time to think of a more well thought out reply.  I hope I am not too convoluted.  I have tried to avoid metaphysics but that is not always possible when talking about things like this.  So here it is.

This is a good one and it defies a simple or easy answer.  I think it goes back to the culture question.  Since we were talking about Sharia Law I will use that as an example.  Sharia Law is obviously the basis for much of the law codes of Middle Eastern countries and that is the way it should be because those are predominantly Muslim countries with Muslim cultures and histories.  By contrast, most western countries have legal traditions based on Roman Law and that also have been influenced by enlightenment and renaissance thought.  Some of the punishments under Sharia law are incompatible with western legal traditions and western law as it currently stands.  That is also as it should be.The problem comes when Muslims want to institute Sharia law n western society and westerners want to impose western values on Muslims, both are wrong.  This is not moral relativism, this is moral realism.  I can and do disagree with many of the tenets of Muslim tradition where they conflict with my core values.  In much the same way my values conflict with some Muslim values.  The high profile differences are the ways in which westerners and Muslims treat women, property, and religion.  I should be free to express my values in my home country and deplore what I find deplorable in others; that is tolerance. I have no right to go to a Muslim or any other country and impose my values upon them.  Conversely, they should not expect to come to my country and have my culture change because my core values are not the same.  This is a variation on the smoking in my house analogy.Tolerance is letting someone follow their cultural traditions in my country to the point where that practice does not conflict with my core values.  To say that tolerance means allowing anything because I have no right to express my values is ridiculous.  It is not intolerant to object to things and practices that conflict with core values; intolerance is not allowing any practice other than what fits within my core values.Or you can go the other way and say that everything but the values of my culture is good.  That is the way I see the liberals of western society going.  Western liberals seem to have so much self-loathing that they refuse to recognize that there is anything redeeming about the culture and society in which they were born.  I also think in their zealousness of promoting non-conformity they have merely introduced a new orthodoxy that says anything not of the west is automatically of more worth simply because it is not of the west.

Simply put, yes.  I think this is a perfect example of intolerance.  It also exemplifies my previous point about liberal self-loathing.  Why is it OK for Muslim women to not enjoy the same rights and privileges as non-Muslim women in a western country?  I don?t understand the logic behind this at all.

I draw the line at practices that conflict with my core values.  If that makes me intolerant then so be it, I have been called worse things.  I refuse to compromise my own principles on the altar of some misperceived idea of diversity for its own sake.  I am more than willing to accept new ideas but only if I see something in them that is worthy or redeeming.

  No offense taken, if nothing else I am thick skinned and hope I can tell a light-hearted quip when I see one.You consider yourself a deist of what sort, Enlightenment or Renaissance?  And what is the big difference between deism and agnosticism?  I have always thought the two were essentially different sides of the same coin.