White house chastises media !

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Come on August, I expect better than that from you.

That is the sort of statement I would expect from subman1.

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Well think about it for a second. During the election major political hay was made over McCain possibly dying in office and Palin taking over like that was something to be feared, but then the Dems install a known dumbass like Joe Biden as Veep?

Doesn't that strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

"Known dumbass"? Sorry, but I don't recall a speech Biden made where he said that as VP he'd have total control over the Senate, that he was able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska, nor do I remember an interview (or general question, for that matter) where he could not name a single Supreme Court case.

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat. When will your lot understand the difference? Sorry for the excessive use of emoticons, but he is right: this sounds exactly like something SUBMAN would say.

[CaptainHaplo]

why you're seeing more people take the Separation of Church & State clause more seriously

What "clause" would that be?

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation. People THINK their is because they are ill informed. Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What "clause" would that be?

Well to name one, the "No Religious Test Clause".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is no constitutional basis for such a seperation.

Article 6, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That is a form of Separation of Church & State, and it is within the Constitution. Argue about it all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is although the specific phrase isn't in there, the principles/ideas of the phrase are. Similarly, nowhere in the Constitution will you find phrases "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does that mean no citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Or that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not. The absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. To put it bluntly, the right to a fair trial is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise (and I only consider the moral aspect here because you seem so hell-bent on always talking about them, even though they are really quite useless in a debate or in real life because you will always have people with different moral opinions and beliefs around you).

Furthermore, this is what the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Nothing is mentioned in there about a "fair trial"- but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials, that being public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thusly so, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional. It's a simple matter of law and logic.


Additionally, the courts have found that the principles of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Again, separating religious beliefs from state affairs. Try and spin it how you want, but the words and ideas of the Framers are spelled out quite clearly there.

To cite something outside of the Constitution that further signifies that the United States holds true these beliefs, I also call to your attention the Treaty of Tripoli's statement that:

{Article 11} As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

People THINK their is because they are ill informed.

Oh the irony runs as thick as a vein of curd here.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its ideal originates in a Supreme Court decision that used a personal letter from Jefferson to the Danville Baptists that had the phrase. The decision referenced that phrase in an attempt to ramrod such a seperation into being.

Well as you can see above, that's not the case. But persist if you wish. It's your right to, no matter how wrong it may be. It was also the DanBURY Bapists, BTW.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The phrase as used by Jefferson was simply a reference to the fact that government should not mandate a religion, not that religious views (or people) should be excluded from recognition or acceptance in governance of the country.

This is somewhat incorrect (but not totally). As far as law interpretation is concerned, it is incorrect however. Jefferson's writings have been used as, for the last two centuries, a means for making legal rulings, by courts in all jurisdictions. In the 1879 decision of Reynolds v. the United States, for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment."

The man himself didn't see the letter as an unimportant one. He had Levi Lincoln, the attorney general under him at the time, review it to him before he sent it. Jefferson even told Lincoln that he considered this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."


The letter itself has a clear connection to the First Amendment. Even the phrase "wall of separation" stands as a direct testament and reference to it (does the specific quote from the Constitution ring any bells up there for you?). He meant it to have a larger political meaning. This is not a matter of opinion, but one of historical fact and logic. And an excellent example of why would be his efforts to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that:


...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...


But don't confuse me on this, I know full and well that he was not an Atheist, just as you k now full and well that he was not a Christian. He was a self-professed Deist.

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your professional foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of.


There was also her interview with Charlie Gibson where she discussed Russia, but that yielded fewer lulz. The SNL skit certainly delivered however.

Originally Posted by August

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Actually, there is such a thing as Conservative Democrats, which are on the right side of the spectrum. But you just forgot about them... right?

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

*random pictures of ducks*

Do you ever contribute anything more than just image macros to a debate, or is it that you in fact have nothing to contribute? I'm guessing it's that you have nothing to contribute, yet you feel the need to get your political beliefs in there somehow- be it in a rational manner or not.

Anyway, you would be wise to note that National Socialism is generally a right-wing political system (as in there are more right-wing ideas it incorporates than left-wing ones), though it denotes its beliefs from both sides of the spectrum. But don't take my word for it. Try our beloved Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

Take note of the latter, if you'd kindly.

[CaptainHaplo]

...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...

You say this somehow states that a man cannot use, as a basis for his decisions as a governmet official, his own religious beliefs? In fact, it says exactly the opposite - that while government may not REQUIRE a man to support any worship, it also has no right to REQUIRE a man to NOT have his own opinions that may be based on his religious stance.

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

NO religious test..... so if a man is religious, and would use his moral or ethical compass, which is often based on faith, your saying that this is a violation of the "church and state clause", when in reality your applying a "religious test" to the person simply because of his faith - which violates the clause you claim supports your position.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Again - you cannot prohibit a government official from the "free exercise" of their beliefs - but the claim that there is a "wall" between church and state that is somehow sacrosanct directly contradicts the free exercise.

The only way you could have total seperation of church and state is if government was restricted to those who identify themselves as athiests, and even then, some could argue that athiesm is nothing but the religion of "no god".

There is a huge difference between the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion and having people of faiths involved in government.

You can try and twist it however you want, but NO religious test means exactly that.

It should also be noted, since you bring up the Treaty of Tripoli, that Article 11 of said treaty in reality does not exist as claimed.

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

This is a quote directly from the notes of one Hunter Miller, who was commissioned by the US Government to analyze the treaty in 1931.

You may find the information here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

I totally concur that the US is not a "christian" nation as many claim, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, yet there is no denying the fact that deists and christians share both a very similiar moral and ethical code that stems from common roots.

[Skybird]

The freedom to practice religion freely ends where this practice means the limitation of the freedom of others that do not want to participate in that practicing. The freedom of free religious practice also means the freedom FROM religious practice. Your freedom ends where you start limiting the freedom of others for the sake of increasing your own beyond theirs.

The first amendement is very clear, CaptainHaplo. and yes, it does serve as a very logical and solid reason for secular state order and separation of state and church.

A religion claiming the right to enter the public sphere, is no more a spiritual thing. It is then acting purely political. The first amendement makes it clear that the state should not assist that kind of interests.

Or very simply said: your freedom to practice your religion ends where you limit my freedom not needing to take note of it if I do not wish to be effected by your religion. You are causing something, so it is your duty to make sure the consequence does not worry others anymore. Like the radio you turned up too loud. Not the others have to move away or arrange themselves with it, but you have to turn down the volume.

Because of the two, freedom from religion is so much more important for people than the freedom to religion.



I recommend carefully reading the pieces of info here:
http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment
'Seperation of Church and State': a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

In a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)
"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [forbid] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…."
James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:
"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].
U.S. Supreme Court

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
[Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of a God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
[Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)]
Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court:



'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

• A law must have a secular purpose.
• It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
• It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

More
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion."
[Melvin v. Easley (1860)]
"First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another."
[Justice Tom C. Clark, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]
"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
[Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 (1968)]


Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You say this somehow states that a man cannot use, as a basis for his decisions as a governmet official, his own religious beliefs? In fact, it says exactly the opposite - that while government may not REQUIRE a man to support any worship, it also has no right to REQUIRE a man to NOT have his own opinions that may be based on his religious stance.

The Danbury Baptists wanted free of extreme oppression, and they were being discriminated against to the point where members were being beaten and exiled from the community. And this is exactly what Jefferson is making reference to: extreme oppression. The principle of separation of church and state as the Constitution does is not endorse that kind of behavior. It does, however, maintain that the government keep religious and political affairs separate. That's all. Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment makes that point quite clear. And that's the simplicity of it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

NO religious test..... so if a man is religious, and would use his moral or ethical compass, which is often based on faith, your saying that this is a violation of the "church and state clause", when in reality your applying a "religious test" to the person simply because of his faith - which violates the clause you claim supports your position.

You fail to see the point: this is separating religion from state affairs. No religious tests shall be used as a necessary qualification for a position in service of public affairs. Again, this upholds the idea of separation of church and state. It's not hard to understand. You're making it more complex than it is.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Again - you cannot prohibit a government official from the "free exercise" of their beliefs - but the claim that there is a "wall" between church and state that is somehow sacrosanct directly contradicts the free exercise.

Outside of their office. Inside, it's a different story. For example, a principle of a public high school is an official of a state establishment. He/she has a right to exercise his/her religious beliefs freely outside of the school. Inside, however, he/she is bound by United States law which states that he/she cannot force students to pray, push a specific religious stance on them, etc. Again, they are separating his/her state affairs as an official of the of the public high school from personal religious/church affairs. You can prohibit them in this case. And it can be applied to other government offices. Now a private school is a different story. Because it's not a state establishment, you're only bound by what the officials of it have set in place.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The only way you could have total seperation of church and state is if government was restricted to those who identify themselves as athiests, and even then, some could argue that athiesm is nothing but the religion of "no god".

You misunderstand the primary intent of the law here: keep religion out of your line of work (I'm speaking strictly from the politician's perspective here) because the people you're working for all have different beliefs, regarding all kinds of issues; it's fine to have a personal opinion about such matters outside of the office, but inside you are not there to worship; you are there to do your duty according to the law.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. Really not a belief in anything. Not by popular consensus, but by definition.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is a huge difference between the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion and having people of faiths involved in government.

No, there isn't. Again you fail to see the point: all religious affairs are to be kept out of state ones. It's simple. And to be honest, it really isn't that bad of a deal. People just feel the need to push their beliefs on others. I have the utmost respect for the ones who can keep their mouths shut about their faith, but too many cannot. But the meaning of this is that the United States cannot be classified solely as a Christian nation, an Islamic nation, a Jewish nation, a Mormon nation, etc. It takes no specific stance, because that's not the purpose for it existence; just as the people who work in the infrastructure of government itself- their purpose is not to worship or carry out their religious practices while in office, but to do the duty their job demands as an important member of the state, as a gear/cog in the machine that is the nation. Outside, they're free to pray, worship, do whatever they want along the lines of religion. Inside, they are there to keep the country alive, in good shape, and with it help the people to whatever ends.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You can try and twist it however you want, but NO religious test means exactly that.

You're running just off the title, not what the full clause says. The simple fact of the matter is that clause (a verified legal document) combined with Article 3 of the Sixth Amendment (a supreme legal document) makes it quite clear that separation of church and state is to be held in high regard as inherent law.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It should also be noted, since you bring up the Treaty of Tripoli, that Article 11 of said treaty in reality does not exist as claimed.

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

This is a quote directly from the notes of one Hunter Miller, who was commissioned by the US Government to analyze the treaty in 1931.

You may find the information here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

You're forgetting that it's not the Arabic version that was presented to, read aloud to, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate. Whether or not the Arabic version states that or not is irrelevant, because the fact remains that the English Barlow copy (with Article 11 included) of the Treaty of Tripoli, preserved in Washington, D.C.'s National Archives, is the one that the Senate agreed to, and it states that:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I totally concur that the US is not a "christian" nation as many claim, the majority of the founding fathers were deists, yet there is no denying the fact that deists and christians share both a very similiar moral and ethical code that stems from common roots.

Deists ascribe to the belief that a higher power created the universe in which we reside, and then, for whatever reason that they or someone that they follow and hold in high regards, abandoned it. Moral and ethics need not be denied, because all Deists vary in their morals and ethics; all people do really. It depends on the upbringing they've had. For instance, Benjamin Franklin was not at all Christianlike in his actions; the man drank and partied all the time, he had frequent affairs while away in France, he fathered several bastard children, and he basically didn't take care any further of his family after he journeyed for the last time to Paris.

[August]

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be ). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

Well thank you for once again proving my point SH, (or Tina as the case may be ). At no time did Palin ever use the words "comment expertly".

Nope, but she is the one who was described as the professional in foreign policy experience.

Originally Posted by August

See, the truth comes out if one digs deep enough. You Democrats,... excuse me, Social Democrats, had better not get too used to having a political majority. The American people are starting to see through you.

Right, right. I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, though. But whatever. From the defensive behavior you Republicans seem to be showing on these issues (not to mention the touchiness and sensitivity) I sense your confidence in victory over the Democrats is now wavering. It is nevertheless interesting viewing the reactions from both sides in the stands.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

able to comment expertly on diplomatic affairs with Russia just because it's possible to see it from the island chain tip in Alaska,

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?

And for the 1001th time, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Social Democrat

Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?



Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Lol, Social democrats in my country are the right wing party. There's no left left in the states , only center right (democrats) and far right (GOP).

[August]

Originally Posted by SS107.9MHz

Lol, Social democrats in my country are the right wing party. There's no left left in the states , only center right (democrats) and far right (GOP).

That's nice.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

And when did she claim to be able to "comment expertly". Is your real name Tina Fey?



Tomato "tohmato". You're all leftists and center-leftists.

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:


social democrat:


national socialist


socialist


hope~change

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Here August I'll explain:

Democrat:


national socialist


socialist


hope~change

Let me explain too.

GOP


Nazis


Neo-nazis