crfriend wrote:I'll point to 1930s Germany in this regard when power concentrated into the hand of one cadre of individuals; the US is on that slope now.
This occurred to me many months ago; I just didn't want to be the first to comment.
Indeed, there has been a steady surge of the politically far-right wing in many European countries in the past few years. It'd merely been 80 or so years, back in 2008, for us to forget about, and allow, the economic devastation of The Great Depression to recur. It's merely been 70 or so years since the end of WWII and what are we seeing?
I shudder!
Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Further details about
Pastor Martin Niemöller. May you reap what you sow!
Unfortunately, we in the UK collectively opted for "Brexit". Now, the reasoning may have been to "get back control", etc, etc... but the significance is that the EU provided stability. We are now seeing the rise of other "exiters" from the Netherlands, France, Germany....
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the rise of state control, intolerance of minorities, imposition of ideals on others; are we not on a slippery slope?
oldsalt1 wrote:CR do you really think that he would propose it if his staff hadn't checked for possible illegality.
In truth, yes. Many in the UK quote legislation, which has long since been superseded; I doubt you are immune from the same and those within the corridors of power are just as susceptible to error as us.
Darryl wrote:Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country.
I note that Darryl questions this anyway; since the Quran predates modern Constitutions and, indeed, probably didn't have to contend with borders as we now see them, I doubt it forbids in such terms.
From another thread, but salient here:
Moonshadow wrote:They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.