That's because humans, by nature, are secular. The rise of Leftism, gay rights, Islam/new age religious tolerance, etc. are all a result of a society moving away from God and biblical principles. It is much worse now than even as recently as the 70s. Gays getting married in the 70s was unheard of. Now, one is labelled a bigotted extremist or homophobe if you are against it.But that's secularism for ya! Calling good evil and evil good. And it's only getting worse (as the Bible has accurately prohesied).
Rights for minorities and religious tolerance are result of progress of civilisation.Take a look - Where religious tolerance and rights for minorities don't exist?China, North Corea... very pious countries. Iran... another example of religious country.
In the past 30 or so years we see an increase in violence, immorality, crime, drug use, etc. Maybe there's a parallel between moving away from religion and societal collapse? Just stating an observation.
I live in a very religious/pious/etc. country. I can say immorality and crime have little to do with secularity.It's just human nature.
1. Jean Monnet2. Robert Schuman3. Paul-Henri Spaak4. Konrad Adenauer7. Johan Willem BeyenAll of them because they could overcome nationalism and revengefulness to build the European Community
Je suis d'accord 🙂
That assumes you think the EC is a good thing. I know plenty of Germans and some others that do not think it is. Personally, I am of two minds on it. It has good points and bad points.
See it for yourself. The ones listed on the site are:10. Ottoman9. Umayyad8. Persian7. Byzantine6. Han5. British4. Holy Roman3. Russian2. Mongol1. Roman
That's ridiculous. Mongols and Russia above British Empire?
Some have compared the Kennedy assassinations with that of the Gracchi (wealthy family demagoguing the masses), which began the decline to an Empire
I read Gracchi brothers were trying to change the situation of the common people ( the plebs. is correct word?). They were doing that because the decline of the Republic was already on the way. Rome was getting full of people without land - people who cannot served in Republic's army.
because of decline of patriotism.
and lack of money. Roman Empire under Diocletian - If I remember correctly - supported 300-600 thousand troops. That was a lot more than in Early Empire and still not enough.
I almost forgot about this great man, American journalist, Mr. Julien Bryan.He filmed our capital city during siege in 1939 and showed the movie in USA. It is said, he was the only foreign (neutral) journalist in besieged Warsaw.Here's a short story and some linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Bryan
Well, it's not that bad. If Swedish hadn't looted “the Polish Scroll” in 1655, it would have been looted or burnt for sure during next centuries.Fortunately, now it's safe in Stockholm 😉
Looted or collected ?Saved or removed?Keep or return ?TMHO A kind of never-ending debate for sure but whenever both sides are open-minded enough, a gentleman-agreement is always possible. Just like other sensitive matters, a kind of unwarranted nationalism (regarding the issue) might be the main and lone problem
Well, in my country it was mainly looting not collecting 🙂For example, gold regalia of our kings were looted by Austrians in late XVIII century and were melt down. There's only one rusty sword from X century left.
That's interesting.On my part I can say that some of art looted from PL is still in foreign museums and is going to stay there forever.An example - but not from WWII - is "Polish scroll". It's a painting from 1605 which shows arrival of the king Sigismund III Vasa to Krakow.It was looted in 1655 by our northern neighbours and is still kept in Stockholm.http://www.zamek-krolewski.pl/?page=2171
Good morning:)We have also some nice videos of what you call 'Blitz". Mostly B/W though.The one below was recorder during a siege of Warsaw in September 1939.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72BFkdI8alo&feature=relatedThe burning buliding on 2:07 is The Royal Palace.
I confess this forum really helps me to keep my English in use 🙂 I'd be glad for your corrections.As we know German point was to achieve a victory in 6 weeks. Everyone in Berlin assumed that beating Russia in 6 weeks is impossible but also assumed that Russian armies were unable attack Germany within first few weeks of war.In order to change the strategy they would have to change the way of thinking. 🙂