I agree with the comment sent to you. If we don't have choices, we don't have a way of narrowing the question. However, I think
First of all taking sides. The author means that you cannot afford to be silent. You must always voice what must be said. Others will know that truth is more important than private thoughts and it will be easier to make a united front. The problem the Jews had is that they could not believe that the Germans were that inhumane. Some of them were.
Neutrality has a problem. It means that with compromise, we can accept little wrongs which lead to much larger ones. You have to stop evil before it gets traction. So in the case of a Holocaust victim, neutrality is not an option. If you are a true Christian, you are not going to like that last statement. Unfortunately, the Nazis thrived on people not speaking and acting as though what they were doing didn't matter. It did.
The author means that you cannot afford to be silent. You must always voice what must be said. Others will know that truth is more important than private thoughts and it will be easier to make a united front. The problem the Jews had is that they could not believe that the Germans were that inhumane. Some of them were.
Neutrality has a problem. It means that with compromise, we can accept little wrongs which lead to much larger ones. You have to stop evil before it gets traction. So in the case of a Holocaust victim, neutrality is not an option. If you are a true Christian, you are not going to like that last statement. Unfortunately, the Nazis thrived on people not speaking and acting as though what they were doing didn't matter. It did.
In 1828, Jackson was elected president. He declared that the only hope for the Southeastern tribes' survival would be for them to give up all their land and move west of the Mississippi River. ... The U.S. government promised to compensate the tribes for the property they would have to abandon.
