Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
What a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world we live in. It's amazing what people will do to justify their imaginary friends and what they are willing to do to prove that their imaginary friend is better than yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Some imaginary friends, in terms of "can't we all just get along", are better then other imaginary friends. They're even better than some real folks who pretend to be friends. Certainly better than real folks who pretend to be friends in order to more easily "turn" you to their way of thinking, even if it eventually means that you give up real freedoms for phony promised ones.
Really "real" friends would value you for your unique "person" and not try to mold you into a tool or drone for the maintenance of some utopianized society. That is, in-the-flesh real friends would accept you, warts and all, and not propose to make you a robotic version of a human being. Some imaginary friends (good ones?) have room in their paradise for the variety created by God, or Nature, or Random Accident (take your pick of "creator"). Really real friends also do.
In-the-flesh but phony friends secretly despise the infinite variety which makes it more difficult to operate an efficient, trouble free society. But real friends would ask, if you cannot accept them as they are, that you would not force them to accept you. That if the difference is so great, then disassociation would be more friendly than forced association.
"Real" friends are not necessarily better than "imaginary" ones. And if you believe the relativist, all are imaginary anyway. And if you believe the statist, only those who are servants of the state can be friends--all others are enemies of the imaginary public good or public friendship.
Back to the topic of the thread, "Paris,"--that horror is a slice of what to expect worldwide until the unfriendly enemy is defeated. The manner we seem to be using to defeat it is being as friendly to it as possible. That's a secular Christian-like gesture toward a very un-secular un-Christian non-friend. It might aid Christians to a quicker path to heaven, but might well lead secularists, and the rest of us with them, to a living "real" hell.
Why, in the face of demographic evidence, of forthright Islamic mission statements, and of expanding militant Islamic violence, do we keep turning a bruised cheek? Or, at best, resort to half measure retaliation? It doesn't make a lot of rational sense to allow the threat to grow larger until it becomes so apparently huge that only then, when the enemy has become stronger and stronger, only then to be serious about defeating it.
I wonder if, like the communist infiltration into the U.S government, and especially the FDR administration, of the 1930's and 1940's, which actually had an impact on our policies toward the Soviets, and China, and Japan, and was a factor in instigating the war with Japan, to the benefit of communism in the East--if something similar, perhaps on a smaller scale at this point, is happening by an infiltration of Islamists into our federal administration? We certainly, and strangely, seem to favor Islamists in our policies and rhetoric over old allies such as Israel. Just a thought.