Last night I watched a Canal Plus video from its Petit Journal program interviewing a darling little boy. Canal Plus banned it on YouTube for copyright reasons but you can watch it at the HuffPo, which also translated:

In an interview posted by the French news broadcast Le Petit Journal on Monday, a reporter asks a young French boy if he understands why terrorists attacked Paris on Friday, killing at least 129 people and injuring 350.

“Yes, because they’re very very very mean,” the boy replies. “The bad guys aren’t very nice. And we really have to be careful because we have to change homes.”

His dad coaxes him, saying, “No, don’t worry, we don’t have to change homes. France is our home.”

“But there are bad guys, Daddy!” the boy says.

“Yes, but there are bad guys everywhere,” his father counters. 

“They have guns, they can shoot at us because they have guns and are bad,” the boy continues. 

“Well, they have guns, but we have flowers,” the father says.

“But flowers don’t do anything,” the boy argues.

“See all the flowers?” his dad asks. “They’re to fight against the guns.”

“Are they there to protect?” the boy asks. “The candles too?”

“There you go,” his dad says. “It’s to not forget those who left us yesterday.”

“The flowers and the candles,” the boy concludes, “they’re there to protect us.” 

The reporter jumps back in and asks the boy, “So are you feeling better?”

“Yep,” he says. I’m feeling better.”

Now, I understand that Le Petit Journal is a program interviewing kids, and that Dad may be having a Kumbaya moment in front of the cameras not to alarm the little kids in the audience, but . . . my reaction was “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND, DAD?”

Even the five-year old (excuse me for the guess, he may be older) is aware of the fact that “flowers don’t do anything,” other than, perhaps, give you a feel-good moment.

You may recall that last January 7 Islamist terrorists killed the Charlie Hebdo staff. Last Friday’s massacre was also well-planned, premeditated, and meant to be an attack on civil society, be it in France or anywhere in the world. Like Friday’s attack, the victims were unarmed.

Like there were in January, there are now a lot of public displays of grief, with flowers, candles and sundry tchotchkes, including a guy who carried his piano on his bicycle so he could play Imagine in front of the Bataclan, where five score people were massacred.

Like in January, the perpetrators inflicted chaos on a people who could not imagine what they were up to:
Nothing is a more reliable indicator of a lack of imagination than singing “Imagine”.

While we were “living for today”, Islam was playing for tomorrow. When you sing “Imagine”, you’re saying you can’t imagine anything beyond the torpor of the moment. You can’t imagine that there are people who don’t think as you do, and who regard the cobwebbed boomer-pop solidarity as confirmation of nothing more than your flaccid passivity.

Our enemies understand how myopic we are. They attack a concert by Eagles of Death Metal, which is not without a certain blood-soaked irony: In our world, “death metal” is a genre at iTunes. [UPDATE: Those who know these things tell me Eagles of Death Metal is not a “death metal” band, which I suppose makes the name an ironic commentary upon a genre at iTunes.] In our enemies’ world, the term is literal: They bring real death metal to our “death metal” concerts, and pile high the corpses. In our world, it’s all pose and attitude. In theirs, these words still have meaning.

As I write this post, the police were met with heavy gunfire (in a gun-free zone) as they raided an apartment in their search for Friday’s mastermind.

The HuffPo weeps that “only love can protect Paris.” Let’s hope things don’t get to the point that only Patton’s army can protect Paris, because this time – with Secretary of State Kerry conceding “legitimacy” to terrorists’ motives – Patton isn’t coming.

There will be a lot more flowers on the graves.

UPDATE:
Linked to by Batshit Crazy News. Thank you!

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog. As for weepy candlelight vigils, I’m with Iowahawk (NSFW)

Just a reminder that pretending to be a hero who fights for the west in movies doesn’t make it so in reality.

Details: Is it true that when you stay at hotels you tear out the Bible page that condemns homosexuality?

Ian McKellen: I do, absolutely. I’m not proudly defacing the book, but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I’m not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages — Leviticus 18:22 — that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.

That a member of the race that fought the book burning Nazis is doing this is frankly an insult to the memory of those who fought to destroy them but Sir Ian’s actions bring up three interesting thoughts.

The first is the obvious question to one familiar with scripture:  Why pull the pages from Leviticus but not from St. Paul’s 2nd letter to the Corinthians:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I can’t see why one would leave St. Paul and the New Testament alone when it is much more read than Leviticus.  If the goal is to prevent people from reading that message the logical move would be to pull both or if one is removing only one, the latter.  I’m presuming it’s sheer ignorance on his part but given attempts to spin the New Testament lately by revisionist scholars perhaps doing so would be damaging to those efforts.  It would be a public statement that Christ stands against this sin and this would undermine too many pretending something else.

The Second thought comes from this ironic passage via Instapundit concerning syrian refugees:

Sir Ian McKellen comments on the influx of Syrian refugees into Western nations. McKellen says these people should ‘be looked after’ until they can return to their home country and that we should trust authorities to weed out any individual who poses a threat.

I find this a rather odd contradiction give Islam’s great love for Homosexuality as the very publicly gay Milo Yiannopoulos:

So you can accuse me of being “islamophobic” if you want, because no, I don’t want to be shouted at or spat on in the street. Maybe my gayness is standing in the way of a Muslim utopia… but I’m going to be selfish here and say maybe we don’t import all the people who want to murder me.

I’m serious. Gay people are getting stoned to death all the time in the Middle East, and not in the fun way: in the throw-big-rocks-at-your-head-until-you-die way. I don’t mean to be callous, but what are we gaining by letting these people in? Why can’t we help them with overseas aid? Why do they need to come here? Aren’t we just encouraging more of them to risk the trip by throwing our borders open?

and we’re not just talking ISIS either:

These are the attitudes we’re importing by allowing millions of Muslims to settle in western Europe. Sorry if that sounds intolerant, but remember women and gays aren’t just treated like shit by ISIS, but mainstream Muslim culture, too. I can’t remember how many Muslim countries have the death penalty for homosexuality. What is it, ten? Eleven?

If Sir Ian can’t handle the christian scriptures, thousands of people bearing the Koran or books of Hadiths which are still being used to kill gays all over the world under local law should be unbearable for him.

We don’t have any word on if Sir Ian feels compelled to tear pages out of the Koran or of Islamic Hadiths when he encounters them.  Larry King didn’t bother to ask, if he does perhaps he may choose to keep quiet about it.

I can’t imagine why.

 

Finally and most revealing is his self congratulatory statement of restraint saying it’s a choice between defacing the book or throwing it away altogether.

What’s so interesting is that there is an obvious 3rd choice:  Leave the book alone. 

While we often hear the culture portray Christians of all stripes as “puritanical” and “intolerant” there seems to be a distinct lack of christians defacing or destroying what would be considered “gay friendly” material when encountering it during travel.

The fact that the wealthy and comfortable Sir Ian doesn’t seem to have the restraint that’s shown by the average Christian speaks volumes about the supposed tolerance and open-mindedness of the left but I suspect it speaks to something else.

As I’ve said many times no amount of belief on my part or disbelief on someone else’s part changes has any bearing on the actual truth of Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular (or any other religion for that matter).

As a Catholic the truth of the faith is a given and while I might object to the long term cultural damage the changes the left have brought to society I don’t let myself be made crazy by them because in the end none of it changes eternal truths.  My primary responsibility is my own soul.  While I might pray for and advise others concerning said truths in the hope helping them gain eternal life & sparing them the sufferings of eternal damnation the final responsibility for their souls is ultimately their concern and while it’s sad I don’t allow it to keep me from functioning.

Yet to McKellen who considers scripture a fantasy to be ignored and is clearly an educated man simply can’t handle a page in a book.

Mind you he doesn’t have to read that page, he doesn’t have to open the book in fact he doesn’t have to open the particular drawer that the book is in.  Simply knowing that a page in a book in a drawer in a room condemns his life choices is too much for him.

Now if he believes the Bible is just a fable and Christianity is just a made up religion such an obsession to destruction is beneath a man as erudite and educated as Sir Ian McKellen.  It’s an act that is completely irrational.

But if I’m right and the whole thing, Jesus, God, Angels, Devils etc are in fact reality than said obsession makes perfect sense.  It would mean that the page in that book is a reminder of a truth that can be denied only for a time, a truth that his guardian angel whispers in his ear, a truth that at age seventy is closing in.

Proverbs says:  The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD, (Proverbs 9:10a).  I submit and suggest that Sir Ian’s apparent fear is completely rational and is a sign of hope for him, because there is always the chance that said fear will move him to different action.

I wish him luck.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4400

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.