The Waziristan Conundrum

Put rather aptly by a Catholic Congress from Ibadan,
the dichotomy is between two views on government: The
first type of government is controlled by men of
religion. The second type is not.

Again we consider legitimacy and use as an example
the Iraq war. We point and say EVEN Americans
were against the war.

"But they voted George Bush into power"

It is true. And yet, during the campaign most
Jews felt Obama to be pro-Israel. Legitimacy.
In which way is it most accorded its due?
By an act of God, for instance, the current
Sultan of Sokoto rules the Kingdom of Sokoto.
His legitimacy is thus assured until his memoirs
are done being studied at the university in Timbuktoo.
This could be centuries away. And so we ask,
does religion not confer legitimacy upon rulers,
at least MORE than irreligion? If the argument
is that men who are not of the cloth can
as well be demonstrated to have been led to
a higher calling... then...

Waziristan.

The man says to me, "Americans are immoral. They
are sluts and prostitutes. They..."
He went on and on.

I told him that his analysis was wrong, for the
Americans I know are exactly the opposite. They
too frown at bad things.

"But why do they allow it?" the Muslim asked.
"The Illustration."
"Huh?"

The illustration. According to the Jehovah's Witnesses,
God uses a time (and times then half a time) to demonstrate all truth
that is disputed by Satan, and so these vices are tolerated until
the great day of judgment for each vice.

"Aha..
Aha...

...an so began the conversation