My life is full of excitement, community participation.

The recent burning of a Jordanian pilot is the latest in a long line of murderous outrages perpetrated by Islamic “extremists.”

The wave of terror recognizes no official borders in the Middle East, where millions of people have been dislocated or slaughtered. And now Iraq, Syria and Libya are examples of three failed states in the region.

ISIS, al-Qaida and their murderous offshoots will be turning their attention to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. These allies are the largest buyers of U.S. military hardware. What are they doing with these armaments? Collecting them?

Why is there military talk in this country about providing limited American help? Why are we flying most of the bombing runs over there?

Why aren’t Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and other Middle East states fighting in their own war?

During the onset of World War II, the United States (as a declared neutral) supplied arms, munitions and even warships to Great Britain and others. We told the world we were the “Arsenal of Democracy.”

In the beginning, we fought the war largely by proxy. We were on the side of democracy and against the fascists and dictators who were set on conquest and murder. Today the Kurds, Israelis, Ukrainians and others are engaged in a similar fight.

They are not asking for American troops but are hoping that same Arsenal of Democracy will give them the tools to hold back and defeat the tyrants who are on the march. Today, we threaten “sanctions,” which are largely ineffective.

We can make a difference by lending support to our true friends.

David Brooks notes in his view “From the Right” (Feb. 6) that there has been an increase in the number of people, especially the young, who describe themselves as “unaffiliated” with a religion. Brooks opines that this group of “secularists” suffer from, among other things, a lack of a moral philosophy, an ab- sence of a community with sacred rituals, and no Sabbath.

It is puzzling that Brooks should extol religion in general and the emotions it provokes, considering the world is faced with unprecedented religious strife. I would cite the divisions in Islam, the sexual offenses by members of the Catholic Church, and the resurgence of anti-Semitism as examples.

One troubling aspect of Brooks’ position is his view that secularists have no fire in their hearts that is comparable to those who follow a religion and pray to a deity. That might be akin to claiming that a voter who is an independent, not a Repub- lican or a Democrat, is not as stirred emotionally by political issues as are members of a major party with a traditional set of values.

Yet the U.S. has independent Sens. Angus King and Bernie Sanders, who are deeply concerned with current national problems.

I cannot be convinced that there is a magical superhuman creature who put the universe together and seeks my devotion. Yet my life is full of love, excitement, conviction, community participation and advocacy — even in my ninth decade.

Continuing coverage of the measles-vaccination story leads me to ask how can it be the “duty of government” to protect the unborn (according to the website of Sen. Rand Paul, www.paul.senate.gov)? Yet he says government should be barred from mandating vaccinations?

Can there be any logic to the idea that a fetus has greater rights to government protection than a 5-year-old heading off to the exposure of a classroom? The libertarian golden rule is that government should not mandate personal decisions about one’s own life. And, of course, parents of minor children speak for them.

But libertarian logic has critical flaws. Clearly, abortion is the exception to the golden rule — freedom of self-choice — of libertarian philosophy. But if free choice is valued above all, and government intervention is decried, why do the purveyors of free choice believe police should risk their lives to thwart an attempted suicide?

And if parents are the arbiters of what is right for their children, would the likes of Gov. Chris Christie seriously argue that it is a parental choice whether minor children should be allowed to work in coal mines?

The real golden rule regarding individual rights should be “The rights of the minority, unless they affect the rights of the majority.”

The Post strongly suggests that politics be put aside and real immigration reform legislated. I submit that the Republicans who control the House and Senate will try to push forward a bill or bills to repair the system and that politics will raise its head.

Bills that secure the border against illegal immigration will be filibustered in the Senate by Democrats, or vetoed by the president. A bill that restricts wealth transfer to illegal immigrants will be filibustered in the Senate or vetoed by President Barack Obama.

A bill that allows for a path to citizenship for people who violated our laws may be signed, but, more than likely, the president will find it too restrictive or too difficult for those it would affect.

A bill that increases the numbers of professional and educated immigrants allowed into the country will be filibustered or vetoed.

Thursday’s letter-writer of “Reject Obama’s socialist mantra” wrote “socialism has a dismal record of failure.” Apparently, he isn’t familiar with Canada, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand and many other successful socialist countries.

We do not, however, have a socialist country or a socialist president. Unemployment and consumer confidence trends have reversed direction under the Obama administration, and the Dow topped 18,000 for the first time. In 2013, Forbes magazine wrote, “the president deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership.” Obviously, Barack Obama is not a socialist.

In response to Feb. 7’s letter, “Stand proudly on debt U.S. has racked up”: It took the U.S. years to accumulate $9 trillion in national debt. It has doubled in the six years President Barack Obama has been in office.

Does that make the writer feel warm and fuzzy?