What's a Little Loss of Privacy for the Sake of Security?

So what's the big deal anyway? We sacrifice a little privacy for the sake of security. I mean, have we forgotten so quickly the images of the planes flying into the Twin Towers and the desperately hopeless bodies flailing out of the windows of the buildings to their deaths, right before it collapsed and came crashing to the ground? Those images are so horrible to relive that we have to do something, right? We all know our borders aren't secure, so we have to do something about those anti-American terrorists over here plotting our deaths on our own soil. So if the government wants to ensure our safety, then it must be able to take whatever measures necessary in order to make sure it can spy on whomever it deems necessary. If that means that they need to monitor our phone records which will inevitably lead to listening to our phone calls without our consent, (who are they trying to fool?), big deal! If I am not doing anything wrong then it shouldn't matter, right? So what if they know I'm talking to my Mom about my travel plans to Florida this summer, or to my friend about my latest recipe endeavor? Isn't the safety of thousands or maybe even millions of Americans more important? And they are only really interested in the bad guys anyway. But, wait a minute! What is a bad guy? What is a terrorist? I just looked up several definitions, which basically say about the same thing.

A terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Now I am asking this question because several years ago I had a rather lengthy dialogue with a penpal of mine from South Africa. She is a Muslim girl that I didn't know throughout the years of writing to her that she held very strong anti-American sentiments. Right after 9/11 we began discussing the events of the time, which inevitably led the discussion up to the entire Intifada movement in Israel. Suicide bombings were a daily occurrence. However to her, the Palestinians involved in the suicide bombings were "freedom fighters". This didn't surprise me since everything that she and I discussed, I had heard many times by those who shared her views. Those that I saw as terrorists, she regarded as freedom fighters. So the question is:

Is being a terrorist in the eye of the beholder?

If being a terrorist is indeed in the eye of the beholder, then who is deemed a terrorist depends on who is defining the person, right? Yes sure today when we think of a terrorist we think of someone of Middle Eastern descent with very radical views and bent of the destruction of Israel and America (mainly for her support of Israel). Basically, this person we believe is against peace and against what we stand for in our country. This is mainly who our current president has in mind and is targeting. But Bush has only a short time left as our leader and new leaders will eventually emerge on the scene, with the same laws, giving the same liberties, on the books. Now we have someone else doing the "beholding". Now this new person with access to the same laws, giving the same liberties to the government, is defining who a terrorist is. Sure, the goal remains to target those that are against peace and against what we stand for. But what do we stand for? Do we even agree as Amercians on that? The big buzz word in our country is that everloving "T" word - Tolerance. After all, those terrorists sure aren't tolerant of those who disagree with their political views, are they? But there are also others that aren't tolerant either- like those Christians who believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. They are in essence saying that no one can get to heaven except by believing in Jesus. Now that isn't very tolerant in light of the fact that most people in the world do not believe in Jesus.

So now we have to revisit that definition of a terrorist.

A terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

There is no doubt that the whole thought of your way as being the only way is pretty radical. That fundamentalist "Religious Right" group is for sure influential in the political arena. They are always sticking their noses in political affairs. Gee, haven't these people ever heard of separation of church and state? But do they use terror? Well, what can be more terrorising than the thought of eternal punishment? They certainly organize in small groups with others like them under the name of religion. Oh my goodness, I think we have another terrorist organization! Of course they don't believe that they are terrorists, but isn't being a terrorist in the eye of the beholder?

OK, so now I am a leader of the most powerful nation in the world and I have deemed that these Christians are a terrorist organization. They are certainly against the American values of peace and tolerance because they won't let go of their radical, intolerant views of Jesus being the only way to salvation. Their political influence is making it impossible to move forward as a nation because they refuse to embrace the ideas of all the other religions represented in the country. They also keep trying to push their own values on the culture, like trying to make us look at those laws reflecting their values called the Ten Commandments on our public properties. What is the difference between them and radical Islam? Can't see much. After all, one uses physical intimidation and the other uses psychological intimidation. Hey, I know it is a stretch but I am doing the "beholding" so I can judge however I want, remember?

Well, luckily we have these laws on the book that our previous president George W. Bush put in place years ago, among which makes it legal for the government to spy on its citizens if it believes that they may be engaged in terrorist activities. We must keep watch on those Christians and monitor their movements. After all, now that we have deemed that they are terrorists, their rights as American citizens are now forfeited.

So what is a little privacy forfeited in the name of security? What is the big deal anyway? Who is it going to hurt? After all, they are only going after the terrorists and not regular, law-abiding citizens like you and me, right?


Farfetched?

Well, we know that the scriptures tell us that there is going to be a coming world leader who will have control over the whole world, and who will not be very friendly to Christians.

Rev. 13:7 And the beast was allowed to wage war against God's holy people and to overcome them. And he was given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation.

Now this world leader is going to have incredible control, even over our economic system, as we have not seen in our country in our lifetime.

Rev. 13: 16-17 He required everyone-great and small, rich and poor, slave and free-to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. 17 And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.

But in our country? Our free country? How can that happen? Well, it will happen because the scriptures tell us so. How do we lose our sovereignty and freedoms? Just one little security-building law at a time.

(I wrote this commentary in response to this news item: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm )