buckthesystem

Smalcald, to save room I have only quoted you latest post: "Do you own anything? If you own anything you used your government to enforce laws and contracts and provide a monetary system to allow you to use currency to buy things. Did you drive on a road today, if you did you used government services both to build and maintain and to plan the road. Were there traffic laws and signs on the road, if there were you used government services. Did you have to carry a firearm with you to protect yourself against bandits or against Muslim invaders? If you didn't you rely on your government services to protect you and to offer you a limited peace. Do you hold a deed to the land you own if you do your government provides the laws and stability that enforce that deed. These are things we all take for granted, but do not exist without good stable government. You cannot stretch Romans 13 to say anything except that it is speaking of government. Christ said to give Caesar what is his. The reason it is brilliant is that it does NOT say give any government simply anything, it says if you owe taxes pay them, if you owe honor give honor. Give to those that we OWE. I owe taxes and I owe honor and loyalty to my government. I don't have to take this deal, neither do you. We can leave, we can renounce our citizenship

Most of this morning I have been listening to a radio station with the testimonies of people who have come to know Jesus as their saviour. Many have had a "road to Damascus conversion", many have reached a desperate time in their lives where they have "reached the end of the road" and felt that there is no point in continuing to live and somehow they have heard Jesus say that he loves them and that has dramatically changed their attitude and many have "seen signs" and other miracles and have recognised them. I have read peoples' testimonies in various publications too and very often they are from people whose lives have "reached rock bottom" - they have been drug addicts or alcoholics or been really ill, declared bankrupt or, like one testimony, been a 16 year old girl who has found herself pregnant as the result of being raped and become suicidal, but heard from God and "it changed their lives". I am wondering why some and not others? I have known people who have been in all these situations and either have committed suicide or still have to live in that situation. My friend's daughter was 16 and pregnant as the result of rape and she didn't find God, she committed suicide and her mother in so cynical after finding her and having to "clean up the physical mess" and deal with the aftermath that she is struggling with her own faith. Compared to what others have been through, or are going through, I am not even in that category. However, I do suffer from long bouts of depression and have felt pretty distraught a lot of the time and prayed for God to be with me. Maybe he has been with me all the time and I haven't realised it, but it doesn't seem to me that he has. A theory is that some people are meant to be "saved" and everything comes together so that can be if they make the right choice. Maybe it is available to all of us and I just don't see it because I am too thick. What do others think?

Not everyone in the US lives like this. Not everyone is safe and secure. Let me add that Jews are being killed for being Jews... and Buddhists are killed for being Buddhists... and the list could go on. Sure we have problems, but if we rank ordered governments instituted since Christ, the United States government is one of the most legitimate and overall good governments to exist. It has problems, but nobody in the US worries about invasion for example or about hordes of foreign fighters taking their land, like people do in some parts of the world. Even the poorest communities are far better off than whole countries in other parts of the world. Could we do better? Yes we could, but in general we are at peace, we have a system of laws which are good and punishes evil, and we have a property rights system which works, we actually have a system. My point about persecution was that indeed Christians (and other faiths) in some parts of the world are truly persecuted, Christians in the US and in the West in general are not persecuted, but protected. We denigrate the very real sacrifice to death of these Christians, when we whine about our little problems. Our peace and our protections are a gift of God through reasonably good government I don't understand this strange overreaction against our government. Yet more reason to believe that Rom. 13 does not refer to worldly "authorities". If the idea that Paul was referring to "obeying politicians" in Rom. 13 was true then why would God endorse a country like the US of A which has "freedom of religion" alongside other nations where practising Christianity is a death sentence? BTW the present government in the US of A might be reasonably fair and benign but you should never be lulled into a sense of complacency about this. Leaders are subject to change in "no time" and hence policies of governments are subject to change just as quickly. It is also important to remember that "government makes a good servant, but a fearsome master". And (ok all the platitudes) "liberty is conditional on eternal vigilance" (or words to that effect, I am not that good at quotes). We must not ever give governments too much power, or revere them, the people who are "in government" cannot handle power and people end up by getting killed. As to your last sentence. I am not dis'ing your government particularly (it is not all good, but then compared to a lot of others it is, and I still believe in the old Jimmy Stewart films about "American Justice". I could be being naive, I don't know) but I am cautioning against people ever putting trust in earthly "authorities". I believe that just about all earthly "authorities" are inherently evil and are "paving the way for the Antichrist".

Cori I have absolutely no doubt that there is something to the "end times theory" and we should be ever watchful of world events. However, specifically with the news about Jews and Christians to be identified by their clothing in Iran, I have come across a lot of articles about this recently. Half of them discount this whole claim as "propaganda" and the other half confirm it. So I don't know what to believe any more. It seems that you get a "breaking news" item that says "Alert! Jews to wear 'yellow star' in Iran" only for another news story an hour later to pop up refuting it. Someone said to me a while ago "if you find a news story with a sensational claim, verify it with at least two other sources". So when this story first came up, that is what I did and I easily found several sites all saying the same thing. Then the next morning I found a headline that said "false claims ....." and so I looked up other news sources and it seemed that they were also on this particular bandwagon. 12 hours later or so, the original claim was "back on". So now I am totally confused. But then I guess conflicting news stories will be the way it will go when other prophesies come to fruition too. We just have to be extra vigilant and then maybe it will be obvious what we are to believe.

A brilliant site! Thank you.

In reply to: QUOTE I doubt the Christians who were put on crosses and burnt to light Nero's roads would say this. It also meant that if you did right NERO would commend you. Doing right under Nero meant death not commendation. With this in mind it is obvious that a literal interpretation of this verse makes no sense. Nero was ordained by God, but he did not act in a manner consistent with what Romans 13 suggests he would/should. Copper scroll wrote: "But the text doesn't set any conditions that I can see. It seems like you are imposing conditions on it." Another QUOTE The only ways this verse can be taken as even remotely literally is if good and evil are not good and evil as defined by God, but good and evil as defined by the state. Submission therefore is what is expedient, to avoid punishment of the state. In NO theological system that I can think of, is submission and obedience ever considered absolute anyhow. If the government commanded you to kill your youngest child as a sacrifice to the president nobody on this board would do it. My reply: The argument is that many, many people seem to take all of Rom. 13 to be a total absolute. Either it is interpreted as "we should obey WORLDLY 'authority'" always, or we don't! Some of us might be able to "draw the line" but I rather doubt if the majority of the public will be able to understand the difference between "obeying the laws of the land" (which I believe that we have the 10 commandments for - and our own common sense of course, anyway) and obsequiously obeying evil or incompetent and bumbling, and lying "world authorities". It might be that nobody on this board would "sacrifice their youngest child" if they were commanded to do so, but some others would, and there would most certainly be no shortage of people who would be really excited to have the "job" (they would perhaps excuse it by saying "it's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it" or some such other sanctimoneous, idiotic statement) of rounding up those kids whose parents wouldn't "obey" and killing them and then jailing the parents. Here's where the danger lies.

I just read what I had written above and it sounds like "a great majority of NZs support" the actions of the NZ PM. I actually meant to say quite the opposite, that the PM has directly gone against the wishes of a vast majority of the population and her policies are "unpopular" to say the least.

Apothanein Kerdos you say: "I think you confuse patriotism with absolute support. This is not patriotism at all. Take for instance Paul. Paul spoke out against Pagan practices, which were not only supported, but required to be done by the Roman government (hence, persecution of Christians for not supporting paganism). At the same time, Paul told us to be obedient to our governments when we can because of the position. He also was not afraid to use his Roman citizenship. Paul was a Roman patriot because he supported the idea of Rome, the structure of Rome, and the citizenship of Rome, but did not support the practices of Rome. Is that making sense?" The thing is, I find myself not supporting (as, it would seem, a great majority of NZers do) the strange actions of the PM and a few other control-freak women in government - and they claim to act "on behalf of NZ", and that is the biggest insult. But also I find that I can no longer support the structure of NZ because it has been altered irreversibly. It seems that we are being taught that patriotism is a "thing of a bygone era". You don't see many national flags on public buildings or private houses. It was good to see a few crosses and nativity scenes erected outside private houses in the town at Christmas. I'm sure our PM, if she could, would legislate to make these people take these things down though as she believes that her personal philosophy is "NZ's philosophy".

I thought we were just about done with this topic but it seems that the news media will just not leave it alone, so it must be important. I was just reading that a traveller was asked to produce "id" (their passport) when they tried to buy a hotdog at an American airport. Anyway Otherone, you said: "You have much more trouble here in Oklahoma getting a drivers license if you are an illegal. It takes a social security number and a birth certificate and other photo ID to get one of the new licenses. And the social security numbers are checked on. I wouldn't say that it is not done, but it takes much more to get it. I've been here in the town I live in for over 25 years and when I went down to get a new license I had to take my social security card and my military photo ID in place of a birth certificate that had been notarized to get the new one. I knew the tag agents that do these licenses and they knew where and when I was born....... still had to bring in the information and leave copies with them." I am curious to know: 1. As you were just renewing your licence (you said "I went down to get a new licence") did you have your old licence as well? I am assuming you did, and the DMV would also have had access to the records about it. Why then did you have to provide them with all this additional information? I find this to be rather "over the top" and "nit-picky". Were they just being ultra nosey, or wanted to cause you as much hassle as possible? I can see no other reason for it. 2. Why did you have to "leave copies with them"? Why should they have copies of your private documents which they have no right to looking at, let alone keeping on file, as these things have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to drive a motor vehicle? I think we must never blur the line between an "id document" and a "driving licence". If we do it adds weight to the strange idea that some claim to be true that a "driving licence" is a privilege granted by the state not, as has been generally believed for many years, a certificate of competence to drive a motor vehicle.

We are told that we should keep our minds on higher things, on the heavenly kingdom, not individual kingdoms or countries. Patriotism is a good thing and it is good to be able to be "ra, ra, the flag" as it gets a bit tiresome being against things all the time. There is so much evil in the world that it is hard to know what we should support. I would like to be patriotic, but I find that patriotism is the support of a country no matter what regime is controlling it and I feel that this country anyway, has been hijacked by political correctness so much that it has become a bit of a joke. And I feel that with some policies and decisions that have been made here recently it must be the laughing stock of the world. In NZ prior to 1984 (gee, what have I heard that date associated with before?) there did seem to be a lot about this country to be proud of. Suddenly in 1984 our politicians decided that they should be real parasites and instead of "doing the job because they actually want to do a public service", they decided that we would have "full time MPs" who would take for themselves from the taxpayer, exorbitant "salaries" which would be out of proportion altogether to the job they would do. This was done without any public discussion at all and very little publicity. Prior to that our MPs had "real jobs" as well and were "part time MPs". To me this is how a small country like this should be run and the idea of having 120 MPs all feeding out of a compulsorily taken public trough and growing fat on over-the-top "salaries" is ridiculous. This parliament's next move was to sell off all our public assets and squander the money, seemingly feeling that all "public" assets belonged personally to the members of government. Hard to feel patriotic about a country that does things like that, isn't it? Then in 2003 NZ became really the laughing stock of the world according to overseas news items that popped up everywhere for a while about one of our minister's introduction of a farm animal "fart tax" allegedly to "comply with the requirements of the Kyoto protocol". Impossible to be patriotic about that. However, all this is nothing compared to the PM and government we have now. We have an amazingly strange woman for a PM who decided right from the start that she "wouldn't "rule" by referendum" and true to her word has gone against massive public opinion and virtually elevated the status of the "gay community" to be NZ's leading citizens. How can anyone support God and at the same time patriotism for a country that has three openly gay and one transsexual MP and "officially apologised" to the gay community for past discrimination? What I mean basically is that how can you be expected to be a Christian and therefore believe scripture and also support a country that "officially" makes laws about "civil unions" (both "same sex" and opposite sex), defines the legal status of marriage and childcare the way that a bunch of weirdos in government want it, want to be officially "secular" or atheist, and "apologised to the gay community" and these things clearly go against God?

Copperscroll no wonder you get no good answers when you raise this question because it has been "done to death". Out of all the subjects raised on these boards, the question of the interpretation of Romans 13 must be the one that comes up most often and the one people are most staunch on. Although it seems obvious to me that all of Romans 13 refers to God and heavenly rulers alone and does not, in any way, include MAN'S GOVERNMENT, or government bureaucrats and most certainly DOES NOT refer to rules and legislation made by control-freak, ungodly, politicians I have realised - quite recently (believing the opposite seems to be a recent phenomenon, but I do stand to be corrected on this) that there is a whole doctrine out there that believes that we all should obsequiously cowtow to these freaks "because God has appointed them and commanded that we must obey them". I find it amazing how many people seem to believe this and I think it is incredibly dangerous - particularly in today's society where the technology exists to fulfill Biblical prophesies. And when the antiChrist arrives on the scene, will people be able to "draw the line" and say "well this is going too far, I am not having any part of this"? The operative words in Romans 13, I believe, are "there is no power, but of God". I take that literally and to mean that nobody on earth has been given any special powers or authority over others to do what is clearly not God's bidding, but their own. For Rom. 13.1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers ............. the powers that be are ordained by God". I believe that it does not mean - as some would have us believe - that God has visited earth and ordained the DMV to steal your car because you parked on a broken yellow line or ordained a meter maid to "issue you with an infringement notice" because you left your car somewhere longer than it should have been, but it means that "higher powers" are God himself and his ministers and ordinances - NOT WORLDLY RULERS. God does not ordain worldly rulers but only his ministers who do and teach his word, or law. The Greek word for "powers" also means privileges, freedoms or rights, so this is saying that all rights or freedoms come from God. Rom. 13.2: "Whoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resisteth shall receive unto themselves damnation". Explanation: (In my opinion anyway), "resisting man's ungodly law does not bring damnation or judgement. Only resisting God's law brings damnation. Many worldly rulers have had laws against God and God's law, even against being Christian. So obviously this is not referring to the powers of worldly rulers but only to the power of God and his law and his ministers. Worldly rulers, again, are not "higher powers", and since the word for "power" here means "rights or freedoms" it is likely saying that anyone who is a worldly ruler, who resists or opposes human rights, also opposes God's lawful order. Rom. 13.3: "For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same. Again, "rulers" means ministers ordained by God NOT WORLDLY RULERS. Likewise the "power", again, means God and God's law and not that of any worldly ruler. Worldly rulers praise evil as much as good. Rom. 13.4: "For he is minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain: For he is minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Means,Worldly rulers are not ministers of God. His miniters teach the word of God which is God's law. The word of God is sometimes called a sword - as in Eph. 6.17 and Rev. 1.16 and 2.12, 16 where someone like Jesus is said to have a sword meaning God's word coming from his mouth, which destroys, i.e. destroys the pride of the ungodly. Ministers use the same sword, the word of God, to rebuke evil doers. Rebuking sinners is sometimes called the wrath of God, this wrath begins with hurt pride. Rom. 13.5: Wherefore ye must needs to be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. Means: The wrath is uncomfortable and embarrassing and manifests as illhealth of body and mind. It tortures and destroys our pride but we should be concerned not just about the pain of wrath but also about righteousness - which is conscience. In other words we must follow our consciences, we are not stupid and know "right from wrong" and do not need "worldly rulers" to tell us that (not, of course, that worldly rulers would generally recognise right from wrong anyway). Rom. 13.6: For this cause pay ye tribute also for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. And Rom. 13.7: Render therefore to all their dues: Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to who custom is due, fear to whom fear is due, honour to whom honour is due. This is probably the most important one and the most potentially dangerous one is it is misinterpreted, because I believe that "tribute" does not mean "paying your council tax" but VOLUNTARY TITHES TO OUR MINISTERS WHO ATTEND TO OUR SALVATION and "customs" may refer to tithes to other ministries when we travel. So that is my take on it anyway (and I had assumed until recently that that was the usual interpretation of this passage apart from the ravings of a few politicians throughout history who have claimed that their evil has been "ordained by God" and have used that as an excuse to excuse the most horrific abuses of the power that MAN has given to them - honestly or dishonestly, or by lying and cheating and "implied consent"). So to get back to your original question, "he who rebels against 'authority' is NOT rebelling against what God has instituted at all, but they are rebelling against what MAN has instituted. And if "what man has instituted" (alleged "authority" or not) is evil and goes against our basic human rights, kills, steals and destroys, then I believe that anyone has a RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OBLIGATION to rebel against such ungodly and horrible people. If we do not, we are setting the scene for the antiChrist to walk in and take over, using the technology and systems put in place by his predessors and commit unspoken of evil, and Christians will back him all the way not realising what they have done. People are not generally stupid and are capable of realising that there must be basic rules in society and they do not need politicians to "control them". God has already told us how to live our lives, he gave us the 10 commandments. Yesterday I was reading one of the many news stories about the "national registration" system that is to be imposed on the people of UK and I came to the bottom of the page where it said "comment on this story". One comment suggested that "the only way to defeat this system is to pray for 'our leaders' to gain wisdom", it was followed by several other comments saying things like: "Evangelical Christians will be queueing up for this because they believe that 'this is all part of God's plan and our politicians who are imposing this on us are 'ordained by God'". This is one of the reasons that I believe that the interpretation of Romans 13 I am hearing is incredibly dangerous. Believing that "the Bible tells us to obey earthly rulers" means, to me anyway, that we are going to walk right into a world that has "paved the way" for the antiChrist and people who always thought they were Christians and were "doing the right thing" will be deceived major-time by false religions and false messiahs. I realise that this subject has been gone over a lot, but it is increasingly important and we should continue to go over it again and again.

What is the big deal about being a virgin? How do you know you are the only virgin where you work? A lot of young people - or even not so young - tend to make things up because they imagine that others will be too interested in their romantic lives. Maybe you should ask why other people seem so concerned with what you are doing or have done when there are tons of other things they should be more concerned with. To have a physical relationship with somebody - anybody - just so that you can "lose your virginity" and/or tell your friends about it, is utterly ridiculous. You have resisted the temptation. Good on you! Your patience will probably be rewarded when you find the "right person" to marry.

This is interesting. Is it an excuse to refuse something that you want to refuse anyway? Or a survival mechanism? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/religion_id/

Well, how many prophets prophesied to those in the OT and they still walked head long into the very prediction they were told of? Just because we are told about it does not mean we can change it. God still has the end result in mind and there aint nothin' gonna stand in His way. Referring to the final paragraph. So why did God bother telling us about it if nothing we do can make a difference to the outcome? Surely "free will" means that we are basically in control of the way we deal with "what will happen" and the eventual outcome? I guess we do have to accept that the things prophesied in the Bible will happen (if they weren't definite then they wouldn't be prophesy) but I believe that we do have control over our reaction to them and how we deal with them. It seems so defeatist to just say "globalism, cashless society, the MOB, wars and rumours of wars etc. etc." will happen because it was prophesied, and there is nothing we can do about it, so we may as well just go along with everything". Sure, these things must happen, but we don't have to be part of them!

And who gets to define what "taking a life for the sake of good" is? Selective morality there, perhaps?

This topic has morphed into something different to the original question, which was: The application form for the police dep't says "would you have a problem with killing", and I want to be in the police, so what should I do? The mere fact that that question even appears on the form is an indication that policing has changed a lot since the days of Rob't Peel's "bobbies". You're too right when you say "we are not under occupation", so why do you think that "the police have replaced the function of soldiers in the world..."? King Soloman or King David cannot even be compared to governments today. And "putting a spin on scripture". Yes, this is done a lot, merely by substituting the word "murder" for the word "kill" in the 10 commandments. And then reading the Bible to sound like "God sanctions governments' actions". And Dakota you don't really believe that police are the all round protectors of free speech in society and without them the world would descend into "dog eat dog" brutality and anarchy, do you? I am just being a realist. The role of just about all the world's police forces has changed radically over the past 10 years or so. Being a member of the police was once a respected occupation but today it is "just another civil servant who obsequiously lives to do the bidding of what ever government is in power at the time". It is one thing to believe the opposite when you are on one "side of the fence" but it is also very easy to see how even policemen can become the victims of government "exesses". For example, how would you feel about it if - as a policeman (hypothetical or not) you were called upon to - say - support a baliff (or court officer, or what ever it is called) to take property from someone and that "someone" turned out to be your brother, or your parents, or your best friend? I have just finished reading an article about the experiences of an ex-policeman in China (who defected to America) and who was called upon to "take a pregnant woman into custody" as she was pregnant with her 2nd child and was refusing to have an abortion. This woman turned out to be the policeman's own sister. He said that he "couldn't cope with it" but "because it was the law" still ensured that somebody else would make sure that the woman had an abortion, but he was in such a bad mental state about it that he escaped to America on the first opportunity. I know it is easy to say that that was China and it isn't like that in America. But it could be in a few years time, who knows. I am not dis'ing others' beliefs or interpretations, just giving my opinion. And that opinion is: If there is any doubt at all, it is best to exercise restraint.

A good post. But I find it really strange that so many seem to think that "the government is sanctioned by God" (Ben, you must believe that, you said it twice). I believe that there is no way that the government is sanctioned by God and I can find nowhere in scripture where it says that!. Just as there is nowhere in the Bible where it says that we must "obey government". If anyone thinks that there is, it would be interesting to be provided with the chapter and verse number. I believe also that - in time of war - soldiers' actions do not make them guilty of murder (within reason of course) but the actions of a policeman are not comparable, not even slightly the same thing. Police "duties" today are 10% "public service" and 90% the bidding of politicians. So policing is politics, politics, politics. Reinterpreting scripture cannot be a good thing. The Bible says "kill", it does not say "murder" and it most definitely does not say "it is ok to kill as long as you have government backing". It seems that there is a move today to interpret all scripture so it fits in with "the law of the land". This is a dangerous concept and we cannot "politically correctify" everything. We must take it literally.

My Bible says "thou shalt not kill", but then it is a really old copy of the King James version that my mother had since the year dot. I have to be honest here, though I guess it is not what you want to hear, and say that the Bible says "thou shalt not kill", it does not say "thou shalt not kill except, of course, if you are an agent of man's government". I believe (my opinion I do realise) that the ten commandments are plain, simple and obvious. They are not flexible or subject to interpretation or spin. We cannot go around putting a spin on scripture so it sounds like it was meant to cater for situations that we want it to cater for. It is probably acceptable to kill if your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger, and no soldier would go to Hell for fighting in a battle or a war situation. However, as a policeman you would be called upon to "deal" with your own countrymen and you have not declared war on your own countrymen, so you are not the same as a soldier in wartime at all. Why do you, or your husband, want to join the police force? Is it because both of you believe strongly in the laws of your country? Or is there another reason? Do you know a lot about the "laws of the land"? And do you realise that you'd be called upon to "enforce" everything that is "the law" simply because a politician says so? I do not believe that God in any way whatsoever would back the laws of man because they are subject to change "every other day" at the whim of a politician. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that we should obey the laws of man. As well, of course, with new "anti-terrorist" (not) legislation coming out regularly now, this is going to get more and more relevant. I wouldn't have said anything against the police department 10 years ago, but the world has changed so much since then, and now police (worldwide this is, I am not just talking about NZ) are expected to be "the tools of politicians". I was talking, about two weeks ago, with the father of a friend of my daughter's. He was a cop and left at the end of 1998 to start his own business. He said to me "I don't know how anyone can be a cop, with a clear conscience, today, knowing what they have to do". I'm going to be even more "cat among the pidgeons" and say: Have a little humility, try to get away from the "them and us" or "he is a criminal and if I killed him I would be doing a public service" mentality and realise that a "suspect" is not a "criminal" until they have been found guilty before a court of law, and "there, but for the grace of God, go I".

The thing is that some will use their interpretation of Romans 13 to justify this. Something like: "Rom. 13 says "..... the authorities that exist are appointed of God ..etc. So therefore the government employee who made this decision has the backing of God, so therefore God supports this idea". See how ridiculous and dangerous it is?

This is so frustrating. Who are Nick and Jessica?????

So I still don't know who Nick and Jessica are. Any ideas? Seriously though, it is a good commentary on society today.

Smalcald quote: "Or maybe they have a very good understanding of what they are doing and why...... don't forget Lucifer has very dedicated followers too....." So isn't it up to us to educate people so that they realise that this is what is going on?

Well, I was hesitant to get all "conspiracy theoryish" but then this is "controversial issues", so: You seem to be blaming "liberals" for a lot of the ideas that you don't agree with, so first let me say that I consider myself to be rather conservative in politics and I don't consider being concerned about the truth, human dignity and civil rights to be a liberal trait alone. I will admit that as an outsider I am not terribly well versed in American politics but I do think it odd that while I admire greatly a lot of GW Bush's characteristics, he seems to have abused "executive powers" far more than any other president ever. Do you really think that anyone concerned with the right to privacy "has something to hide"? Gee, well I know that I definitely have something to hide. It is called "my own business" or "my private life" and what I say or who I talk to is none of the government's business. If they want to know, they can ask me and if I want to tell them, I will - but if I don't want to, then surely that is my right? As for "the government destroying the WTC and part of the Pentagon" and " Let me guess, the 911 hijackers were secret CIA prisoners that were brainwashed to pilot aircraft and crash them into our buildings" (I don't think the reason has anything to do with the war with Iraq, but more to do with "an excuse to denigrate human rights throughout the world). No, (this is my personal opinion entirely and I will not repeat myself all the time and will drop it after this) but I think this was "allowed to happen" and as it is not even logical that an aircraft flying into the top of a building would turn the entire building to dust and destroy everything without trace, it was a "controlled explosion". You don't really think that your government is above this, do you? Governments do not care at all about how many lives are sacrificed or what price "other people" pay in $s or human suffering. We really need God in these times more than ever and I'm sure God would warn us against complacency.

I am sorry, but I just don't get it. When you say "it is a basic premise of law enforcement, to have more security we will have less privacy, more privacy, less security. How? And Why do you think that more privacy equates to less security? Or that losing privacy for everybody will enhance their security? This is a totally new concept - the one of denigrating privacy and the strange idea that privacy is something that must be given up for reasons of "security". Yet nobody has come up with how this is, or why this is! And: "Security is important in the post 9.11 society". It is sad to see how easily people have bought into the idea that "there was 9.11 and now the rules have changed". This is simply not the case. America has always had one of the fairest legal systems in the world and it would be a pity to see that destroyed. Their legal system always seems to have been based on limited government power as people have feared that government will take advantage of power given to it, so the government's ability to collect information about its citizens has been restrained and people accept the price. What has changed recently? If those limitations interfere with law enforcement that is the price we must pay for privacy. EG evidence is suppressed in cases where the police search a "suspect's" home without a warrant even if the evidence proves helpful to the police case. Why? Because it was collected illegally and immorally. Now what is the difference between that and eavesdropping on all citizens' telephone calls, emails and other communications?