Separaton of Ideas

I asked a question this week on Facebook about my friends' thoughts on the government's monitoring of our cell phone records. One of my friends asked if my comments might be included in my blog. It led to an interesting dilemma for me. Some readers of my blog and my Facebook posts are interested (or at least lacking in anything else to do) in my comments on matters of the spirit. I also have discovered that some others are interested in having respectful conversations about what's going on in our country with regard to government and society, in general. Basically: religion and politics, two topics many people want to steer clear of, two topics I find myself inexplicably drawn to.

I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. It is best for both institutions that one does not bleed over into the other. It has everything to do with freedom of religion and with good government. Citizens should be free to practice the religion (or non-religion) of their choice. Adherents of any religion must have freedom to worship. Just because I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus, that does not give me special rights, but it should give me equal privileges.

I find it fascinating that many want to call our nation a Christian nation, yet the definition of that often boils down to the ability to: display the ten commandments in public areas, pray in schools, declare war on those who threaten our American way of life and whether "in God we trust" remains emblazoned on our money. Oh, the irony. I think we are closer to a Jewish nation by those standards.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, in effect replacing the Ten Commandments with two: love God first and foremost and love your neighbor as yourself. He basically said if you do those two things, the ten (and more) will be taken care of. He told us NOT to pray in public! He told us to love our enemies, not seek retribution. Plus, patriotism toward one's country is not a point of Christian theology: we are taught that we are citizens of heaven and that labels are to be avoided because we are all united as one. And then there is that whole thing about giving Caesar his due. From what Jesus had to say about money, I have a feeling God might be insulted, maybe even none too happy, about having his name on it.

Then there is this interesting quote I ran across this week: "When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin

True Christianity can and should flourish without any outside help, especially from government.

But back to my dilemma. What to do about being drawn to write about both religion and politics? I think if political decisions/actions by Christians are not at least formed by one's faith, of treating all with love and respect, of seeking to be compassionate and to find a way to achieve peace with other nations, then our Christian faith is lacking, to say the least. So, I will always feel there is some overlap between the two, I suppose. But for readers of my blog, I think it would be fair to try to separate the two. That way, anyone can choose to read one or the other, both or neither.

I'll have to think on whether that will be two separate blogs or one blog with two clearly defined sections. At any rate, for now, I will share here my thoughts about the question I asked on Facebook.

PLEASE NOTE: The following is strictly political commentary, if you proceed, please do so with that in mind.

The question: I am curious if the majority of my friends think it is acceptable for the government to keep track of our phone records. Does it make you feel safer or does it make you feel as though your rights have been violated? 

There ended up being about 35 votes for "violated," 3 votes for "safer" and 6 somewhere in between. What I find interesting is that this is one issue which doesn't seem to have a clear division based on politics. Both certain Democrats and some members of the GOP are "blasting" the idea, while others from both sides are supportive. Knowing a little (or guessing) how most of those who commented lean politically, based on past posts and comments, my friends' opinions seem to be further evidence that this is the case.

The Patriot Act was certainly "thrown together" (or so it would seem) and passed quickly after 9/11, which likely could have been an effort by the Bush presidency to legitimize many practices already in place as well as to legalize other issues which definitely sent us down the proverbial slippery slope. There were objections at the time, but the attacks of 9/11 achieved one goal for sure: As a country we were terrorized, made fearful enough that we did not rise up as citizens and say no to legislation that is not good for the country. The price, in terms of lost freedom and wasted resources, is far too high for the potential reward. Some would say we have no way of knowing how many attacks have been averted, but I would say we have no way of knowing how many innocent people have been harassed, arrested or otherwise had their lives destroyed.

Of course, in 2011 the Obama administration made the decision to sign a four-year extension of key parts of the act, so there's plenty of blame to go around, politically.

The Patriot Act is not patriotic at all, in my opinion. Patriotism is loyalty to one's country. Phone snooping (that's a BEST case scenario description of this issue) is not loyalty to the ideals we hold dear. All are innocent until proven guilty. As several pointed out on the original thread, this is fishing for "what ifs" more than for solid evidence of wrong-doing, and as such, it goes far beyond the scope of the rights we have as Americans.

By the way, just as an interesting note, the title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. 

"Appropriate" is not the word I would choose for the "A."