Liberty & Security, in a Christian context

[Warrior-Poet51088]

OK, so, after the foiled attacks this morning, and the increased security in UK airports, I thought of this quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Of a similar tone is this one, from Thomas Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

My beliefs on the subject (in a nutshell): Freedom is a good thing to have, but with it comes responsibility (think Uncle Ben in Spider-Man). And those who are not responsible will lose their freedoms.

What do y'all think--should we run around like a chicken with its head cut off every time something bad happens, and then give the Government power it shouldn't wield (think Attack of the Clones), or should we face up to the issue, deal with it, and be responsible for protecting ourselves?

Perchance, we could discuss government security policies...

[Queen Swanwhite]

I agree, but I think attacks are so unexpected like 9/11 and today even. The government say they are doing their best, but I do think that they could do a little bit better, like arresting the right people. I voted for a healthy dose of both, because I want to be safe, but not enclosed. I want to have my freedom, but feel safe and secure...which I don't really feel at the moment. :)

Great subject by the way. I think it is a very interesting topic.

[Solya]

I believe we are now at the stage of the chickens again. :) Even the governments are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, in my opinion, because the only kind of retaliation I've heard so far is "if you do something bad to me I'll do much worse to you". It makes me sick to see people dive into the idea of war... to my opinion that's a power no one should have to wield... and it's just going from bad to worse altogether. I don't know if there's another solution but I think that we should at least step off the idea of being able to hit someone's nose with a bomb.

I think we live in a gun-loving, trigger-happy and bomb-adoring world right now. Personally, I am a pacifist who has fallen in love with the idea of freedom and who is not willing to give it up to anyone who does not deserve it. I hate the fact that my freedom is taken away from me by the fact that "Big Brother is always watching my every single step out on the street" and I absolutely hate the idea that everyone is considered to be a potential terrorist/threat to society these days.

I want to feel safe in my own country, but because of the fact that our freedom's becoming a scarce good I don't feel safe anymore. It's funny how safety measures can make you feel like you live in the most dangerous country in the world. I take full responsibility for my own actions and I have no love for people who don't face up to the issue and deal with it in the way that's least harmful to all. Sadly, our government seems to be exactly that type of thing I hate... so that's probably why I am never on the same page with them anymore. I don't trust my government and I don't trust the decisions they make for us. That's also a matter of not feeling safe in my own country, though an entirely different one.

A healthy combination of freedom and safety is what I want. And if things continue in the fashion of "you throw rocks, me throw bombs" I am afraid I'm not going to get that anymore.

[EveningStar]

This is dangerously close to a political thread. If it ever becomes partisan I'm whistling for the big brass yale.

With that said, we have to be careful interpreting Thomas Jefferson's words in the context of the war on terror.

He was all in favor of people fighting to protect their own freedom. Of course when he said this, civilians volunteered or were drafted into the armed forces and the armies and navies battled it out with blood, steel and courage.

We now live in a time where people are, in a sense, sneaking into your children's bedroom to kill your innocent babies. That is not a simple case of getting grandpa's musket down from over the fireplace and meeting the enemy in the Battle of Hodgkin's Farm.

You don't know...I don't know...what Thomas Jefferson would have done about modern asymetrical warfare that blows up school children on busses. I don't even think he'd know what to do.

John

[LifeMaiden]

Ideally I'd want both in equal doses...but it's been stated before...with freedom comes responsibility.

[Miss Freckles]

It's a very interesting question, this is... I don't know much about politics or the situation of the world but I have the feeling that some people panick and build seven high walls around them while others sleep and sleep and don't seem to take notice of anything.
The sad thing is that everybody is so sneaky today, like they blow up things but they don't stand up afterwards and say: "It was us and we did it for these reasons" and in return the victims become just like their enemies and so on and so forth. Long story short: I think it is lack of communication. We seem not to be able to solve our problems any more because we don't talk about them. The only solution seems to be threatening and war and stuff...
I would be happy if we had a few more heroes among us, people who stand up and show themselves and speak plain. But it is very difficult today because everything affects the whole world immediately.
I hope you got what I meant... was it to the topic? Oh I'm confused ^^

[Narborg]

If we give up some of our libetires, are we losing what we are fighting for?

[onlymystory]

I've always thought you need a little of both but a little more freedom. Part of our security is in our freedom. If a government, any government, takes away its people's freedom in exchange for security, then we aren't really secure. Because then we have to start worrying about if we're safe enough. In the name of making us safe, our freedoms slip away. Yet when we keep our freedoms, we have the ability to make the decisions about security for ourselves.

While I agree with ES that Thomas Jefferson probably would have been at a loss to some degree with today's problems at the same time, we just have the same problems within different circumstances. Rape, murder, abuse, assault, etc have all been around since Eve decided to eat that apple. I find it interesting that people today are trying to limit travel because of the so-called new threats when these threats have been around for ages. The Old Testament tells stories of gangs on the roads. The middle ages were notorious for bandits. Yet people took precautions and traveled anyway. The world goes on no matter what and we can't let dangers and trouble cause us to lose our freedom.

C. Wright Mills:
Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.

Clarence Darrow:
You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

Somerset Maugham:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.

[Miss Freckles]

I've always thought you need a little of both but a little more freedom. Part of our security is in our freedom. If a government, any government, takes away its people's freedom in exchange for security, then we aren't really secure. Because then we have to start worrying about if we're safe enough. In the name of making us safe, our freedoms slip away. Yet when we keep our freedoms, we have the ability to make the decisions about security for ourselves.

While I agree with ES that Thomas Jefferson probably would have been at a loss to some degree with today's problems at the same time, we just have the same problems within different circumstances. Rape, murder, abuse, assault, etc have all been around since Eve decided to eat that apple. I find it interesting that people today are trying to limit travel because of the so-called new threats when these threats have been around for ages. The Old Testament tells stories of gangs on the roads. The middle ages were notorious for bandits. Yet people took precautions and traveled anyway. The world goes on no matter what and we can't let dangers and trouble cause us to lose our freedom.

C. Wright Mills:
Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.

Clarence Darrow:
You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

Somerset Maugham:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.

wow! that was well-written =) i titally agree

[Wendygirljp]

What does liberty and security have to do with any religious perspective, whether it be theistic or non-theistic? I do not understand.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

What does liberty and security have to do with any religious perspective, whether it be theistic or non-theistic? I do not understand.

By "from a Christian perspective," I mean living primarily according to Romans 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013;&version=31;) & 1 Peter 2:11-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:11-25;&version=31;), and then according to the worldly Government.

Main point: We (i.e., Christians) are citisens of Heaven firstly, and only citisens of our nation secondly.

[Solya]

I've always had the distinct feeling that religion and politics should not mix any more than necessary. :) So basically, if I read them correctly (I'm not awake yet, so bear with me) those texts tell us that we should submit to the authority of our governments no matter what they do? If that is the case I strongly disagree because governments sometimes tend to do things which are not right at all.

[Wendygirljp]

So, do I understand you correctly? You believe that liberty and security has to do with a country's or state's government, not actually from the heart, religious beliefs, or philosophy, or the opposite?

You stated, "By "from a Christian perspective," I mean living primarily according to Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2:11-25, and then according to the worldly Government.

Main point: We (i.e., Christians) are citisens of Heaven firstly, and only citisens of our nation secondly."

These concepts are not confined to the Christian community. Many spiritual beliefs have this concept to them.

Please tie in the relationship a bit more, please.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

I've always had the distinct feeling that religion and politics should not mix any more than necessary.

However, it must be pointed out that no one is capable of acting completely independently of their beliefs; you can't turn a switch off in your head that somehow, when flipped "on" makes you a Christian, and then go vote without any of your Christian presuppositions. If you do attempt to keep your religious beliefs seperate from your political actions, you will most likely lose the right to practice your religion.


So basically, if I read them correctly (I'm not awake yet, so bear with me) those texts tell us that we should submit to the authority of our governments no matter what they do? If that is the case I strongly disagree because governments sometimes tend to do things which are not right at all.


You might want to re-read the 1 Peter text I referenced, verse 17 in particular. I take this to mean that we should obey the government insofar as it is in line with God's commands. For example, if the government told everyone we had to pay taxes (which, of course, they do), then we would have to pay taxes (Romans 13:7). If, however, the government ordered that all citisens were to murder their firstborn child, then we would have to disobey the government ("Thou shalt not murder" gets precedence over the government's law; look at the story of Moses). Essentially, it's civil disobedience: obeying God's laws over those of the gorvernment (note again, that in Romans 13, God commands us to obey the government; however, our allegiance to God comes first).


So, do I understand you correctly? You believe that liberty and security has to do with a country's or state's government, not actually from the heart, religious beliefs, or philosophy, or the opposite?

Could you explain what you mean a bit more, please?

These concepts are not confined to the Christian community. Many spiritual beliefs have this concept to them.

Please tie in the relationship a bit more, please.

Yes, I realise that other faiths have similar beliefs; I chose Christianity because, as a Christian, it's the one whose beliefs I'm most familiar with. I'm not snubbing any other faiths, by any means.

Again, I'm sorry, but I must ask you to tell me what you mean by "please tie in the relationship a bit more"--do you mean the relationship of Christianity to liberty & security?

[Natasia_Vae]

By "from a Christian perspective," I mean living primarily according to Romans 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013;&version=31;) & 1 Peter 2:11-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:11-25;&version=31;), and then according to the worldly Government.

Main point: We (i.e., Christians) are citisens of Heaven firstly, and only citisens of our nation secondly.
I am a Christian but I don't really believe in all that. You never know, the government or someone could have added stuff like that to the bible.

[Wendygirljp]

"Again, I'm sorry, but I must ask you to tell me what you mean by "please tie in the relationship a bit more"--do you mean the relationship of Christianity to liberty & security?"

Maybe you mean between one's spiritual or ethical beliefs and the concepts of liberty and security?

Also, how do you define these terms of liberty and security? Are you restricting to a certain geographic location, for example? A certain group of people?

Thank you for your patience.

[Solya]

However, it must be pointed out that no one is capable of acting completely independently of their beliefs; you can't turn a switch off in your head that somehow, when flipped "on" makes you a Christian, and then go vote without any of your Christian presuppositions. If you do attempt to keep your religious beliefs seperate from your political actions, you will most likely lose the right to practice your religion.

I understand that, yes. :) I've had a discussion with a friend today about this particular matter and we came to the conclusion that a lot of people voted and made political decisions according to their religion. In itself that's a pretty good thing because religion provides a lot of people with morals and so on and so forth. But we also saw the downside of it; for example when a political fight over land turns into a war about the rights one religion has over the other.

I attempt to keep my religion as separate as possible from the political issues I support. This is a conscious choice of mine and it doesn't mean that I exclude the morals I receive out of the religion I was raised with and the religion I live in now. However, I do not agree with a lot of things the Christian parties in my country state... so I will not go and vote for them once I'm old enough to raise my voice about it. ;) But I guess it's different for every country because in the Netherlands we've got about 15 different political parties (or maybe even more than that) whereas the US has only got two major ones and a minor one.

You might want to re-read the 1 Peter text I referenced, verse 17 in particular. I take this to mean that we should obey the government insofar as it is in line with God's commands. For example, if the government told everyone we had to pay taxes (which, of course, they do), then we would have to pay taxes (Romans 13:7). If, however, the government ordered that all citisens were to murder their firstborn child, then we would have to disobey the government ("Thou shalt not murder" gets precedence over the government's law; look at the story of Moses). Essentially, it's civil disobedience: obeying God's laws over those of the gorvernment (note again, that in Romans 13, God commands us to obey the government; however, our allegiance to God comes first).

So, if I understand it correctly we should not obey the government in terms of warfare either. War provides you with the "thou shalt not murder"-issue as well and therefore one should have the right to keep their government in check about stuff like this. Therefore, adhering to God's laws provides people with the ultimate sense of freedom... but at the same time you cannot adhere to God's law as easily anymore because the influence of the people in the country on their government is kept down to a minimum.

But at the same time, warfare is also a huge thing in politics. A government which is in essence Christian (the one from the US, I think? :)) mingles in a lot of those affairs. So, they should obey God's laws just as much as us and therefore keep well out of war.

Wow. That's iron logic, but at the same time entirely unreachable. We've really made a mess out of it.