Have we gone too far in our war against Terror?

To answer this question we must first understand the term terrorism. Otherwise, how are we to determine if we have gone "too far" with anti-terroristic measures. Terrorism, as defined by Webster, is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition brings many questions to the debate at hand. For one, is the success of terrorism predicated on the destruction of property? From the definition, it is actually dependent on intimidation created by the threat of violence and destruction. Therefore, by intimidating our country, have the terrorists already achieved their goal? It is a very interesting question, and I believe I have a very interesting answer. To say that terrorist pose no threat to our country, since there have been no serious attacks since 9-11, is simply false. There are "attacks" on a daily basis. Threats are a form of terrorism, and in many cases, the damage they do is similar to the damage done by a physical attack. For this reason, I say the threat is very real, and the danger posed is equally real. The question of going to far to stop terroristic activities is actually laughable. Our society has become so entrenched, and so based upon personal gratification, the idea of sacrificing for the good of the country has become almost extinct. The cries of "you are violating my rights", and "free speech", and even "you can not racially profile to ensure security" have become a large part of our societal debate on terrorism. Imagine if the prevalent attitude of today would have been around in the 1940's to the same degree that it currently exists, what would have happened in Europe during WWII? I don't dislike the German language, but I am certainly glad that our forefathers sacrificed their liberties to defeat the evil that existed during their time. In my opinion, you can never do "too much", or go "too far" to defeat evil. The only reason we have our freedoms is the fact that those befor us have sacrificed to help us keep them. Do you want your children, and their children, to be free, or do you want them to grow up in a world where terrorists rule with intimidation? We can never go too far when terror is concerned, in fact, do not feel that we have gone far enough. "Ask not what your country can do for you....".

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is God a Republican or a Democrat?

In case anyone had not noticed, the Bible makes no reference to the Republican or Democratic parties. The answer to whether God wants you to be a Democrat or a Republican can be summed up by one verse in the book of Joshua. While standing outside of Jericho, Joshua had a visitation from what can best be described as Jesus in the Old Testament. In the fifth chapter, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant.
In this passage, Joshua asks Christ the same question many are asking today. The Republicans will claim God is on their side, and some Democrats will claim God is on their side, but the answer is NAY. The real question is not which party God affiliates himself with, because as it is later stated, God is no respect of faces (he does not value one above another), but what party affiliates itself with God. Unfortunately, neither party can claim that they support God fully, and for this reason, it comes down to individuals, not parties. There are many aspects of the Political process that leave God out all together. The slander, mud slinging, back door dealings, and corruption that has become common in the political realm leave one dazed. This is simply more evidence that each candidate should be looked at on his or her merits, and personal position on each issue, not the letter listed beside their name. In many respects, George Washington was wise beyond his days when he suggested that there be no political parties, just individual candidates. This is how God views politics, he looks into the heart of the individual, not their party. However, can it be said that during any one point in history one party is closer to the path of God? Certainly God was not in favor of slavery, and in the same respect, he does not favor Gay Marriage or Abortion, so there is some merit to this point. All in all, I would have to say that God is not in favor of either party, and as I stated earlier, the question is, which party is in favor of God. From the looks of things, maybe God will abstain this time around
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture