But we have been through these debates before. I am not a libertarian as you are. I am a conservative. Conservatives believe in limited government. Libertarians don’t like government at all, and want either no government or the absolute bare minimum of government. While the degrees of difference between limited government and no government may be hard to delineate, they do still exist. Biblical Christians cannot argue for no government because God created the institution of the state. In a fallen world it is vitally needed. It can easily be abused, like anything else God has ordained can be abused, but that is no excuse to seek to get rid of it altogether.

And in times of crisis, a trade-off between personal liberties and the national good will always have to be balanced out. In the war on terror, we all put up with unpleasant restrictions on our liberty, including going through detailed searches at airports, etc. We are all willing to pay a certain price to maintain other goods, such as relative freedom from terrorist attacks.

I don’t know anything about the example you have raised, and it is not my intention to defend it. But you are mixing apples and oranges here. I do not begrudge legitimate government actions to protect me and my family from terrorism, or from paedophiles as well (another group you seem quite blasé about).

The examples I have raised are mainly those of a secularist state trying to squeeze out the Christian faith. The examples you raise (both here and in past comments, as in drug legalisation) are often the legitimate actions taken by governments for the common good. I do happen to think governments should keep a close eye on terrorists and paedophiles. I do think governments should keep dangerous drugs illegal.

So I am afraid I must call your bluff here. Your contribution does not add to the debate, it simply confuses it.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

boingboing.net/2009/03/24/london-cops-reach-ne.html

“The London police have bested their own impressive record for insane and stupid anti-terrorism posters with a new range of signs advising Londoners to go through each others’ trash-bins looking for “suspicious” chemical bottles, and to report on one another for “studying CCTV cameras.”

It’s hard to imagine a worse, more socially corrosive campaign. Telling people to rummage in one another’s trash and report on anything they don’t understand is a recipe for flooding the police with bad reports from ignorant people who end up bringing down anti-terror cops on their neighbors who keep tropical fish, paint in oils, are amateur chemists, or who just do something outside of the narrow experience of the least adventurous person on their street. Essentially, this redefines “suspicious” as anything outside of the direct experience of the most frightened, ignorant and foolish people in any neighborhood.

Even worse, though, is the idea that you should report your neighbors to the police for looking at the creepy surveillance technology around them. This is the first step in making it illegal to debate whether the surveillance state is a good or bad thing. It’s the extension of the ridiculous airport rule that prohibits discussing the security measures (“Exactly how does 101 ml of liquid endanger a plane?”), conflating it with “making jokes about bombs.”

The British authorities are bent on driving fear into the hearts of Britons: fear of terrorists, immigrants, pedophiles, children, knives… And once people are afraid enough, they’ll write government a blank check to expand its authority without sense or limit.

What an embarrassment from the country whose level-headed response to the Blitz was “Keep Calm and Carry On” — how has that sensible motto been replaced with “When in trouble or in doubt/Run in circles scream and shout”? ”

Pictures of posters here:

www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/street_chemicals_poster.jpg

www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/street_chemicals_cctv.jpg

Actual police announcement here:

www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/index.htm

I think our world leaders have gotten a bit confused. 1984 was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Paul Harry

I will sniff around for info on the revival. In the meantime, yes, you will have to go back as a missionary. But bear in mind that this has happened before. Back in 1890 William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) penned his famous book, In Darkest England and the Way Out. Britain was in pretty sad shape back then as well, but Christian workers, like the SA, really helped to turn things around. We certainly do need more of the same today. We need revival and reformation.

And by the way, there is a great quote from Booth. He once said, “God loves with a great love the man whose heart is bursting with a passion for the impossible.” Britain today is in the impossible category, as is much of the West. But this is the chance for God’s people to shine. To God be the glory.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I have also heard rumors of the stirrings of a Christian revival in the country – I would love to hear something about this from you. If I do go back there to live, it may be as a missionary venturing into the deepest jungle… of wrongheaded ideas.

Jane Steen

Yes, we will keep you and the country in prayer as your nation goes to the polls.

Blessings

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

We are not really praying for a specific party or candidate’s victory but praying for repentance among God’s people(for the church to be made pure and holy again) and against strongholds over the country, idolatry etc.

Then, when I read this article now, I saw Bill quoting Alexander Solzhenitsyn saying: “It is because we have forgotten God. That is why all this is happening to us”. It is so true for so many countries around the world today, also for South Africa.

So tomorrow is election day and we’ll meet on the town square for a final time at 05h00 before the voting booths open at 07h00. It is time for the people to turn to God again!

Servaas Hofmeyr, South Africa