Enjoying Christmas

I typed the first sentence of my Christmas column into the computer, Several aspects of Christmas perplex me. A soft blue light suffused the room, the clock stopped at 2:00 a.m., and a sharp knock sounded on the sliding glass door overlooking Gumlog Creek.

Troubling Doctrines

“What can I do for you, Sir?” I asked the visitor when he stepped into the room.

He answered, “It’s more what I can do for you.”

The visitor obviously possessed great power, although he did not seem immediately threatening. 

“Speak, Lord, your servant listens.”

“At least you got the words right.” The visitor looked at my computer screen. “Exactly what troubles you about Christmas?”

“The doctrine of the Virgin Birth.”

The visitor said, “I suppose you want to make the point that a theological doctrine and reality may not necessarily be the same thing?”

“That’s one thing I could write.”

“That subject,” the visitor chuckled, “doesn’t seem like a good topic for a column.”

“You’re probably right,” I conceded.

“So, what else bothers you?”

I replied, “I don’t understand why Jesus Christ had to live and die sacrificially for the forgiveness of our sins. After all, you forgave sins before Christ came to earth, and the Psalmist had already stated: The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart."

The visitor shrugged his shoulders. “OK, so you question the sacrificial model for salvation, which is more properly a subject for an Easter column, with the understanding that not many of your readers will be interested.”

Creative Enjoyment

“All right,” I said, “if you’re all-powerful and all-knowing, why wasn’t a one-time act of creation sufficient, including a mechanism for forgiveness of sins? It seems to me that you have to keep tinkering with what should have been a perfect creation.”

The visitor’s face became stern. “The formal terms, omnipotent and omniscient, apply more appropriately to my nature.”

A lightning bolt had not yet hit me, and I asked, “How can you be both omnipotent and omniscient, considering the evidence of reality?”

A great sigh came from the visitor. “Although one or two of your readers at most really care about that theological discussion, I will give you a hint. How long have you been writing these columns?”

“Since January of 1999,” I answered.

“Have you ever produced a first draft that you thought was good, even excellent on rare occasions?”

“Yes,” I stated.

“How many first drafts have you sent to the Madame Editor?”

“None,” I acknowledged.

“Why?”

“I thought my revisions would improve the drafts.”

The visitor smiled. “What gave you more enjoyment, writing the drafts or performing the revisions?”

“Both, in different ways.”

“Then,” the visitor asked, “using your own experience and keeping in mind that I made you humans in my own image with free will, have you ever thought that I enjoyed my first acts of creation and that I also enjoy my continuing acts of creation?”

“I hadn’t thought of that possibility,” I said.

The Command

“Now, I will ask questions and you will give answers, which must come from your heart, as well as from your mind.”

I said again, “Speak, Lord.”

“What have you really enjoyed about Christmas this year?”

“The Lions Club Christmas dinner.”

The visitor laughed, “Even though the seating was crowded and the food was not up to its usual high standards?”

“I enjoyed being with my brothers and sisters.”

The visitor nodded. “What else have you enjoyed?”

“Like I wrote in my last column, I thoroughly enjoyed the festivities as Lavonia celebrated Christmas.”

“What else?” the visitor persisted.

“I enjoyed decorating our memory tree with Andrea.”

“And?”

I continued, “I enjoyed the music of Christmas on WMMU and at our church - especially the Kidz4Christ program and the chancel choir’s Christmas cantata.”

“And?”

“I enjoyed being with our family.”

The visitor’s eyes flashed. “Cast your mind back to when you grew up in the Presbyterian Church, the time when you memorized and recited the Shorter Catechism.”

“I’m thinking.”

“Give me the answer to the first question: What is the chief end, that is, the primary purpose, of humans?”

I answered, “To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

The visitor demanded, “Concentrate on glorifying me and enjoying Christmas by celebrating the great gift of my Son. Don’t concern yourself with questions you cannot answer at this time.” The visitor left.

Merry Christmas

Following through on the command, I wish all who read this column a Merry Christmas in which we enjoy God, the Christ Child, and the fellowship of believers, family and friends. Glory be to God.

HUMAN FREE WILL: A GREAT GIFT OR AN ILLUSION?

For the past several weeks, our adult Sunday School Class has discussed major elements of John Wesley's theology. I'm facilitating the class this Sunday, and will provide an extension of Wesley's ideas about Free Will and Predestination. I adapted the following material from my book in progress:  Chapter 2 in Through The Wilderness (http://traversingthewilderness.blogspot.com):

Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as creatures endowed with free will versus creatures limited by predestination (determinism, predetermination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election):

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life · · · Deuteronomy 30:19

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. · · · Romans 8:29-30

In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, many sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as If God closes a door, he will open a window; We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for; and God has a plan for me. These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?

Reading “between the lines” reveals human free will as a constant theme throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil.

* At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

* God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments.

* Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And · · · love our neighbors as ourselves.).

Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto a specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless robots but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup.

* This last statement comes with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.

Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predestination/predeterminism and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own choice, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or pre-elected to receive salvation.

A simple approach cuts through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses. As John Wesley, a fervent of predestination pointed out, predestination precludes the obligation to preach the Gospel.

An additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will. Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot then direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all-powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that humans must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all-powerful and all-knowing with the ability to foresee the future. Accordingly, we can rationally accept that God embedded human free will into creation.

Where might the theological 800-lb gorilla be lurking in this argument?

God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. We may legitiamtely call these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. As with Wesley, however, we should reject any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how we will react in every situation and, further, specifies our ultimate fates through foreknowledge and predestination.

Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God minutely directs all human activities is challenged. But, can we contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned us without free will? At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists. Rather than anxiety-provoking, the preeminence of free will over predetermination should have a liberating, albeit sobering effect upon us.

Democracy and Capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the Doctrine of Free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither Democracy nor Capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. The Democratic Republic of the United States of America provides one of the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution, a noble secular document, can be easily viewed as generating a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority, with protection of certain minority rights, is carried out through fair elections. That is, the US Constitution, which is not a Christian document, is nevertheless consistent with a foundational principle of our faith - free will. As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in Democratic and Capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Free will rather than coercion (especially in the context of impeding fair elections and economic opportunity) should drive the process. 

An Inexorable Split In The United Methodist Church?

I was born into and raised in the Christian Community of Believers at the First Presbyterian Church of LaGrange, GA. Shortly after Andrea and I graduated from LaGrange College (a Methodist-affliated liberal arts institution) and were married in June 1960, I joined the United Methodist Church in Chapel Hill, NC. I have remained in the UMC because I resonate with most aspects of its theology and because I like the denominational emphasis on social action, a feature of the Methodist Church since its founding under the influence of John Wesley in the late 18th Century.

I characterize myself as a professing, albeit struggling, Judeo-Christian.

A Primer for non-Methodists (and some Methodists)

The UMC is organized at the international level. In the US, each state has one or more Annual Conferences presided over by a Bishop, always an ordained United Methodist minister. Each Annual Conference is divided into Districts, each headed by a District Superintendent, also an ordained minister. Individual churches, with one or more ordained ministers, compose each district. Each district sends it ministers and an equivalent number of lay persons to the meeting of the Annual Conference each year. These meetings take care of conference business and appointment of ministers to the local churches. The Bishop, with input from his council (District Superintendents, some ministers, and some laity), appoints ministers to the local churches.

Money, from collections and other sources, flows from the local churches to the Districts to the Annual Conferences and then to the General conference.

Every four years, the Bishops and elected delegates (ministers and laity) from each Annual Conference in the US and worldwide meet in an a General Conference, which elects new bishops and assigns all bishops to Annual Conferences.

The UMC is governed theologically and administratively through the Book of Discipline. All  ministers, at their ordination, swear to uphold the Book or Disciple, which can only be modified at a General Conference.

The Divisive Issue

The Book of Discipline states that homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

In the US, many local churches nevertheless welcome homosexuals into fellowship and membership. (This policy may not be a feature of many African churches.) Some US churches are more active in this welcoming endeavor ("Reconciling Congregations") than others. The idea is that all humans have sinned and deserve God's forgiveness and grace.

Importantly, the Book of Discipline states that no practicing homosexual may be ordained as a minister, and no United Methodist minister can officiate at a marriage or union ceremony between practicing homosexuals.

These prohibitions formed a focal point of intense discussion at the last General Conference in 2012; but, no changes were made to the Book of Discipline. At that conference and subsequently, a few Bishops have said practicing homosexuals (and LGBT persons in general) should be admitted to full fellowship including ordination. Many local ministers feel the same way. The problem is that all have sworn to uphold and abide by the Book of Discipline.

With the protean social changes underway vis-a-vis homosexuality, the issue is sure to elicit even more intense controversy at the next General Conference in 2016.

The US UMC split over slavery in the period leading to the Civil War. Administrative unity was reestablished relatively recently. We avoided a split over the issue of full ordination for women and appointment of women as bishops.

My assessment is that the US Southeastern and African Annual Conferences will not change their opinion on homosexuality. Other conferences will view changing the Book of Discipline with respect to homosexuality (1) will reflect a truer theological understanding about the Biblical prohibitions and (2) will pose a question of survival for the core of the denomination.

With strong opposition from the Southeastern and African Annual Conferences, the Book of Discipline will not be changed at the 2016 General Conference. I will be surprised if the UMC splits over the homosexuality issue between the 2016 and 2020 General Conferences.

I expect a ferocious debate about homosexuality at the 2020 General Conference. If the Book of Discipline is changed in 2020, I fully expect the US Southeastern and African General Conferences to split from the UMC to form independent versions of the Methodist Church. If the Book of Discipline is not changed in 2020, I fully expect many Annual Conferences outside of Africa and the US Southeast to split away to form their own version of the Methodist Church.

That is, baring the miracle of reconciliation, I see the split as inexorable. In my opinion, the split should come sooner rather than later: Until the Book of Discipline is changed, we are disenfranchising many of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

SCOTUS NON-SURPRISE

My intellectual support for the SCOTUS decision rendered this morning stems from the idea of using past data and behavior in a pre-emptive manner for current conditions. That is, past violations of  civil rights automatically must mandate restrictions in the present for certain states. There is, however, a SCOTUS precedent for past deficiencies carrying over to present circumstances: Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes - "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I currently live in a state that, even today in the face of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which SCOTUS did not declare unconstitutional in its entirety or even in key sections), strives to impede full access to voting by minorities. My sense, keeping in mind the long arc of justice, is that TX Republicans will not be successful in this endeavor for many more years because the TX Democratic Party will succeed  inmobilizing Hispanic voters. Once accomplished, the TX Republican Party, as presently constituted, will become pragmatically irrelevant in effect even if not intellectually in principle.

The prospect of pragmatic irrelevance makes the current TX Republican Party want a dip of snuff and a bite of raw lemon shoved up its nether regions: The TX Republicans have seen the future and it scares them to death.

Further, how goes TX will in large part determine how the national electoral process goes. At least for the present, two large states - New York and California - appear solidly Democratic and have an outsized effect upon the outcomes of national elections. When TX becomes Democratic, the national Republican Party will be toast, absent major changes in philosophy and operating procedures.

A basic problem in many (almost all states?) stems from the effect of gerrymandering to preserve current positions of elected power. Without gerrymandering, much of problems with implementation/revisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be moot.

Am I for full voting rights by all citizens? Of course. The strategy and tactics to achieve and preserve that obligatory goal - for the survival of our democratic republic - bedevils us.

In essence, all that the SCOTUS decision has done is make it harder, but not impossible, to challenge voter discrimination through the courts. 

Do I expect Congress to act anytime soon to change the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in order to make all sections Constitutionally consistent? Well, we all know about expectations: Hold both hands in front of you, expect in one hand, expectorate in the other, and determine which hand has something in it.

STANDING FIRM, LETTING GO

The United Methodist Church, in common with other Judeo-Christian denominations, struggles today with a problem that has bedeviled us for millennia in the context of societal changes: Discerning what theological principles we should hold firm versus what principles we should abandon. We've been through this process with slavery, Civil Rights, and full equality for women - to name only a few issues. Today, homosexuality represents a current major controversy that has divided many denominations and will shatter the collegiality of many more.

Ms. Mary Ann Kaiser, a youth director at University Methodist Church in Austin, TX, and an avowed lesbian, has proclaimed her candidacy for ordination in the The Southwest Texas Annual Conference. Her local church and district approved her candidacy. The Annual Conference recently voted to remove Ms. Kaiser from the ordination track. The decision has been appealed to Bishop James Dorff because, arguably, the Annual Conference violated its rules and regulations by prematurely removing Ms. Kaiser without due process.

My letter to Bishop Dorff in support of Ms. Kaiser's candidacy follows:

19 Jun 2013

Bishop James E. Dorff

United Methodist Southwest Texas Conference

16400 Huebner Rd.

San Antonio, TX 78248

Bishop Dorff:

Please do not make a theological and societal mistake with respect to the candidacy of Ms. Mary Ann Kaiser for ordination as a United Methodist minister.

For background: I was born into, and raised within, the Community of Believers at the First Presbyterian Church in LaGrange, GA. I joined the Methodist Church shortly after my wife, Andrea - a life-long Methodist, and I graduated from the Methodist-affiliated LaGrange College in 1960. I have remained a Methodist because I resonate with most of Wesleyan theology and because of our denominational focus on social action based upon important theological principles.  Andrea and I have been married for 53 years in an exclusive heterosexual relationship; we have two adult daughters, both married heterosexuals. That is, I have no homosexual ax to grind other than promoting theological rationality within our denomination.

You must be aware of the scientific evidence demonstrating homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor an aberration of the nature God bestowed upon human beings. I see no reason to delve into these issues in this letter other than to point out that our denominational stance on homosexuality does not conform to reality as revealed by biological science.

St. Paul clearly states God has not abrogated his covenant with Israel; hence, Jews remain God's chosen people. As such, again as St. Paul forcibly proclaimed, Torah (the Law, including the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality) provides the path to salvation for our Jewish brothers and sisters. In his most profound discourses, St. Paul teaches Jesus Christ is the means by which Gentile Christians come to salvation and, therefore, Gentile Christians are not bound by the strictures of Torah.

I am well aware of St. Paul's statements that are often used as justifications against homosexuality. I presume you are equally informed that homosexual and homosexuals are by no means the best translations of the Greek words St. Paul employed. Accordingly, United Methodist prohibitions against homosexuality based upon putative Pauline imprecations fail the intellectual test of rational application of theology for Gentile Christians.

If, however, you and other members of our United Methodist administration continue to exclude homosexuals, including those in committed exclusive relationships, from ordination, I expect the following immediate pronouncements from you: Revocation of the ordination of all present female clergy, heterosexual and homosexual; injunction against women speaking out in church or teaching classes within the church; and insistence that all women attend worship services with their heads covered. Retention of the prohibitions against homosexuality requires these actions in order to maintain theological and intellectual consistency with the entirety of St. Paul's Epistles. While you're at it, you should also proclaim that we must not vote or act in any other way to change the present government of the United States because God, not humans, institutes earthly rulers. Following this line of false Pauline logic suggests that foundation of the United States and Texas via revolutions violated God's will.

You, other members of the United Methodist hierarchy, and some laypersons may believe that, by holding firm against full inclusion of homosexuals within our fellowship, you will in effect preach the church empty and then preach the church full again. Such a position places our Church against the protean tidal course of theologically legitimate societal changes, as occurred with our regrettable history concerning equality for women and civil rights for our black brothers and sisters. That is, maintaining the present course will lead to the impossibility of preaching the church full again: You will have no one left in the pews within a few years to hear your preaching. The present course inevitably will lead our denomination into irrelevance and we will not be able to perform our duty to implement the Great Commission through the United Methodist Church.

It is high time for someone with theological discernment and courage to lead our denomination fully into the 21st Century along pathways thoroughly consistent with Jesus Christ's Gospel of inclusivity. Accordingly, I urge you to allow the ordination process for Ms. Kaiser to proceed without impediments.

My wife and I are members of Berkeley United Methodist Church in Austin, TX. I have not discussed this letter with our minister and friend, Rev. Jeanne Devine: The thoughts expressed are my own as a committed layperson who has held several positions within our denomination, including Lay Delegate to the North Georgia Annual Conference.

The full blessings, comfort, and especially the discernment of the Holy Spirit be upon you,

Michael F. Frosolono, Ph.D.

DATA MINING: PRIVACY AND/OR SECURITY?

Background Considerations

Benjamin Franklin, one of our primary Founders: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, often quoted as the Constitutional basis for individual privacy: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SCOTUS Judge Antonin Scalia in a 20 Jul 2012 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:  There is no right to privacy  (i.e., under the Constitution). No generalized right to privacy.

Justice Scalia made the remark in reference to a 1965 SCOTUS ruling (7 to 2) that struck down a Connecticut law restricting access of married couples to birth control. SCOTUS ruled such laws violate the Constitutional right to privacy.

An aside: I wonder if this ruling represents as an example of using bad law, or at least a bad interpretation of law, for a worthy purpose?

SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement agencies may record, without warrants:  (1) what is written on the outside of a snail mail envelope [e.g., names and addresses]  and  (2) information about the external parameters of a telephone conversation [e.g., names of persons making and receiving calls, and duration of calls]. Warrants are required to examine the contents of snail mail envelopes and telephone calls. Apparently, the Federal government's data mining programs use (1) and (2) by extrapolation to record similar "outside" information for Internet activity by American citizens and E-mails sent to, and/or received by American citizens.

The Federal Government's data mining programs (e.g., PRISM); therefore, arguably appear legal under the Constitution. Legality, of course, is not always equivalent to wise.


We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution applies only to US citizens and, perhaps, legal alien residents. I am unclear if the Constitution applies to American citizens voluntarily living abroad  - in contrast to members of our armed forces.

PROBLEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

From the beginning of the Internet and E-mail, I've assumed and operated on the presumption that my information (e.g., sites visited, searches conducted, and content of E-mails) cannot remain inviolate with respect to privacy. Early on I became aware of this problem as a result of some of my "unsavory" E-mails becoming public.

Much of the criticism of the data mining seems to focus on the following issues: (1) misunderstandings about how the programs were authorized through our elected representatives and the Federal courts, (2) the broad and deep scope of the programs, (3) lack of clarity concerning privacy rights, (4) questions about the efficacy of the programs in maintaining our national security, [i.e., have the programs prevented attacks and are they likely to prevent future attacks?], (5) lack of trust in Federal law agencies and (6) linkage of targeted assassinations [e.g, through drones) with the data mining programs.

Issue (1) seems straightforward - there should be no misunderstanding about the legality of the data mining programs based upon previous SCOTUS rulings and constitutionally sanctioned legislative/executive actions. Regrettably, many (most?) citizens seem uninformed about the roles the three branches of the Federal government play in the processes of passing and executing constitutionally valid laws. Even more regrettable are the crocodile tears some of our Senators and Representatives shed by claiming they were unaware of the extent of the programs. The entire body of Senators and Representatives appointed a subset of themselves to "monitor" the programs in an attempt to maintain both control and security of the programs. All Senators and Representatives have had the opportunity for briefings by the subset in closed sessions.

Issue (2) relates to the creepiness factor. Only a relatively few  technocrats had any idea about how constantly evolving technology allowed the massive data mining. The scope of the programs, even if legal, seems creepy and make us think of a "Brave New World" situation: Can Big Brother reading our thoughts be next?

Issue (3) comes about because most citizens, and apparently some elected representatives, have incomplete - even erroneous - ideas about privacy that exists within and outside the Constitution. How many citizens know about the constitutionally-sanctioned (as defined by SCOTUS) provisions allowing law enforcement agencies to record external information from snail mail, telephone conversations, Internet searches, and E-mail transmissions?

Issue (4), the efficacy of the data mining programs, remains an open question for many citizens. I don't see how the people who operate the systems can reveal their actual effectiveness to the general population without jeopardizing national security. Yes, the results of the programs presumably will be revealed in some detail this week to a subset of Senators and Representatives in closed session. All citizens will then have the opportunity to obtain generalized information on the efficacy. The problem then morphs to Issue (5).

Issue 5, the level of trust from the American citizenry appears to be at an all time low, from both liberals and conservatives. I believe our Founders had a healthy skepticism concerning trust in governments, a skepticism embedded in the Constitution. Can we think of any Federal entity that the great majority of citizens would trust in today's highly charged and polarized political atmosphere? The abundance of conspiracy theorists seems to shoot down the idea of trust. Thus, we find ourselves in the following situation: Suppose NSA were to reveal the details of the data mining programs, including targets and successes/failures - without somehow jeopardizing perceived national security: How many of us would then believe the truth of the revelations?

Issue 6, the linkage between targeted assassinations and data mining, enormously increases the potential for governmental abuses. In this context, I'm perfectly willing to accept that persons thought to be dangerous to our national security - both actually and presumptively - have been eliminated. Some well-meaning and astute persons, however,  believe this issue represents the primary danger of the NSA programs: We target, and kill, some persons based on presumptive, not actual, threats. Yes, we've killed some individuals who have perpetuated actual hostile actions against us. Osama bin Laden immediately comes to mind.

The extreme discomfort for some citizens arises from the targeting of persons who only represent perceived threats. The discomfort arises because we presumably don't prosecute, much imprison and/or execute, individuals on the basis of potential dangerous actions. But we engage in such activity on a daily basis: We confine individuals who make creditable terrorist threats as well as persons who, because of mental illness, represent threats to themselves and others. Further, try making a creditable threat to kill POTUS Obama and see what happens.

Compounding the situation is the actual killing of American citizens on foreign "battlefields" and the potential for killing American citizens on American soil without the benefit of a trial or other open court actions. Can we argue that such eliminations are tantamount to the lawful killing of an armed individual who poses a threat against another citizen?  Perhaps.

We need to have a full, frank, free, and open discussion in this country, not limited to the above issues but, more importantly, concerning how much civil liberty we are willing to sacrifice for national security? We should keep in mind that national security and individual security are different sides of the same coin.

I suspect we'll have a lot of strum and dang in the near future but very little limitation of the data mining and assassination programs will take place. Nevertheless, we should have the discussion, hopefully without the overheated rhetoric from certain members of Congress and bloviators.

The data mining programs, if left substantially in place, will become even more extensive and effective in identifying potential threats. Even so, I'm not particularly concerned about the civil liberty implications  - if the programs are effectively and efficiently monitored to prevent abuse.

One potential abuse, however, bothers me greatly: Presumably, the internal content of E-mails caught up in the data mining are placed in an electronic "lock box" that can be accessed only upon execution of a valid warrant through the FISA court. Can this lock box be kept safe from hackers? Can we guarantee that no governmental official will resist the temptation to look within the lock box for personal and political reasons? Think POTUS Nixon's enemies list and the IRS over zealous scrutiny of Tea Party-linked applications.