where religion and politics meet

Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is what one believes about life: what is true, what is false, what is right, what is wrong, what are the rules, are there any rules, what is the meaning of life, what is important, what is not.

If a worldview includes a god/God, it is called a religion. If a bunch of people have the same religion, they give it a name.

Countries also have a worldview, a way of looking at life that directs government policies and laws and that contributes significantly to the culture. Ours used to be Christianity. Now it is secularism, which is practical atheism.

Some of us are trying to engage the government, the culture, and the people who live here to see life again from a Christian perspective and to show how secularism is both inadequate and just plain wrong.

A religion is not a culture, though it creates one. It is not what you prefer, like your taste in music or your favorite movie. It is what you believe to be true. Because it deals with things like God, much of its contents is not subject to the scientific method, but the reasons why one chooses to believe in God or a particular religion certainly demand serious investigation and critical thinking.

Every human being has the duty to search for and learn the truth about life. Education and science used to be valuable tools in this search, but science has chosen to answer the foundational questions without accepting the possibility of any supernatural causes, and education no longer considers the search to be necessary or worthwhile.

poligion: 1) the proper synthesis of religion and politics 2) the realization, belief, or position that politics and religion cannot be separated or compartmentalized, that a person’s religion invariably affects one’s political decisions and that political decisions invariably stem from one’s worldview, which is what a religion is.

Visit my other websites theimportanceofhealing blogspot.com where I talk about healing and my book of the same name and LarrysBibleStudies.blogspot.com where I am posting all my other Bible studies. Follow this link to my videos on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-RztuRKdCEQzgbhp52dCw

If you want to contact me, email is best: lacraig1@sbcglobal.net

Thank you.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

The Presidency of Hillary Clinton compared to President Obama

My response to a question regarding the Presidency of Hillary Clinton compared with President Obama:

I believe that Hillary Clinton will run on a platform of equality: racial, gender, and income.  She will paint minorities, women, and poorer people as victims who have been taken advantage of and whom she will help by her policies and priorities.  She won’t have the affinity with the Muslim community that the President has, but she will see Muslim-Americans as another disenfranchised demographic that the government needs to protect. 

As Commander-in-Chief of the military, I believe she will be quick to use military action when our interests are at stake and when the public expects it, but I believe she will also not use them effectively, so that the public will tire of U.S. casualties and see the ineffectiveness of military force to solve our problems.  She will want us to rely more on negotiations and compromise to achieve peace and stability in the world.


I don’t know if she will lie as much as the President does.  She just won’t say anything, and the people will stop asking the questions.  Better or worse?  Would you rather die by hanging or firing squad?  Ultimately you end up in the same place.

how should we respond to an unresponsive government

My answer to a contest question on how to fix an unresponsive government.

Historically, I would say that it has been the media and the churches that have kept the pressure on government to be honest, open, and responsive.  The common element is that you have people who can talk to large numbers of people and ideally they can give the people some direct way to respond to what is happening in our capitols. 

Most of the media have failed us for some time now, basically I would say because they favor the Democratic philosophy of government and the only alternative is the Republicans who have a large conservative, Christian element in it that they would like to ignore.

Churches have stood by silently for too long for a number of reasons, but partly because they were told to do so by our government.  The threat of losing tax exempt status is a powerful force.
Any kind of reform depends on leadership, people who can identify the problems, clearly provide answers, and then show other people what they can do as well. 

Dr. Savage, you identify a host of problems, but your listeners need to know what they can do about them.  Should they write somebody, picket something, call somebody?  Government will respond if enough people call them on something.  You have, what, 3 million listeners.  (I’m guessing.)  If one per cent of them wrote a letter to somebody, I would say it would have an impact. 


We also need leaders who will bring our nation’s attention to such egregious evils as gerrymandering.

short answer for improving education in our country

This is my answer to a contest question of how to improve our nation's education.

There are two things we can do to ‘reset’ American education. 

The first thing may sound radical, extreme, to some, but we need to frame the debate.  If we talk about Progressives, then we are alerting them that we are trying to dislodge them.  I would choose a different strategy.

Our schools used to be the best in the world.  I don’t think anybody would dispute that.  That was before we had a separate Department of Education that we now spend $50 billion a year on with 50,000 employees.  Now our schools are inferior to that in most civilized countries. 

The Department of Education has shown itself to be not only a failure but irrelevant.  It should be ended, all control for education should be left to the states or local communities, and that $50 B could be used to pay down our national debt.  Teachers just need a classroom and books, and let them teach.


The second thing we need to do is to support private schools and homeschooling, which consistently show better results and promote better values.  The single best way to do that is to outlaw the double costs of not sending one’s children to public schools.  Two-thirds of property taxes pay for public schools.  Property taxes are at record levels.  We need to allow parents the right to deduct from their taxes the amount they spend on alternative education.

how should immigration affect a country's culture

my response to the talk show host's question the changes that immigration has on a nation

Immigration always changes American culture.   The problem is that these changes are different from in the past, because we are divided as a nation as to what American culture is.  We used to teach the Bible in our schools, and our nation embraced the values of love thy neighbor, compassion, helping people in need, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, giving, sacrifice, honesty, integrity, hard work, responsibility, respect, courage, self-control, discipline, humility, trust, honesty, loyalty, faithfulness, patience, saving yourself for marriage, not having children out of wedlock, and working through hard marriages rather than breaking up a family.
Now the moral consensus, at least in public, has been reduced to the lowest common denominators: tolerance, equality, fairness, and diversity.  This means that there is no American culture for an immigrant to adopt, but our country must try to adapt to their culture.
I contend that the battle must first be over our country’s values.  Where we were taught to love our neighbors, now we are taught merely to tolerate them, which is another way of saying ignore them.  Is this how we want our people to live? 
Diversity just means we are encouraging people to have less in common with each other, and how can we then be united as a nation?  A house divided cannot stand, Some Famous Person once said.

Equality has come to mean that we hold back our greatest achievers so that everybody else doesn’t feel bad.  Is this what we want for our nation?

should the U.S. have a Parliament instead of a Congress?

This is my answer to the question of whether the U.S. needs a parliamentary system, as asked by a radio talk show host in a contest.

The United States does not need a parliamentary system.  Our Founders could have modeled our country after England, and Europe, in this regard but chose not to.

I would suggest three reasons why our system is better than theirs.
1)         An important feature of our government is checks and balances, which makes it harder for our leaders to change things.  This allows for more time and discussion on issues and less chances of any party or person forcing an agenda on the country.  Our government has three equal branches, while a Parliament really only has two, since the Prime Minister is essentially a part of the Legislature. 
2)         Our Congressmen are chosen to 2 year terms, so their terms in office are supposed to be more responsive to the desires of their constituents.  If the constituents don’t like what is going on, they can change it a lot faster.  Parliaments generally have a lot longer time between elections.
3)         Political parties have a much greater hold in Parliaments than in the States.  Here anyone can run for office, but there the parties make that decision.  The parties expect and get much more conformity over political decisions in a Parliament than in Congress.


Democrats

A radio talk show host with strong political views asked the question as part of a contest whether there is any chance of working within the Democratic Party.  My answer follows:

There is no chance of working within the Democratic Party.  The Democrats run under the basic assumption that the government has the ability and the responsibility to solve every problem.  This requires micromanagement of every part of our lives plus massive amounts of money to run a program that addresses that problem. 

As part of their policy, they try to identify different demographics in our country and think of something that the government can give them that would win their support.  Once given, these things can never be taken away.  Where rights used to be things that you could do without the government hindering you, rights now have become things that you are entitled to that the government is required to see that you have.

They don’t view the country as a whole and ask what is best for the country.  They view the country as different parts with different needs so that meeting the needs of the one part could create new needs for the other parts.  The government would then have reason for another program to deal with those needs.


There are, however, a few demographics that do not need government assistance but actually do require some government control.  Those are white, male, and Christian.

what is needed for a successful third party

There is only one thing that prevents the success of a third party, and it is easily fixable.  Most elections that have more than two candidates do not require the winner to have more than 50% of the votes to win.  This is wrong, and everybody will agree that it is wrong.  But nobody who has a public voice is saying anything about it.

To change this, you don’t want to mention that this is needed so we can have a third party.  That would only prolong the process and create opposition.  You just want to focus on how undemocratic it is that somebody can win an election without a majority of the votes.

The only legitimate criticism of changing the current system is that it would require a runoff, which is expensive.  The solution for that is that on the ballot, after you vote for the person you want, the next item asks: if the person you voted for receives too few votes, who would be your second choice?  

This would shift all those ‘wasted’ votes to the candidate whose votes were split and give us a true winner.

That’s it.  That’s all it takes to launch a successful third party.


How do we change it?  The best way would be for a public figure who has a very large audience to keep pushing for it and telling that audience who they should call or write about it.  He could even write a book about it.