where religion and politics meet

Everybody has a worldview. A worldview is what you believe 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.

Nations have worldviews too, a prevailing way of looking at life that directs government policies and laws and that contributes significantly to the culture. Politics is the outworking of that worldview in public life.

Our country’s worldview used to be Christianity. Now we are told it is and has always been secularism, which is practical atheism. This issue divides our country, but those who disagree are divided as well on how to respond.

Our country could not have been founded as a secular nation, because a secular country could not guarantee freedom of religion. Secular values would be higher than religious ones, and they would supersede them when there was a conflict. Secularism sees religion only as your personal preferences, like your taste in food, music, or movies. It does not see religion, any religion, as being true.

But God, prayer, the Bible, and the Ten Commandments were always important parts of our public life, including our public schools, until 1963, when the court called supreme ruled them unconstitutional, almost 200 years after our nation’s founding.

Our country also did not envision a multitude of different religions co-existing in one place, because the people, and the government, would then be divided on the basic questions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our Constitution, which we fought a war to be able to enact, states, among other things, that our government exists for us to form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It could not do this unless it had a clear vision of what it considers to be true, a vision shared with the vast majority of the people in this country.

I want 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.

Because religion deals with things like God, much of its contents is not subject to the scientific method, though the reasons why one chooses to believe in God or a particular religion certainly demand serious investigation, critical thinking, and a hunger for what is true.

Science and education used to be valuable tools in the search for truth, but science has chosen to answer the foundational questions of life without accepting the possibility of any supernatural causes, and education no longer considers the search to be necessary, possible, 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.

If you are new to this site, I would encourage you to browse through the older articles. They deal with a lot of the more basic issues. Many of the newer articles are shorter responses to partiular problems.

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:


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

Thank you.

Larry Craig

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Why the Van Dyke Verdict was Wrong

The Van Dyke verdict was a wrong verdict. 


Because the charges were wrong.  The only realistic choice the jury had was between first degree murder and second-degree murder.

The trial itself was a mistake.  It was only done to appease the mobs angered by the hundreds of killings and shootings that nobody seems to be able to do anything about.

We hire people to put their lives at great risk to uphold the laws and to protect the public.  A trial, charge, and verdict like this will make their job a hundred times more dangerous. 

A retired Chicago police officer friend of mine posted a compilation video on Facebook of cops being killed in the performance of their duties, because they could not respond fast enough to an unforeseen attack. 

We are now expecting our police officers to act only defensively, giving those who would do them harm an unacceptable advantage. 

In the long term, this ruling will mean an increase in the loss of lives of police officers and an increase in the loss of public safety. 

As for Van Dyke: if his conduct was unreasonable for a police officer, as determined by police officers, then they should be able to terminate his work as one.  To do more I believe is a mistake, and a serious one.

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Three Reasons Why Illinois Should Not Elect J.B. Pritzker as Governor

1          He will raise your taxes. 

He says he won’t, but he wants to change the tax stricture in a way that will make it easier to raise taxes in the future, and they WILL be raised.   That’s what Democrats do.

When everybody pays the same rate, then politicians have to answer to all the voters for any tax increases.  But when there are different rates for different people, like J. B. Pritzker wants, since people only care about their own rates, politicians never face all the voters on any particular tax hike. So, they feel they are safe from the voters when they want to raise them.  People will always vote for tax hikes on other people

He says he won’t raise taxes on the middle class.  It’s only for the rich.  That’s what they said when they first started the federal income tax.  How did that work out?

Democrats always want to spend more money than they have, so if Pritzker doesn’t raise taxes himself, he will have put in place a system that will to make it easier for the next Democratic governor to raise them.

With Illinois’ debt problem, tax increases are inevitable if you don’t cut spending.  And Democrats have no intention or desire to cut spending.  Ever.  On anything

2.         J.B. Pritzker has never said anything about the debt crisis in Illinois.  He either doesn’t have an answer, doesn’t think there is a problem, doesn’t want the public to think about it, thinks the public won’t notice, or just wants to be governor so bad that he doesn’t want to say or do anything that might be considered risky.

He only talks about new programs, more things to spend money on that we don’t have and have to borrow money to pay for.

3.         You need someone who is not a Democrat as governor to act as a counterbalance to the Democrats.

The Democrats have buried Illinois in a mountain of insurmountable debt.  It’s hard to get exact numbers, but $200 billion is a good guess.  They will never cut spending, and they are always, always, looking for more ways to get more of your money. 

We spend a billion dollars a year just for interest on that debt. A billion dollars.  What a waste of your money!

The state is bankrupt, but it cannot legally file for bankruptcy.  The Democrats don’t care how much debt we have.  They will only keep adding to it and let your kids and grandkids face the consequences.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

Democrats and immature voters - a letter sent to a newspaper

I find it interesting that Democrats are spending so much on getting young people to vote (Sept. 6: $30M spent to energize young voters).  Seems they see that as a sure Democratic vote. 

Yet at the same time, though nobody I think has made a formal investigation here, I would bet that it is Democrats mainly who are pushing for all the raising of the legal ages for smoking, drinking, and buying guns.

The same people who are not smart enough to make personal choices about things that affect them the most are at the same time seen as wise enough to make the right decisions for our country. 

We lowered the age for voting, because we were drafting 18 year olds to fight in a war that we weren’t trying to win.

We no longer have a draft, and even Democrats, by their actions, are supporting the idea that we should raise the voting age back to at least 21.  The legal age for voting should never be lower than the recognized age for full adulthood.

What is a Human Right? or, What is the Difference between rights given by God and rights given by man?

Can you name all your human rights?

It’s hard.  I know.  The list keeps growing.

And that should make you very suspicious.

And what makes the task all the more difficult is that the idea of a human right has changed as well.  Things that had never been thought of as a right before have now become rights.  And that should also make you very suspicious.

Something is changing, and we need to know who is doing the changing and why.

Our country is based on the idea of human rights.  They were unique among the nations of the world, but now not so much.   Yes, some nations copied us, but lately we have been copying other nations.  That too should make you suspicious.

And what is even more suspicious is that rights that had existed from the founding of our country are now being called into question, and demands are being made to limit, restrict, and even abolish them. 

And things that were never considered to be rights, in fact they were often found to be morally wrong and offensive, are now given full right status with the full legal backing of the government.

The genius of our country is that God gave unalienable rights to people, rights that precede and supersede government.  Government did not give them, and government cannot take them away. 

The Founders debated whether to put a list of them into the Constitution.  They were concerned that people might think that these rights came from the government.  They were concerned too that people might think that these were the only rights God had given them, and they were concerned that people might think that the government had the power to limit, change, or revoke them.

It is important too to ask how they came to believe that God had given them rights, and what God were they talking about.  Every nation at that time believed in a god of some sort, but they were the only ones who believed in these unalienable human rights. 

The short answer is that they believed in the God of the Bible and that the Bible showed humans His plans for how life is to be lived. 

Somewhere between our founding and today, with the help of the court called supreme, the idea took hold that our nation, as in our government and our public life, must be neutral toward all religions.  It must not favor one over another.  All are equal.

In practice, this came to mean that government and public life must be conducted apart from religion, as if there were no such thing as religion.  Religion came to be seen as people’s personal views, like their preferences in books or movies or food.  But no religion was seen as being true, as in describing how life really is.

But all this cannot be true, if our nation’s founding was based on one particular religion, namely, Christianity.   If that religion is not true in a sense different from how any other religion might be considered true, then our country was founded on a myth, a lie, a false belief, and as such it has no basis in reality.

Along with this neutrality toward any or all religion, it was concluded that our nation was intended to be and always was a secular nation.  God had no place in our government or our public life.  Religion was entirely a private matter best kept to oneself.

Prior to this time, the Ten Commandments formed the moral values of our country.  But as a secular country, there was no pre-made moral system to resort to.  A new one had to be made up as they went along, from the ground up.

So if our rights don’t come from God, then they must come from the government.  This is what is commonly known as a perfect storm. 

People in government like to stay in government.  One reason is that they get to make the rules, including the ones that affect them.  Who else gets to do that? 

Another reason is that government has access to seemingly unlimited amounts of money.  You can get very rich being an elected official in our federal government.  And one of the best ways to get elected is by what you offer the people who can vote for you. 

And, of course, the government has no money of its own, only what it gets from the people who pay taxes.  Which leads to the point about the meaning of rights being changed.

The rights that our Founders listed in the Bill of Rights all have to do with individual freedoms, things that people could do without government interference, restriction, or supervision.  People were, well, free.  The government was created, added, to help keep it that way.  Other countries often liked to impose their will on other nations, so a national government was the best way to defend our nation from them.

There were also rights that protected people from the government, like the right to a jury or legal defense.

When God, and Christianity, were part of the fabric of our country, people didn’t look to the government to solve every problem or to meet every need.  But now that God has been removed from public life and government, problems arise, and there is nobody else to look to for help but the government. 

When the government starts giving out, or recognizing, new rights, they will generally fall into two categories.

The first category is the establishment of a new moral standard that supersedes the old one and compels everyone to follow the new one.

The First Amendment guaranteed the free exercise of religion.  It couldn’t do that unless religion was consistent with the moral values of our country.  This shows that our country was a Christian nation, because some well-known religions of that time burned widows alive with their dead husbands or constantly waged war on those who did not practice their religion.

Two recent examples today are abortion and gay marriage.  Obviously if you don’t believe in abortion, you don’t have to have one.  But you do have to subsidize those who do. 

The Founders would have found that highly offensive, and so do a very large number of people today.  The idea of freedom of conscience, which is how the Founders often referred to this right of free exercise of religion, is trampled on as people are forced to have their money spent on something they find abhorrent. 

It’s true that God, or evolution if you prefer, gave incredible responsibility to mothers by this whole pregnancy, birth, and very intense raising process, but our society used to value the life and birth of every child, and it used to be common to be able to raise a large family on one income.  Now that has been made difficult for many families due to inflation and the loss of millions of good paying jobs due to other government policies.

Gay marriage is another example.  It was touted before it became a right as simply letting people love who they want.  Nothing else would change.  But you can’t believe what people say about the long-term effects of new things. 

Now people of conscience are being forced to give up their businesses and their jobs if they do not enthusiastically embrace something that was unknown throughout all of human history until a few years ago.  Your freedom of conscience and religion mean nothing to the government if their new secular values differ from the old religious ones.

The second category of rights that government gives is that it requires the compliance of everybody else to meet the rights of other people.

Again, this has two forms. 

One is the right to be protected from the free speech of other people.  The Founders would have highly objected to this.  If you read a lot in the early writings of our country, you will see that much of what was said, particularly about public figures, was very crude and often far from the truth.

But more particularly these new rights put the burden of deciding what speech is acceptable on the hearer rather than the speaker.  And the government, the media, and the public will use every means they have to shame, shut down, or prosecute violators of this policy.  And because the hearers now determine the validity of the speech, free speech is being highly restricted, a large part because people are afraid to speak freely.  Free speech has now become very costly.

This is simply wrong.  But it is the natural result when a government establishes a new moral order (secularism) over a country’s original moral order (religious, or Christian).

The other form of government rights requires other people to pay for them.  If a person has a right to low cost medical insurance, for example, then everybody else, at least those who pay taxes, is paying toward it.  If a person has a right, not a full right yet, to own a home, everybody else has to pay to make that possible, often in indirect ways like shifting tax or loan costs. 

What happens is that, in a secular world where God has no place, rights are viewed collectively instead of individually.  Charity was voluntary, and by the way it was considerable.  Read de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.  There used to be voluntary organizations aimed at every possible societal problem to be found at the time.  Now government has taken that over, and your freedom of choice to participate has gone.

Some people have described this as a form of slavery: forcing people to work for other people against their will.  But just saying that, many people will find offensive, because those who might say that are not usually of the same race of some other people who were slaves here 150 years ago.

This whole new value system of secularism is fundamentally changing our country.  It’s happening slowly, over generations, so that younger people start out with new normals, and nobody is teaching them the original ones. 

This goes the same for the millions of people who have been coming into our country over the last few decades.  We don’t teach them the founding principles of our country either.  They might get the new watered-down simplified version, but, being far from the original, over time, when they vote, run for office, and make new laws, it turns our country in a very different direction from where it was intended to go.

It’s like we are being taken over by a foreign power; but because it is gradual and the military is not involved, nobody is paying attention, or they are too busy to interrupt their lives to be involved themselves.
Does anybody remember the story about the camel’s foot in the tent?   It hasn’t been used in years.  It starts with the foot, but eventually the whole camel got into the tent, and, well, there’s not much room left for anything else with a camel in a tent.

The fact is that this is a war for the soul and life of our nation.  And wars require sacrifices and disruptions of our normal lives to do whatever we can to regain and preserve our freedoms.  Those who want to change our country in these ways will tell you that you got the original story wrong or that our country has been wrong all along.

Most people are probably not prepared to answer those views, but we need to get prepared.  That’s part of the sacrifice, and then we need to get involved.  The first way to get involved is to talk about these things, in conversations and then to the media and the people in government, and certainly to become active in every election and to know where the candidates stand on the principles that define them and not just the positions they publicly run on.

Wars used to be three or four years, and then they were over.  This war has been going on for generations and will last for, well, we don’t have no idea.  If you don’t want to do it for yourself, then do it for your children and your grandchildren.

Friday, August 31, 2018

Six Ways Our Government is Failing Us Part 4

Our Founders fought a war in order to be able to create the government that we have.  The Preamble to our Constitution lists six purposes for this government, the reasons that it exists, why we have it in the first place.

Our government has failed in all six of its reasons for being.  But it’s actually worse than that.  To say that they, and these are people and not a thing, have failed can suggest that they tried and were unsuccessful.  On the contrary, they don’t seem to show any awareness that their mission statement even exists.  At the same time, they are trying very hard to fill this country with people from all over the world who also have no idea why our nation exists or the foundation on which it was built, and they have no plans to tell or teach them.

Our government has failed the American people. 

In this last article, we will look at the last two here-defined purposes of our government.

The first is: to promote the general welfare

Sounds simple enough, but what does it mean?

The first thing to note is that our government has changed this.  The words are the same, but gradually, over time, slowly, they were able to transform the meaning of this purpose of its existence from promoting the general welfare to providing the general welfare.

This was never meant to be the government’s role, and the simplest proof of that is that our federal government is now $21.5 trillion in debt.  Many states and cities also have this same kind of unsustainable debt with no planes or intentions of getting out of debt.

As a result, the government is neither providing or promoting the general welfare.  There is not enough money to provide for the general welfare and trying to do so takes away from the general welfare of everybody else.

What happened here?

Our country has always been a compassionate people.  Read de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.  He came to the United States from France in the 1830s to see what this new nation was all about.  He found a nation highly religious, as in Christian, but he also found that these highly religious Christian people had founded hundreds of organizations dedicated to all the possible ills of society. 

Did they give money to people?  Did they give to the poor?  Did they help people who came into hard times?  Yes to all of these.  But nobody was compelled to do this.  None of this came at the cost of anybody else, unless, of course, they did it willingly.

Now the government insists that everybody pay for this, whether they want to or not.  And, as we can see, there isn’t enough money to be had to do that.  When people do charity, which is what we used to call it, locally and personally, it was always temporary and people did what they could to help get the people our of having to need help from other people. 

Governments don’t do that so well.  Plus, two undesirable effects occur when government does it.  One is that people come to expect it, making it more unlikely that they will ever fully want or be able to become independent.  And, secondly, the government itself becomes dependent on this higher level of spending, because they see it as a way to increase the likelihood of their continuance in government.  Who would you rather vote for, somebody who offers to pay toward your housing, your food, your insurance, or somebody who says it’s not his job, and besides, we can’t afford it.

All this change in thinking occurred as our country starred denying the religious (Christian) foundation of our country and insisted that our country was and was always intended to be a secular country.  A secular country has secular values, not religious ones, and as these took shape, the government came to replace the role of God in people’s lives. 

When people believed in God, they looked to Him for their protection, their provision, and their happiness.  Remove God from public life, and the people still have these basic needs, whether they believe in God or not.  So, the government takes on the roles, and the people turn to it to meet all their needs.

The second thing to note about promoting the general welfare is that it means that our government exists to take care of the people of the United States first.  We, the people of the United States, in order to . . . promote the general welfare . . .do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.

Every country has their own Constitution and their own government.  We cannot control what happens in other countries, and nobody expects us to try.  Ideally every government takes care of its own people.  That’s why they exist. 

Think of it like a family, the simplest and oldest form of government.  Parents don’t look for the neediest kids on the block or the world to take care of.  They are there to take care of the ones they have.  They put the welfare of their kids above their own and will sacrifice anything for their kids.  Yes, there are exceptions, but that’s why they are called exceptions. 

This doesn’t mean that they don’t care about the other children on the block or in the world, but it also doesn’t mean that they take care of you, because you are the neediest kid on the block.  They don’t decide who they take care of based on need.  They may help other kids in need, but they don’t sacrifice what is best for you even if those other needs are greater.

Does this make them racist, discriminatory, or selfish?  No, it’s what parents do.  And whether you believe in God or evolution, they both ended up in the same place: parents who live and sacrifice foe their children first.

And that’s what our government is supposed to do.

Our government was created to take care of the citizens of our country.   Some people might point out that the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention citizens and non-citizens, as if the government has an equal or similar responsibility in both cases, but it is We the People of the United States who formed this government.  You can invite a neighbor kid over for lunch if you want, but nobody says that you are a bad person if you don’t take him into your family and make him equal to our own children. 

Some people do take needy kids into their family.   But they don’t do it at the expense of the first kids.  But today there are a lot of people both in and outside our government who will try to shame us for not spending money we don’t have on needy people. 

The difference is that promoting the general welfare is for all the people of our country.   If you try to provide for (I mean, promote) the welfare of somebody at the expense of somebody else, you’re just not doing your job. 

The last specified purpose of our government is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

There are two ways here that our government is failing to do this:

The first is the enormous unsustainable debt that they have placed our country in.  Debt makes everything you buy more expensive.  That is the opposite of promoting the general welfare.  But at some point, the whole system breaks down.  The fact that we have the world’s reserve currency gives us some breathing room, but there are nations that want to change that, and partly because of our debt. 

But when you rely on other countries to loan you money so you can pay your bills, you are putting the entire country in a precarious position.  You are not securing the blessings of liberty to our children; you are jeopardizing them.

The second way is this insistence that our country is a secular country.  That means that our rights are not unalienable.  They are given by the government or the consensus of the people.  This means that all the rights of the Bill of Rights are open to modification and even revocation, if the government or the people decide to.  And this is happening today with the First and Second Amendments primarily. 

As a religious (Christian) nation, we can go 200 years without a problem here, but in a few generations of being ‘secular’, it is commonly thought that those rights are too irresponsible. 
The Founders believed that our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people (see John Adams.).  Secularism can’t provide that, and so it tries to limit those freedoms and soon finds enormous new costs to our country in terms of law enforcement and security forces.

So where do we go from here?

It’s a matter of public education.  The people in charge won’t do it, so it falls on the people who know better to bring it to the public’s attention.  Through articles, videos, books, and just as importantly, personal conversations.

We need to emphasize that we have rights given to us by God.  That means that we are not a secular nation and that God has a place in our public life and education.  And we have to demand that our government do what it was created to do.  They are not interested in changing, so we have to keep up talking about it until they can’t ignore us anymore.

If the people alive today were alive at the time of our founding, there never would have been a Revolution.  If the people living then were alive today, there already would have been a second one.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Six Ways Our Government is Failing Us Part 3

The fourth reason that our Founders fought a war to create our government was: to provide for the common defense

This seems like one of the few purposes of our government that doesn’t require any explanation, yet that simplicity can distract us from seeing the bigger picture.

Do wars require bloodshed and death before they are called wars?  Are wars only fought with guns?  Do wars require clear starting dates and ending dates to mark their existence? 

From 9/11, we saw that wars don’t have to be between nations.  Enemies can exist within nations or within many nations at the same time.  They won’t always have fixed headquarters, firm boundaries, limited numbers of military targets, or even uniforms.

From 9/11 we saw that wars don’t have to be fought just with guns.  Soldiers can be recruited and deployed through ideas that can be communicated easily through books, media, and the internet.  A common enemy can easily have forces in a hundred countries, and nobody may even knows they’re there.

From 9/11 we saw that wars can last over generations.  No longer can we think like the past where even a world war took only 4 years for us.  Europe had a Thirty Year War and a Hundred Years War, but now we have entered a war where we should not be thinking about or even planning for an end date.

Now, 9/11 wasn’t the start of this war.  It only made us aware that what has been happening throughout the world for 1500 years does indeed affects us and has finally reached us.  There is a common goal for these now several hundred known organizations that are waging the same war in countries from Europe and Africa to the Far East and has now come to the Western Hemisphere.

This common ultimate goal is to make our country just like the countries they came from.  In other words, they want our country to change its Constitution and its core values.  That’s it.  The goal isn’t really to kill people, though that was necessary in other counties past and may be necessary again, but the goal is to change our country. 

They have learned, at least some of them, that killing people is not always necessary to achieve that goal.  They are now flooding the world with their people in every country that will admit them.  These people themselves may not even be thinking of that ultimate goal, but their leaders know that this is enough.  They can change the demographics of a country over generations, and it’s only a matter of time before they have enough people to change the things they want to change. If physical conflicts are necessary, it’s a lot easier from their viewpoint if they are emmeshed in that society.

Now all this should have made us aware of another matter.  Are these the only groups that want to change our country?   

And this is where it gets tricky.

Things always change.  Nothing stays the same.  Right?  Well, yes and no.

In anything, families, schools, businesses, society, government, countries, they all have to figure out what things make them what they are and must be protected and preserved, and what things can change without losing what it was that made them what they are. 

Frankly, right now our country is in a crisis, though I doubt very many people are even aware of it.  They know something is going on, but they don’t know how to define it or what exactly is it that is going on.

Our country is changing and changing rapidly.  Many or most of the major changes have come and are coming through intentional actions of our government and our courts, but it is not the source of these.  The government and courts are made up of people, and they are where the people who want to change our country can do what they have come to believe they must do after having decided that our country is not what they believe it ought to be.

The crisis is that our country doesn’t know anymore what exactly it is that made it what it is, or whether there something we ought to be that we must protect ourselves from.  Yes, things change.  But what changes just come from growing and learning, and what changes change us into something that we were never intended to be, that are contrary to what our Founders fought a war to give us, and that made us the most prosperous and freest nation in the history of the world.

What makes all this difficult is that there are people in our schools and our government who are discrediting everything we thought we knew about the past, and we are watching the country we grew up in changing in ways we never imagined, and we don’t know what to do or even if we are right to do anything.  Maybe we were wrong about our country.

When people are sworn into high government positions, we hear it said that they are to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  So what exactly is a domestic enemy? 

It is someone who is working to change the fundamental nature of our country.  And if we don’t know what the fundamental nature of our country is, we won’t know what changes are inevitable and acceptable and what changes must be fought or defended against.

So we have to ask the question: what is America?  Throughout history, nations formed from a common ancestry or a common language.  But the United States formed through a core set of beliefs, and the simplest, most basic foundational belief or principle is that God gave people unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights are rights that precede and supersede government.  Government cannot remove, modify, or restrict them. That’s it in a nutshell.  That is what our freedoms and liberty are based on.  Our government was created to protect and preserve those rights. 

Providing for the common defense includes protecting our nation from people who already live here who want to change our country by changing this most fundamental foundational principle of our country.

And why would they want to do that?  Two reasons, and they are related, but not everyone needs to know both reasons.

They believe they have a better way to run our country, and/or they don’t like the foundational principle of our country. 

Our country is based on a belief in God.  If God doesn’t exist or if we are not allowed to bring God into our politics or the public square, we are running our country as atheists.  To be neutral to all religions is to recognize none of them as being true or important for our country.  They only exist, because people insist on having them, but they have no relevance beyond the persons believing them.

But then what does that do to the idea that our rights come from God?  Simply put, it must be mistaken.  There is no higher power than our government which has now assumed the role of benefactor and provider for the people of the land. 

And this is the very thing that all nations believe.  They just disagree over what rights the government gives and should give to its people. 

Our government is on a mission to bring in as many people from as many different countries of the world as possible, and then we don’t teach them the founding principle of our country.  We don’t even teach it to our own children.  In a few generations, nobody who votes, runs for office, or makes laws will be guided by that principle, and the United States will cease to exist from the unique nation we were founded to be.

And the worst part?  All these people won’t even know that it happened.  The change is gradual.  Every generation starts with a new normal. 

The older people who were taught differently and who remember more of the past are dying, and the proportion of those who don’t even know or, as in the case of many of the people who come here, wouldn’t even believe in our founding principles if they were told it, is increasing daily.

The government that was created to provide for the common defense is allowing and even encouraging the destruction of our country from within.  Some of it is caused by those who believe in this, but many don’t’ even know what our founding principles are, so they are unwitting, willing accomplices to our downfall. 

Stopping this won’t depend on a huge military budget.  Stopping this won’t happen if we hope somebody else will do it for us.

Everybody who sees the issue must take up the cause.  It’s a war of ideas that must be talked about everywhere, because people everywhere will be voting one way or the other or not even voting at all, because they don’t see the bigger issues.  Is the United States on the right track or the wrong track?  And what is the right track?

If you say that you’re old and won’t live to see it when it finally happens, then do it for your children and your grandchildren.  If you want to do good for the whole world, then a United States living by its founding principles will do more good for the world as an example to the world than when it loses what made it what it was and meant to be.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Muslims and airports a response to a letter in the Tribune

This is in response to an article on the Perspective page (August 16).  The writer asks if the TSA searches him every time he travels, because he is a Muslim.

The public has a very short memory, or at least you think so by reading newspapers or watching the news on television.

We didn’t have a TSA or a Department of Homeland Security until 19 men from the Religion of Peace hijacked four airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  We used to be able to run through an airport at the last minute to catch a flight, but no, those days are gone forever.
So far it seems the only danger we have of people wanting to blow up airplanes is from people of that particular religion.  So frankly, if we only searched people of that religion at airports, we probably wouldn’t be less safer than we are now where we search old ladies and people in wheelchairs and little kids.