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

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Immigration Part 2

Immigration: So what exactly is it again that we are trying to fix?  (Part 2)

If we want to fix immigration, we first have to know and agree on what is wrong with it.

There are different views on what is wrong.  The most obvious problem is that we have maybe 11 million people who are not supposed to be here.  And our country has lost the will to remove them.  Many of them, of course, were brought here as children, so they personally bear no culpability. 

The second problem that we hear about is that it is taking too long for the families of immigrants still in their home countries to be able to come here.

However, there are two other problems not being discussed that need to be addressed.  The first I mentioned in part 1, that we are rewarding bad behavior by giving free citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrants.  As long as we do this, we will always have an abundance of illegal immigrants.  And I noted also how the 14th Amendment is being misunderstood and abused to apply here.

The other problem will be seen more clearly after we ask the bigger question: Why do we want immigration in the first place?

The main reason we allow and encourage immigration, so we are told, is for what they bring to our country in terms of hard work and their entrepreneurial spirit.  Yes, our country was built on immigrants, but it was not the first come first served totally open immigration that we have today.  We chose the countries of origin, and we put a priority on what they could contribute to our country.

The more important reason, however, though not mentioned in public, is that the people already living here are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to replace the population.  So our populace is aging with fewer younger people to support the elderly and the ever growing federal government.  So the idea is to bring working people into the States so we can have a larger tax base to support an aging population.

However, since 1965, our government’s priority in immigration has been to reunite families.  Noble, compassionate intent, but it defeats the whole purpose of immigration.  This means that we are not only getting the taxpayers but the entire family, which essentially resembles the demographics we already have here.

For example, I have two siblings who are not working, one due to age and another due to health.  My extended family includes more of the same.  So if I were the immigrant and my entire extended family were to come here, all the supposed advantages of immigration would be nullified, taxpayers offset by non-taxpayers.

So, as our current immigration system is set up, there is no real advantage to bringing in these 700,000 new people every year.  Except one.  The Democrats believe they will have a lock on their votes. 

The only real advantage of immigration would be if we pursued and prioritized the best and the brightest.  Of course, their immediate family would be allowed, but to concentrate on reuniting the entire family essentially nullifies any perceived benefits to immigration. 

So what exactly would or should immigration reform look like?

1)  We must first stop rewarding unlawful behavior by giving instant citizenship to the children of those who are in this country illegally.  What do people risk by entering our country illegally?  A return trip home?  And what are the rewards?  For many, it is the citizenship of their children.  Yes, of course, there is also the free medical care (if you go to the county hospitals) and a better life in so many other ways.
2)  We must secure our borders, so we can control the flow of people into our country.  And we must fix our visa system, so that visitors who extend their stays cannot disappear off the radar.
3)  We need to implement the E-Verify system immediately.  This is the best way we have now to ensure that companies do not hire people who are not here legally. 

If we don’t do these first three things, we will have this same problem again and again and again.
If we are not serious about enforcing the laws we already have, any new laws would simply be a joke.  We have three states now that offer driver’s licenses to illegals.  And these are the people who make our laws?  If they have no respect for the laws we already have, why are they in office?

4)  After we deal with essentially ending the flow and incentives for illegal immigration, those who were brought here as children could be given legal status with a path to citizenship.  However, those who are still children living with their parents, if the parents are no longer able to find employment, they may find themselves returning with their parents to their country of origin.  Those who were already deemed US citizens can come back when they are able to live on their own.
5)  We have far more people wanting to come here than we can assimilate.  So why are we showing no apparent regard for what they can contribute to our country?  Political and religious refugees should always be welcomed here, though there have been cases where entire ethnic or religious groups have been targeted for extinction, but that’s for another article.

So we can and should show preference to those who can be of most benefit to us and who are most common to our culture.  There is no reason or justification for bringing 700,000 new people into our country every year without looking for what value they can bring to our country.

If we don’t do everything here, our immigration system will still be broken.  And there is still the issue of the melting pot.  For another time.