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, April 15, 2014

Why Obamacare is bad for our country

Why Obamacare is bad for our country

and what we should do about it

In response to a recent letter:
Those who like Obamacare point out certain benefits to the public and challenge opponents to offer something better.  Part of the problem here is that our government has been creating problems for a long time on the one hand and then offering to address the results of those problems with the other hand but without solving the original problems.  So the solutions they offer wouldn’t have been needed if they hadn’t meddled with things in the first place.  Meanwhile, the solutions they offer add other problems which they will later offer to address, and the cycle is repeated. 
The goal of the whole process is to win elections, and the means to doing so is to identify a group of people in our country and do something for them that will gain their vote.  It doesn’t matter what it costs, how or if they can pay for it, or how it affects anything else.  This group will want this thing enough that they will overlook the bigger picture to support the people who promise them the thing that benefits them in this one particular way. 
With Obamacare, the targeted groups are those with pre-existing conditions, certain people who cannot afford medical insurance, and poor women.  In order to win these groups over, the government is willing to let most people pay substantially more for their insurance, let millions more work fewer hours while still not having insurance, and facilitate employers dropping their health insurance plans thus perpetuating the need for more people to have government assistance to pay for their insurance.
There would seem to be more people adversely affected by Obamacare than those who would gain by it, but this is portrayed as a moral issue that only greedy, selfish people would refuse, and the government hopes to win the others by other programs or mandates to win their support.  Other attempts to win votes without regard for the larger ramifications have included higher minimum wages, equal pay for women, immigration reform, government takeover of the mortgage and student loan industries, unemployment compensation extensions, and calls for early childhood education.
The roots of the problem that prompted the perceived need for Obamacare goes back several decades when our country sent millions of our jobs overseas.  They did this by dropping the tax on imports for more and more countries while taxing our homeland companies through the roof.  So many of them closed their factories here and moved them to foreign countries.
With the loss of so many middle class jobs went also the group medical insurance plans that went with them.  Now any insurance plan is concerned about people who only buy insurance when they are sick, so they generally would have waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, but this is also generally waived when people had continuous insurance coverage prior to enrollment in this new plan. 
Employer-based insurance plans also offer the best rates, because they offer group plans.  There are moves today to disassociate insurance from employment, but I think that is a mistake, because you won’t be able to get individual insurance plans cheaper than a group plan.
So a reader asked four questions to those who oppose Obamacare and expected deafening silence in response:
1)  What is going to happen to all those people who have a pre-existing condition?
Short answer, get a group insurance plan.  You can’t get a group insurance plan?  Then ask your Congressperson and your President why the blank they sent all those jobs overseas.  They called it free trade, but the price for free trade has cost our country trillions of dollars.
2)  What will happen to all those people under 26 who are on Mom or Dad’s policy?
This is not an intrinsic part of Obamacare.  This could be voted on separately if people really want this.  One of the problems with our current lawmaking process is that they combine dozens or hundreds of provisions into one law, and there is no way every point can be debated or discussed. 
But then this was never a serious problem before, because kids either got insurance through their schools or their jobs.  But government has been destroying the job market for a long time. 
3)  What will happen when policy limits are reinstated? 
I think the question refers to the lifetime limits on most insurance policies.  I don’t know how many people ever reach that limit.  If that is a concern for the people, the government could easily offer to subsidize anyone who exceeds their lifetime limit, if necessary.  It would certainly be cheaper than subsidizing millions of policies as Obamacare does now. 
Again, this is another separate issue that Congress could debate that wouldn’t have required an overhaul of our entire health insurance industry to address.
4)  What will happen to people who cannot afford their health insurance?
The first thing to note here is that Obamacare is forcing the costs of health insurance to rise dramatically for everybody, contrary to their promises.  The government is mandating that policies cover things that people don’t want or need.  The only people who are finding their insurance cheap(er) are those for whom the government is paying for most of it.  That means, the government is taking money from other people to pay for it.  Actually what it means is that the government is borrowing money they never expect to pay back to pay for it. 
The government keeps coming up with more and more things that everybody should feel entitled to have and which they are deemed responsible for seeing that they get them.  The reality is there is never enough money to do all that.   Countries can and do go bankrupt, and we are trying real hard to get there.