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, May 20, 2014

If children grew on trees

If children grew on trees

If children grew on trees, there never would have been such a thing as marriage.  Women would just be lifelong sex slaves of the men and servants.  
Of course, after everybody started dying off from incurable venereal diseases, they may have rethought the whole thing and maybe put some rules into place.
It was Christianity and Judaism which ennobled marriage, teaching husbands to love and cherish their wives and to cherish and train their children.
Whether you believe that God designed the whole thing or evolution (natural causes) put this thing called life together, both ended at the same place: it takes a man and a woman to create new life.  And by implication, the mother and father together are what it takes to raise the child right.  They don’t always succeed, but this is how the system was designed and overall is the best plan available.  You may not want to use the word ‘design’ in describing evolution, but let’s just say that through trial and error, this is what evolution has come up with, fathers and mothers.
Now in the space of a few short years, we as a society have decided to change the whole program and say that children don’t need their mothers and fathers.  We can and will intentionally separate one out of the equation and declare this is just as good as if we had left the one in.
When we have programs for troubled youth, we talk about giving them role models, yet when it comes to gay marriage, we say it doesn’t matter.  Two men can raise a young woman, and two women can raise a young man, and role models are no longer important. 
We are conducting social experiments on our children, and it will take a generation before we will get meaningful results.  Personally, I don’t think this is fair to our children.