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.

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,

For now I want to focus my writing now articles specifically addressed to Christians. So most of my new posts will be on my other website listed below. I will continue to write and post short responses to newspaper columns and letters and even other articles as the inspiration hits me.

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.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Character and Public Office


The Herald printed an opinion article (Nov. 19) that asserts that character has nothing to do with sexual issues and that it is wrong for the media to call attention to a political figure’s personal life, essentially what a person does in their private life has no bearing on their job.  The author’s primary example is Martin Luther King, who reportedly had numerous affairs, was still able to do his work promoting civil rights, and the media rightly ignored the story.
The writer is right to a point.  I don’t ask my plumber if he is faithful to his wife.  But then again, my plumber didn’t take an oath of office, and neither did Martin Luther King.  Ross Perot made the observation during his Presidential run that any person who would break his marriage vows would break his oath of office.  If you break a promise to the one person you vowed to love and cherish above all else, under the right circumstances, your vow to your country can be broken as well.  He refused to hire anyone on his staff who did anything like that. 

MLK was a private figure fighting for a cause.  Public figures have a wide range of responsibilities with competing interests, and it takes a person of high character not to treat the various interests according to its personal benefits.

No comments:

Post a Comment