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:


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

Thank you.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Questions from my Senator Part 2 improving our country's heathcare

Hi Mark

In response to your questions:

Do you support a full or partial repeal of Obamacare?

I would like to see Obamacare repealed in full.  This bill is a betrayal of our form of government.  

1)    Something like 1,700 exceptions to the law were allowed in order to get votes for the law.  

2)    It is 2,800 pages long, which we were told we would have to pass the law to find out what was in it.  That is a criminal betrayal of the public trust, but the lawmakers make the laws so nobody holds them to account.  

3)    The people who passed the law keep postponing parts of the law until after the next election, because they are afraid that people will vote them out of office when they feel the effects of this law.  

4)    The President lied about the provisions of the law over and over in order to get the thing passed.  He should have been impeached for that fact alone.  He is a proven liar.  How can we believe him on anything that he says?  We can never know he is lying until it is too late.  That is unacceptable for the President of the United States.

5)    Obamacare is raising the costs of health insurance to the point that a lot of people can’t afford insurance any more.  It requires so many things from insurance companies and insurance plans that prices can only go up.

6)    The success of the law (getting more people insured) is due primarily to the government covering most the cost of their policies, but the government is not straightforward about how much this is costing us.  Not only is this dishonest, but we simply can’t afford it.  We can’t keep telling people that they have a right to something, and then have the government (meaning: everybody else) paying for it.  We are $18 trillion in debt.  When interest rates normalize, we are going to be dumbfounded by how much of our federal budget will be going just for interest payments.

The answer to this is to bring American companies back to America and go back to employer based group insurance plans.  

Do you support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health?

No, I do not support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health.  I admit knowing less about this than a lot of other issues.  I find the Wikipedia summary interesting:

From logistical restructuring, to funding increases, to research prioritization, to government expansion and political influence, the history of the National Institutes of Health is extensive and full of change. The NIH has grown to encompass nearly 1 percent of the federal government's operating budget. The NIH now controls more than 50 percent of all funding for health research, and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in universities.

This summary touches on a lot of the things that are hurting our country:

1)    Our country is in serious debt.  We can’t keep spending money that we don’t have.  We can’t keep writing checks like there is no limit to our money.

2)    I don’t think the government should be deciding the priorities in research.  They end up sending money to people who are connected; they dry up funding for projects they don’t like.  Too much money and potential for both spending it unwisely and for political advantage.  We have pharmaceutical companies and universities who are very interested in research.  Let them do it with private money.

3)    Government has to stop expanding and start shrinking.  The Constitution has very few and defined responsibilities for the federal government. 

Thanks again


No comments:

Post a Comment