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.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Wedding Cakes and Equal Rights

Response to a letter about respect and equal rights (January 26):

In the late 70’s, the Nazi Party wanted to have a parade in Skokie , which at that time was home to thousands of Jews who in one way or another were directly affected by the Holocaust.  The parade never took place, but the courts ruled that the right of free speech trumped the right of people not being offended. 

And if the Nazi paraders had stopped for coffee and bagels at a Jewish restaurant afterwards, I am sure they would have been denied service, and I don’t think any court in the country would have found them guilty of anything.  And if these same people came into the restaurant at any other time and without their Nazi paraphernalia, I am sure they would have been served without incident.

When a baker refused to bake a cake for a ‘gay wedding’, this was not an act of discrimination violating the civil rights of gays.  The baker did not refuse to bake the cake because they were gay.  He refused to bake the cake because he believed his actions would have been supportive of an idea and act which he believes to be wrong and wanted nothing to do with.  If this had been a cake for the 60th anniversary of Playboy magazine or a Planned Parenthood function or a swinger’s convention, he would have refused those just as well. If the gay customer had merely asked him to bake a birthday cake, the baker no doubt would have done it. 

I wonder: if the baker were black and the customer wanted a cake for the local KKK, would the reader still insist that the baker bake the cake?  What if the baker were gay and the customer was Focus on the Family?

Is this picking hairs here?  Many people, particularly gays, were up in arms because the founder and owner of Chick-fil-a was found to be a supporter of traditional marriage.  They boycotted the whole company, so apparently they saw that companies can indeed represent viewpoints, so in a real sense they have public speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.  Anybody who owns a company will tell you that his business represents him.  If his company does something dishonest, it reflects on him personally. 

The reader believes that judges who refuse to perform a ‘gay wedding’ should be removed from their position.  By the same measure, a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion should lose his license as well.  Should CVS lose its retail license because it refuses to sell cigarettes?  Cigarettes are legal, after all. 

The law merely says that ‘gay’ marriage is legal in certain places.  The law does not require any particular persons to perform this rite.  It only defines who is able to. 

The reader expects everyone to eagerly embrace ‘gay’ marriage because it is legal now, but she noted that refusing to serve “colored people” used to be legal too.  I suspect she would have expected or wanted people to have disregarded that law, because that would have been the right thing to do.  I think she recognizes that something is not right just because it is legal.  And a lot of people believe that applies to ‘gay marriage’ as well. 

No comments:

Post a Comment