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

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.