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

Friday, April 17, 2015

The One Issue of ‘Gay Marriage’

The Supreme Court will decide soon whether our country can and should recognize an institution called gay marriage.  Nobody seems to asking what marriage actually is, why there is such a thing in the first place, why it started and what is it supposed to do.  It’s all about who gets to say what it should look like rather than merely what should it look like.

As argued before the high court, there are 5 issues here.  I say there is really only one.  All the others are legal wrangling that will all depend on the skill of the lawyers arguing the case.  I say there is only one issue, and how that issue is answered should and will resolve the issue.

Does a child have a right to a father and a mother?  We know that for any of a number of reasons, children don’t have both parents growing up.  Children survive, even do well under those circumstances, though statistically we know they have more problems than children who grow up with both parents.  But nobody has said that it doesn’t matter or that one is just as good as the other.

But with gay marriage, we will intentionally remove one parent from the mix right from the start.  The child may still have two adults raising it, but it will not have either its mother or its father.  And not only will we call this good, we will call this just as good as a two parent family.  We will say they are equal.  A child doesn’t need its mother; another adult male is just as good.  A child doesn’t need a father; another adult woman is just as good.

The big problem here is that you will need to wait until these children are grown before you are able to really answer the question.  These are not lab rats that you watch over the course of a few years but human beings in a sort of lab experiment that will take 25 years or so.

In the last few months, I have read a number of articles by children who have grown up in these circumstances.  They have uniformly said that they missed, wanted, and needed both of their parents.  Is that proof that gay marriage is wrong or bad?  Actually, no, because we haven’t heard from all the children who grew up like this. 

But the real question is:  who has the right, or who gave anyone the right, to make the decision for a child that it will grow up without one of its natural parents?  It takes a man and a woman to create a child.  And we can decide that we don’t need them after that; their role and responsibility is done?  We have an equal alternative to their raising of their children? 

I think our society is rushing to make a decision on something, because we have been led to think that anything that looks and sounds like equality and fairness must be right in all circumstances.  After all, we won’t see the results of our work here for another 20 years.  By then, no one will care what these children think.