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.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

The Real Problem with Gerrymandering

Deep down inside, everybody knows that gerrymandering is wrong.  It is politics at its worst, where politicians do what they want to try to stay in office or to give their political party huge advantages in elections and policy decisions. 

A big reason it has been put up with is that it is portrayed as being necessary, and, of course, the supposed beneficiaries of this practice are minorities, who could not possibly succeed in life without the help of government due to the inherent racism of white people which keeps them trapped in poverty and hopelessness.  While gerrymandering won’t solve this problem entirely, it is believed and promoted that gerrymandering will ensure minority representation in the political process, and that is considered a necessary part of any government efforts to help the disadvantaged demographic. 

Is this true?  I don’t believe so.  Why?  For example, there are 435 Representatives in Congress.  Having a handful of, say, black Representatives is not going to pass any bills if the needs and wants of the black community are so very different from those of whites.  But if minorities are a substantial voting bloc in any district, the Representative, white or black, would be sure to work with them, because he knows his election may very well depend on their vote.  In this case, there will far more districts with the interests of minorities in mind and far more likelihood that anything could and would be done. 

Let me say this again in another way, because this is the most important point here.  Having a majority minority district actually reduces the influence of that minority in the political process, because it concentrates its power on the fewest number of Representatives.  If the minorities were represented in more districts, they would have more Representatives interested in getting and retaining their votes.

And this assumes, of course, that the needs of minorities are different from the needs of everybody else.  I can’t imagine, for example, that a Representative would only try to help some of the schools in his district.

The real danger of gerrymandering lies elsewhere though.  We know that gerrymandering is done to dilute the votes of the opposing party or to concentrate them in the fewest districts to minimize their overall number of elected officials.  That alone is enough to discourage any opposition to the majority party.  I live in Illinois, which is a prime example.

However, who says that that is the only criterion they use when they divvy up the districts?  Districts can be drawn to dilute or concentrate voters by any measurable demographic: income, age, religion, sexual orientation, education, ethnicity, even their positions on particular issues, like abortion.  There is no end to the mischief which someone can do with a computer and the power to draw voting districts.

I agree with the use of computers, but any and all demographic information should not be a part of the process.  The computer should only be used to calculate the number of residents in each district, following the natural boundaries of geography and existing borders as much as possible.  People living in the same areas will have more in common with their neighbors than artificially constructed districts that pick and choose their constituents.


This is not a problem which we can expect politicians to solve without the public demanding it.  You need to start talking about it everywhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment