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, June 29, 2015

Why I Think Climate Change is a Lot of Hot Air, and Why This Issue Matters

The issue of climate change is quickly becoming one of those issues where any discussion of it is immediately cut off, because the matter is considered to have been settled.  That is a possibility, but anyone who has taken Politics 101 knows that the quickest way to silence the opposition and prevent a debate is to act as if the issue has already been settled, and there is nothing really to discuss.  If some people didn’t get the memo, that just shows how little they know.

I question the claims of climate change for a number of reasons.  The first two reasons come from my graduate studies.  My work was not in the physical sciences, but there are certain common features in most or all fields of higher learning that are relevant here.

My first reason comes from the fact that science, like almost all intellectual disciplines, values the latest research and findings over that of the past.  You wouldn’t teach a class on chemistry with a textbook written in 1940.  You wouldn’t even want one from 2012. 

Scientists today can measure the temperature anywhere on the planet at any time and derive an average global temperature.  They could not do this prior to the age of satellites.  In fact, prior to the use of satellites, the concept of deriving an average global temperature was wishful thinking.  Global temperatures would need to be taken almost simultaneously in order to derive an average, and this was impossible before the use of satellites.

I have no doubt that if this issue had contrary political implications, all pre-satellite global temperature data would be deemed inconclusive.  And this matter of political implications is the second reason I question climate change.   

For many questions posed to researchers in any field, there are usually not enough facts to fill in all the blanks, and the presuppositions of the researcher generally provide the framework with which to interpret the facts. 

Facts can answer simple questions, like what was the high temperature in Chicago on July 1, 2014, but they are like dots on a sheet of paper.  How they are connected to form what picture depends on the person viewing the dots.   

The prevailing narrative in Western civilization right now is political correctness.  This was birthed in secularism, and other expressions of this worldview include environmentalism and globalization. 

Environmentalism is about a lot more than recycling and getting emissions tests for your car.  The planet has become an object of reverence, and most industry is now seen as harming the planet and reflecting human disregard for it. 

Globalization is political correctness on a worldwide scale.  It isn’t just about free trade, but it says in part that all nations are equal, one culture is as good as another, and rich nations became rich at the expense of the poorer ones.  There shouldn’t be rich nations and poor nations.  It’s not fair.  The wealth should be distributed, as though wealth were either an accident or the result of greed and exploitation.  The United Nations wants rich nations to share their wealth with the poorer nations, because the richer nations are primarily at fault for climate change. 

Unfortunately, we no longer have rich nations, except maybe Germany.  All the other Western nations are essentially broke from keeping up with all the other politically correct mandates.

Since most scientists who worry about global temperatures rely on government funding for their livelihoods, and the government is known to use that funding to discourage dissenting views, and the government has shown itself to be untrustworthy more often than not, and for the other two reasons I noted, I don’t trust the hysteria that is now common with regard to the climate.

In fact, I have learned to beware, be very afraid, whenever the government says these is a crisis that we have to act upon immediately.  That is a sure sign that the government will ask for a huge spending bill that will reward their donors and further bankrupt our country.  And their haste in doing this is meant to keep anyone from finding out all the ways they are going to screw us, even those who will be voting on it.

One More Look at Obamacare

A lot of people are praising Obama and Obamacare for providing them with health insurance at an affordable price.  What we must not forget is that other people are paying for that insurance or at least paying the interest on the borrowed money that is paying for that insurance. 

The best and cheapest insurance has always been employer provided group insurance plans.  But our government sent millions of those jobs overseas through their free trade agreements and high corporate tax rates.  And many companies that have remained here find their insurance costs exploding from ever increasing government mandates.

So Obamacare is a government fix to a government created problem.  And, like bad medicine, it tries fix one problem but creates more and worse problems.

The party that gave us that fix has now locked up several million people as lifetime voters, because they are dependent on the government for their health insurance.  Watch for this pattern in all new government programs.  The government will offer a benefit to a group of people, and it doesn’t matter what it costs, how it will be paid for, or what effect it has on everything else.  The party in power has now locked up their votes for life.

The loss of jobs creates demands for government money, which means higher taxes and interest costs for borrowed money.  The higher insurance costs for everybody else dampens the economy by taking billions of dollars out of people’s pockets. 

If you want the government to help you, the economy, and the American people, tell them to bring these jobs back home.  

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Doesn’t the FBI have more important things to do? The Dennis Hastert fiasco

I find the whole Dennis Hastert trial a sham and a shame on our country.

Dennis Hastert is a flawed man.  But he is not on trial for his flaws.

Dennis Hastert behaved inappropriately a long time ago, but he is not on trial for behaving inappropriately.  And, apparently, nobody brought charges against him in the last 30-40 years for this behavior.

Dennis Hastert made a lot of money, and a lot of people are wondering how he got all that money.  But he is not on trial for how he made his money.

Dennis Hastert used his money to pay somebody not to talk about his misconduct in the past, but he is not on trial for paying somebody not to talk.

He is on trial for taking his own money out of the bank.  The government wants to know if you take a lot of your own money out of the bank, because some people who take a lot of money out of the bank are crooks.  But he is not on trial for how he used his money, but just for the fact that he took it out of the bank.

He is also on trial for lying to the FBI.  That never would have even happened if the government minded its own business about what people do with their money.  If Hastert did something illegal with his money, then charge him for that.  But his crime was just taking his own money, and then essentially telling the FBI that it is none of their business what he does with his own money.

Doesn’t the FBI have more important things to do?

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

The Difference between Public and Private Sector Jobs

Jesse Jackson lamented the loss of public service jobs, because they were high-paying jobs that many minorities were able to get (June 2).

But there is one difference between public and private sector jobs that we must never forget.  Private sector jobs are paid for through the profits that a company makes.  Public sector jobs are paid for by us.

Say, for example, we have a society of 1000 people, and everyone made a $1000 a week.  There is no government, so this is what their take-home pay is.

They decide to have a government, so they enlist 200 people to run it.  They want the best and brightest, so they pay them $1200 a week.  So that’s $240,000 a week to run the government just in payroll.

If everybody paid at the same tax rate, it would take 23% of their paychecks to pay for the government payroll alone.  So where their take-home pay was $1000 a week before, it is now $770.  The public sector employees would take home $924. 

So the smaller the government, the more money that people get to keep of what they make. 
Government jobs are good for those who have them, but they are a burden on everyone else, so government must be as small as possible if it is to benefit us, just like you don’t want to pay more for a car or an appliance than you have to.

Our focus should be on bringing American jobs back to the States.  When we made all of our own stuff, we had jobs for everyone.  We need to admit that we were wrong on free trade.  A country has a responsibility to provide jobs for its own people.