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.

We are being told today that the United States is and has always been a secular nation, which is practical atheism.

But 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 even more basic, our country was founded on the belief that God gave unalienable rights to human beings. But what God, and how did the Founders know that He had? Islam, for example, does not believe in unalienable rights. It was the God of the Bible that gave unalienable rights, and it was the Bible that informed the Founders of that. The courts would call that a religious opinion; the Founders would call that a fact.

Without Christianity, you don’t have unalienable rights, and without unalienable rights, you don’ have the United States of America.

A secular nation cannot give or even recognize unalienable rights, because there is no higher power in a secular nation than the government.

Unalienable rights are the basis for the American concept of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty require a high moral code that restrains bad behavior among its people; otherwise the government will need to make countless laws and spend increasingly larger amounts of money on law enforcement.

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.

As a secular nation, the government now becomes responsible to take care of its people. It no longer talks about unalienable rights, because then they would have to talk about God, so it creates its own rights. Government-given rights are things that the government is required to provide for its people, which creates an enormous expense which is why our federal government is now $22 trillion in debt.

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 generally 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 particular 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:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-RztuRKdCEQzgbhp52dCw

If you want to contact me, email is best: lacraig1@sbcglobal.net

Thank you.

Larry Craig

Friday, November 20, 2015

a response to a newspaper letter regarding religion, terrorism, and the Constitution

A reader (November 20) asked and raised some questions that need to be answered.

The reader suspects “that what ISIS is doing in the name of Islam bears as much relation to the religious tenants [sic] as the man-in-the-moon does.”  I think what he means is that the violence that ISIS perpetrates has nothing to do with Islam.

USA today recently summarized all the worldwide terrorist attacks for the last month.  There were about 30 attacks killing hundreds of people, and they were all committed by Muslims.  It’s a logical fallacy to conclude that Islam caused all these terrorist attacks, but I think it is safe to assume that there must be something about that religion that so many people seem to abuse it and in extraordinary ways.  I think maybe somebody needs to research why so many of the world’s terrorists are Muslim.

The reader also repeats one of the biggest misunderstandings about our Constitution that gives our Founders a bad name.  He says that “the Founding Fathers . . . constitutionally established an entire race as being worth only two thirds as relevant as they themselves.”

Not quite.   Most of the people he is referring to here were slaves.  Those of that race who were not slaves were not counted as 3/5 like the rest.  And the reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of other people was that slaves could not vote.  And to count slaves as full persons would give slave states a greater representation in government than they should have had.  That would have made it harder to end slavery in the first place.

To make slavery an issue at that time might have resulted in not one new nation but two.   But the South could have remained loyal to the Crown, and in that case the northern colonies probably wouldn’t have been able to win a war for independence by themselves.  So we would still be a colony of England.


The reader ends by remarking that “it is never wise to paint an entire race or religion with the same paint brush.”  The problem is that there are just too many instances of horrible things being done in the name of one particular religion that it seems naïve not to see a link here.
Posted by at