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, January 25, 2016

Should we elect our Presidents by popular vote or the electoral college?

A columnist (January 24) wants to get rid of the electoral college, because the states choose the President and individual votes don’t really count, particularly when a state tends to vote for a particular party in Presidential races.  He says that candidates will often skip campaigning in a particular state, because it isn’t worth their time.

What he is missing, among other things, is that the same would hold true if we had popular votes for President.  Candidates would concentrate only on the large urban areas and skip the smaller towns and less populated states. 

Actually the Founders didn’t envision people campaigning for President in the first place.  The electors choose the best possible people for the office, and if a person didn’t have a majority of the votes, the House would then vote on the top vote getters.

But if the Founders had decided on having Presidential campaigns, there is no doubt they would have created a system like our present electoral college.  They would have the states vote for President rather than the individuals, so as not to give too much power to the larger states. 

No comments:

Post a Comment