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.

Friday, January 15, 2016

The right and wrong way to end gerrymandering

The Sun-Times (Jan. 15) urges people to sign a petition and to rally around a measure meant to end gerrymandering in our state.  I believe the plan it supports is not the answer.  The commission drawing up the map contains politicians, and you can be sure that you will find them trading and negotiating over the maps. 

There is only one way to get a fair map for our representatives and state senators, but the courts have already ruled against it.  The only way to get a fair map is that the only information the people drawing the map should have is where people live. 

We think of gerrymandering as being about political parties.  But it can be used for any demographic, such as age, wealth, religion, race, ethnicity, education level, level and kind of government dependency.  If politicians can’t draw maps by party affiliation, they can draw it by any number of means that can reflect how a group of people vote.  The courts have already said that gerrymandering is acceptable to ensure a black majority voting district.

Maps will continue to be used to favor or disfavor certain groups.  Maps will be drawn to minimize white voting power, maximize minority voting power, ensure that a certain minority group gets to elect somebody from their group, even by the likelihood that an area tends to be pro-life or pro-choice. 


If you believe any of these actions are justified, you will never end gerrymandering.  You will only change one form for another.  The only real solution is to draw maps based entirely on numbers and natural boundaries, like cities and neighborhoods.  Suburbs should remain intact as much as possible.  Any commission that requires political party members will not solve a political problem but only make new ones.  

2 comments:

  1. The best answer to address gerrymandering is to change the political system in such a way that it is no longer vulnerable to gerrymandering.

    So long as the political framework is vulnerable to gerrymandering, you're going to be stuck with one of the following sub-optimal solutions:

    1) Independent Comission - Sub-optimal because they won't remain independent for long given the political stakes.

    2) Mathematical Methods. For example, the Shortest Split Line method. This is good because it is impartial. However, it still runs the risk of creating unrepresentative districts just by chance.

    3) Incentivize the best gerrymanderers to gerrymander representative districts. This has the potential to work, but it just feels wrong.

    That is the solution space you're working with. None of it is really palatable.

    The only way to end gerrymandering is to change to a system that is not vulnerable to gerrymandering in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You didn't explain what kind of system is invulnerable to gerrymandering or how to get it.

    ReplyDelete