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.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Should Republicans consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee?

President Obama wants the Senate, which has a Republican majority, to consider and confirm his Supreme Court nominee.  He thinks the Senate’s refusal to even consider a nominee with a Presidential election coming up is a political move that is unworthy of the Supreme Court and an unconstitutional act in itself.

Yet I think we all know that if Justice Ginsburg had been the one who died instead of Scalia, and President Obama were a Republican, and the Senate was Democratically controlled, the Senate would not have hearings on her replacement this year, and everybody would agree with that decision.  In fact, in 1992 Joe Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he said pretty much the same thing in a similar situation.

I think that calling the Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on this nominee is political itself and tries to ignore the real issue and keep it from the public consciousness.
Politics in general is when a political party just thinks in terms of advancing its political party; everything is about putting or keeping their party in power and not wanting the other party to get any credit for doing anything good or doing anything that will hurt that first party’s political success in the future.

But we are way beyond that now.  Political philosophy now transcends political parties, though the two major parties tend to align with these vastly contrasting political philosophies.

One view is that the founders of our country wrote a Constitution that created the greatest nation on earth, and we need to understand and follow the principles that guided their thinking.

The other view is that those early founders, though smart people for their time, were at heart racists, phobic, and actually unenlightened on so many things scientifically and economically.  We have learned a lot since their time, and we think we can do better.  Besides a lot of new things have happened since then which may require some adjustments and updating in our understanding of the Constitution.  Besides, much of our supposed success anyway was due to our oppression of minorities and workers in general

The consequences of these views reflect in many of the major decisions these political parties make today, and they also reflect in the thinking of those people who act at judges.  We are finding that things that our country has long believed in and practiced are now all of a sudden unconstitutional, like, for example, religious symbols in public places.

There are also rising sentiments to modify the Bill of Rights to protect us from hate speech, discriminatory behavior, and gun violence.  Where some see very clear wording:  “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” or “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion],” others are seeing newly recognized values that supersede these rights and which now must be recognized in law.

These questions go far beyond political parties, though as noted, most of those who hold each view belong to the same political party.


And for those who are afraid that the Republicans’ action is politicizing our Supreme Court, well, it’s too late for that.  When a Supreme Court justice can take the Administration’s argument that people who don’t buy health insurance have to pay a penalty, and then call it a tax instead of a penalty, contrary to the argument that was made, then I think the Supreme Court has gone from interpreting law to advancing politics.   And so a Supreme Court justice’s politics has now become more relevant than his education and experience. 

No comments:

Post a Comment