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.

Our country’s worldview used to be Christianity. Now we are told it is and has always been secularism, which is practical atheism. This issue divides our country, but those who disagree are divided as well on how to respond.

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 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.

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 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 partiular 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:


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

Thank you.

Larry Craig

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

A Progressive State Income Tax: Fair or Fraud

The Sun-Times had an interesting editorial Monday that provoked a lot of thought, assuming you are one to ask questions.  The article was advocating for a progressive state income tax and contained a lot of facts, but to me it left me with a vague notion that something wasn’t right about the whole thing.

The heading itself said that a progressive state income tax was fairer to the middle class.  I guess that would mean that it is not fairer to the other classes.  So there is no solution that is fair to everybody?  We have to choose which class we should be fair to, and the rich don’t deserve it, because what?  They don’t really work harder than anyone else?  They don’t really deserve what they make?  Or is what it really saying is that there are more middle and lower class people than rich ones, so we can vote to take more money away from them?

Notice that they don’t want to lock themselves into a fixed rate for a progressive tax.  This gives them what they feel is a never-ending revenue stream from a small group of voters who would be harassed and ridiculed if they ever protested. 

Notice also that they want to lower the income tax for everyone else.  A sure way to get everyone else’s vote to tax the other guy, the ones who are doing better than they are.

Frankly what really annoys me is that I bet Democrats spend every waking moment trying to think of new taxes to levy or creative ways to get more money out of people.  They can’t think of one way to cut expenses or reduce payroll.  Private companies tighten things up all the time, but not government. 

Our pensions are based on actual contributions.  Government pensions are based on wishful thinking.  Government workers feel entitled to their jobs and see the public as their servants who must take very good care of them, regardless of the cost.