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.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

But I Don’t Like Either One!

Think about this for a second.

We have 330 million people in our country, and we have to choose between only two people for President.  One is a woman under criminal investigation by the FBI; the other is somebody who has never been in a political office before, and a lot of people wonder if they can and should trust him.

Does anybody see a problem here?  Or better yet.   Is this really the best that we can do?

Do you know what?

The solution is easy as pie. 

There is only one thing that we need to change about our elections that will fix all this.   

Require candidates to get a majority of the vote before they can be declared the winner. 

Now if we have three candidates running in the same election, a person can win with as little as 34% of the vote.  Not only is that undemocratic, it's stupid.

But wait.  We had 17 Republican candidates running and Donald Trump easily won over all of them.

Actually no.

You need to ask how many states did he win with over 50% of the vote.  If he won 40% of the vote in a state, that could mean that 60% of the people didn't want him at all.

When you have 17 candidates running, you shouldn’t ask people to choose one.  You ask people who they can support.  I could have been happy with any of about 8 of them. 

The Republicans should have allowed people to vote for as many candidates as they like.  That way you combine who people like with who they don’t like.  You would have gotten a far different result than what you got now.  And I say that as a Trump supporter.
Under this new scenario, we don’t have to have Socialists running as Democrats, and Tea Party people running as Republicans, and Trump wouldn’t even have to bother running with a party at all.

Well, too late now.  Why didn’t I say something about this a lot sooner?

Actually I did.  Several times.  But why would anybody listen to me? 

But the election is still 5 months away.  There is plenty of time to change this if people want to.

This might actually be the best chance we will ever have to change this.  There is enough anger and frustration out there over the two choices, and particularly over the fact that a third party candidate can’t win and will only ensure a victory for the person fewest people want. 


Anybody listening?

1 comment: