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.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Why would anyone oppose illegal and Muslim immigration?

Neil Steinberg (Chicago Sun-Times  Sept. 21) thinks a lot of people are needlessly worried or bothered by illegal immigrants and Muslims.  After all, children from even the best families can go wrong, and people die every day from automobile accidents, and nobody talks about banning cars.    

He is sure that the only reason these people are so worried about illegal immigrants and Muslims must be because they hate immigrants.

I think there are a few other possible reasons.
As for illegal immigration, I would think a country has the responsibility to know who is coming into it.  Try to enter Mexico or Canada illegally and see how they respond.  You’ll either be in jail or back where you came from. 

I have a government textbook from 1949 which lists 11 criteria that immigrants had to meet before being accepted into our country, including their health.  Diseases that had long been essentially eradicated in our country are back, like tuberculosis and leprosy.
People were not allowed in if it was thought they would require government assistance.  Now the government gladly assists them whether they are legal or not.  And it borrows money to do that, as the federal government alone is $20 trillion in debt.

Years ago, we used to make all of our own stuff.  As the population grew, demand increased, and so did the jobs.  We had jobs for everyone, and they were good paying jobs.  You could stock shelves in a grocery store and support your family so your wife didn’t have to work.

Now we have about 90 million people of workforce age out of work, the lowest rate of labor participation since the late 70s.  And all these people are being supported by the rest of us who are working.

As for Muslims, the key to understanding the issue is to compare life in the United States before and after 9/11 and seeing how our country has changed solely because we are afraid a Muslim will commit an act of terror. 

The FBI has over 1,000 open terror investigations right now.  I won’t say that none of these involve Protestants, Catholics, or Jews, but I would bet at least 1,000 of them involve Muslims.

We have over a million people on a terror watch list.  Again, I won’t say there are no Protestants, Catholics, or Jews on that list, but I would bet at least a million of them are Muslims.  It is costing us billions of dollars a year trying to keep track of all of them.

We have the Department of Homeland Security, including the TSA, that was created solely as a result of 9/11.  We are closing in on almost a trillion dollars that have been spent on this department since 9/11.   

Forever and ever we now must spend hours in line at airports being screened for bombs.  They are only afraid of a Muslim bringing a bomb onto the plane.  That is the only reason we started doing this.
Now this has been expanded to baseball and football games.  

Forever and ever we must endure screenings and are forbidden from bringing drinks into the stadium, because we are afraid a Muslim will bring a bomb or other weapon inside.  The Chicago White Sox have a stadium on the south side of Chicago, which has possibly the highest gun violence rate in the country.  But they were never worried about gun violence at a ball game before now.  Why?  Solely because of the threat of a Muslim committing an act of mass violence.

Why are we doing all this?  The Constitution says that government, our government, exists to “form a more perfect union, . . . insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare . . .”  And it is supposed to do all this for the people of the United States. 

It seems to me that our government is expecting our people to give up their money, freedom, and security to put the needs of the people of other countries before the needs of its own.  That sounds noble and compassionate, but it doesn’t have that right without the consent of the people it governs.  As controversial as these issues are, I would say that the government is acting without the consent of the people.