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

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Some Final Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Campaign

This is easily the most important Presidential election of my lifetime.  With every political cycle, the two major political parties become more different, each wanting to take the country in very different directions.  The biggest examples might be the ones regarding the First and Second Amendments.

Now these differences are not some legal hairsplitting involving some finer points of law, but basic differences of understanding as to what kind of country we were meant to be and what kind of country we are going to be.

The First Amendment guarantees among other things the right to free exercise of religion.  This can only be guaranteed when the country, including the government, courts, and schools, regards religious values as being consistent with the highest values of the land.   That is no longer the case.

This, by the way, is proof that our country was indeed founded as a Christian nation.  You can’t guarantee religious values if you now recognize higher values that can conflict with that.

Being founded as a Christian nation did not mean that people were compelled to adhere to the Christian religion, but it does mean that it was respected and the Ten Commandments reflected the basic moral code for our nation.  They were prominently displayed in schools, courtrooms, and on government property throughout our country.

Now we are told that our nation was founded to be a secular nation, and there are secular values that supersede all religions ones.  These values are tolerance, equality, diversity, and fairness.  And these values will be strictly imposed.  Defy them or even unintentionally break one, and you risk being sued, arrested, harassed, shamed, fined, or fired.

The First Amendment also covers freedom of speech.  Are there to be no restraints on what people can say?  I contend as I just noted that the Founders assumed a religious foundation for our country. 
After all, they had the Bible taught in all the public schools.  And it was only in 1962 that that practice was banned by the government.  
They expected that Christian values like loving your neighbor would temper people’s speech.  But many of them came to this country because they were denied the right to freely speak in their home countries on matters of politics and religion, and they didn’t want the government telling them what to believe or what they could or could not say.  They wanted people to be free to express their opinions. 

But isn’t teaching the Bible some kind of government indoctrination in a certain belief system?  Certainly.  The problem is that every person and every government has a belief system that guides and directs their behavior.  And it is the Christian belief system that is the guarantor of our freedoms and rights.  That would take another article to prove if you don’t agree with that statement, but at least recognize that schools and governments have to work under some basic belief system to function.  Where it used to be Christianity, it is now political correctness, or secularism, with its new values of tolerance, equality, fairness, and diversity.

While Christianity has a commandment against lying, which, by the way, political correctness does not, it embraces it, Christianity, promoting freedom of conscience, was the driving force behind your freedom of speech.

That is all now increasingly in jeopardy of being lost.  The thought and speech police are everywhere monitoring what you say and think in case you might offend somebody.  Hate speech it is called.
And the Second Amendment is not just about guns.  The bigger issue is whether we as a nation want to trade our freedoms for security.  Security means that the government gains more power and control over our lives to protect us from everything that could go wrong.  Secularism gives the government the responsibility to protect us from all manner of bad things, whether it is being shot, being poor, or getting fat.  You give up your freedom of choice so that the government can try to minimize the risk of bad outcomes in your life. 

The large and grave responsibility of government also comes with another huge price: money.  Lots of it.  It requires a huge government work force generously compensated, to get the best people, of course, and you trade personal wealth for government oversight and protection.  How great a deal is that?

This new responsibility also finds the government looking for new ways to extend its protective power, new things that it can guarantee to people, all in the interests of improving their lives.  This also comes at great expense, so we have gone from being the richest nation in the world to the most indebted nation in the world.  Some people might find ways to dispute that, but I think if you include all the state and local debt incurred in pursuit of this perfect society, we are easily now the poorest nation in the world.  We still have our color TVs and cell phones, but when the share of federal government debt alone is over $50,000 a person, we are not rich, we just owe a lot of people a lot of money.

Where the Christian worldview gave us a moral system that has been in existence for thousands of years, secularism is relatively new, and it is making things up as it goes along.  Gender equality morphs into gender fluidism, where it can be chosen and changed at will.  In the attempt not to offend, we change our methods of labeling things to create neutrality, fireman to first responder, and slowly we even change definitions of what things mean. 

Where marriage was once the uniting of a man and woman such that children are created and raised in a nurturing environment by the two parents, marriage is now simply a legal connection of two people for certain legal and social benefits.  And even the idea of being a parent has been redefined.

Another morphing of its values is globalism.  Globalism sees all nations as equal.  All their various cultures and religions were found equal under diversity, tolerance, and equality, so now all nations have the same status.  This makes borders irrelevant, because they become arbitrary.  Why would or should a country be able to prohibit anyone from entering it who wants to?  People are people.

It becomes wrong for a country even to seek its own interests above that of the world community’s.  How can one nation justify being rich when so many others are poor?  Not only is that unjust, but the mere fact that one nation is rich while others are poor can only be due to that one nation oppressing or exploiting the others.  Ultimately this means that the rich nations become poorer, and the poor nations stay poor.  Who gets rich?  Individuals who know how the play the game by the new rules, many of whom work in government.

But back to the election. 
Everything I have said here is basically the current philosophy of the Democratic Party.  While the Republican Party has some very serious problems of its own, those are issues that need to be sorted out in the primaries where the Republican candidates are chosen, not in the general election where the choices are down to basically two. 

Our political leaders have given us a system that only realistically gives us two choices.  Voting a third party candidate may make you feel better, but it won’t change the system and will only make the results of the election worse.  That is an issue that you need to deal with between elections, not in an election.

You thought the election was about Trump and Clinton, the lesser of two evils perhaps.  Actually it is, but it is also quite a bit bigger than that.  However, they do epitomize the choice.  And the choice has never been clearer or more significant than in this election.

Trump wants to put America first.  This is what people do everyday when they put their family first over everybody else.  It doesn’t mean that you hate everybody else.  It does mean that if you try to take care of everybody, you end up taking care of nobody.  And if you read the Constitution, especially the beginning, taking care of its citizens first is precisely the role of government in our country.