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.

We are being told today that the United States is and has always been a secular nation, which is practical atheism.

But 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 even more basic, our country was founded on the belief that God gave unalienable rights to human beings. But what God, and how did the Founders know that He had? Islam, for example, does not believe in unalienable rights. It was the God of the Bible that gave unalienable rights, and it was the Bible that informed the Founders of that. The courts would call that a religious opinion; the Founders would call that a fact.

Without Christianity, you don’t have unalienable rights, and without unalienable rights, you don’ have the United States of America.

A secular nation cannot give or even recognize unalienable rights, because there is no higher power in a secular nation than the government.

Unalienable rights are the basis for the American concept of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty require a high moral code that restrains bad behavior among its people; otherwise the government will need to make countless laws and spend increasingly larger amounts of money on law enforcement.

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.

As a secular nation, the government now becomes responsible to take care of its people. It no longer talks about unalienable rights, because then they would have to talk about God, so it creates its own rights. Government-given rights are things that the government is required to provide for its people, which creates an enormous expense which is why our federal government is now $22 trillion in debt.

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 generally 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 particular 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:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-RztuRKdCEQzgbhp52dCw

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

Thank you.

Larry Craig

Friday, October 26, 2018

Why the November 2018 Midterm Election is the Most Important Election of Our Time


Do you like America?

Well then, take a lot of pictures, because it’s going away, and it doesn’t look like it’s coming back.

In two years I will say that election is the most important election of our time as well.  Same for 2022 and beyond.

Why?

The United States is in the midst of being overthrown, taken over, destroyed, but because it is happening slowly, over generations, nobody is alarmed by it.  Few people even see it.  People think all the changes are inevitable, or good, or a sign of progress, or just another political disagreement like all the others like in the past, and then, of course, all anybody can and should do about it is to vote. 

Not quite.

Our country was founded on the concept of unalienable rights given to us by God, rights that precede and supersede government, rights that the government cannot restrict or take away.  We fought a war to be able form a government for the purpose of securing those rights. 

Living in a country with unalienable human rights requires a high personal moral code.  You can’t give people all kinds of rights to do things without having a kind of people who want to do the right things in the first place.  Freedom, or liberty, gave few and limited powers to the government.  The moral code would ensure that people in general would do the right and good thing most of the time.

Our country is in the midst of a fundamental change.  Unalienable rights are not talked about, because that would require a belief in God, and specifically, the Bible and Christianity, because no other religion has these unalienable rights or the moral code that supports it.

Now it is commonly accepted that our rights come from the government, and the list of rights keeps growing.  Government-given rights are often in conflict with these unalienable rights, so the government is able now to restrict those unalienable rights.  We have removed the ‘religious’ foundation of our country and replaced it with a secular one, and a secular moral and value code has replaced the original one.

Government-given rights generally involve the government spending massive amounts of money to pay for them, so the government assumes more and more responsibility and must have more and more money to pay for all this.  This is the main reason why our federal government is $21 trillion in debt with no end in sight.  And this is what is pushing our country toward socialism. 

Political philosophies go on a continuum.  One end is freedom, as our country had in the beginning.  The other end is totalitarianism, having a strong single leader who may or may not have the semblance of a legislative body.  The one end of freedom has its foundation in Christianity that recognizes these rights as from God.  The other end of the spectrum has its foundation in atheism or Islam.  Communist countries are atheistic, and the government owns just about everything; and Islamic countries are run by the tenets of Islam, or Sharia Law.

Countries generally move one way on the continuum, from freedom to totalitarianism.  A fast move usually follows a coup, a military takeover, a revolution, or a civil war.  A slow move is more common in democracies or republics.  Liberty requires a lot of human responsibility.  Human nature is easily moved to take an easier route. 

The government learns that it has access to enormous amounts of money that it can spend almost anyway it wants.  It first spends that money on a basic need that people have, and the people soon expect that money all the time.  They have a right to it.  The government soon offers more things to people as rights, that they will gladly pay for to get their vote.  The government gets bigger and requires more of your money to pay for these things.

Here are three quick examples of what this all looks like:

1)         Free speech.  

Free speech is no longer free.  The freedom of your speech is now limited by what other people may say or think about it.  Other people now decide how free your speech is.  You can lose your job or your career by just saying one particular word, in any context, or by expressing an opinion that doesn’t align with the new moral code.

The Founders would have rather erred on the side of freedom than have other people determine the limits of your rights.  But, again, the Founders believed in a strong moral code for the people, or any people, who want to live in freedom.  The moral code of our country was the Ten Commandments, Love your neighbor as yourself, and the Golden Rule, Do unto other as you would have others do unto you.  All of these are from the Bible, which the court called supreme ruled after almost 200 years that it is unconstitutional to have that as our moral code, because, well, it’s religious, and we are secular.

Now the supreme moral code is tolerance, equality, fairness, and diversity, all of which requires a vigilant and strong government to oversee and compel everyone’s compliance.  The only part of the code that applies specifically to individuals is tolerance, which can mean as little as just ignoring your neighbors. 

2)         Abortion

I’m not talking here about whether abortion is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral.  I’m talking about the fact that since abortion is now considered a right, everybody has to pay toward it, even if you might believe that abortion is immoral.  The courts have ruled that money is also speech, so the government has turned free speech on its head, forcing people who don’t believe in abortion to say something they don’t want to say.  Secular, government-given rights now take precedence over unalienable rights. 

3)         Affordable anything

Everybody wants everything to be affordable.  I certainly do.  But what this really means is that they are subsidized.  You are taxing other people to help pay for it.  Whether it is housing, medical care, a college education, and the list will grow, the emphasis is not on how to bring down the true cost of anything, but how to get everybody else to help pay for it.

Since our government has shifted to making more things a right, it is spending way more money that it get in from taxes.  The options are to raise taxes as much as they safely can, or just keep borrowing the money, paying the interest on it, printing more money that devalues the money already out there, and just change the subject.

In most elections in our country, and certainly all national elections, we essentially have two choices, either of the two major political parties.  One party is totally committed to this new version of the United States.  The other party is a mixed bag, because when you have a two-party system, you force everyone to associate more or less with one or the other.
 
Now, more than at any time in our history, and I wouldn’t expect this to change anytime soon, when you have only two people to choose from, the party has become more important than the individual.  The direction of the party will determine more than any one elected person, except the President, of course, what direction our country is going. 

As I have mentioned, the political changes in our country are gradual.  But there are essentially two different, in fact opposite, directions, in which our country can go.  This is why our country is more divided today than at any other time in our history.  This division will only increase in the future as any change in one direction is a move back from the other direction.  It’s like a tug-a-war.  If you’re losing, you only pull harder.

The only way out of this division is to have a public discussion of the origin of our country by the right people.  Those who seek to reinvent our country aren’t ignoring our founding; they just set it aside, because they found a way of understanding and explaining it that most people wouldn’t know what to say to answer them.  But then they would still prefer not to have that discussion in the first place.

We aren’t teaching this any of this to our children in our schools, and we certainly aren’t teaching it to the millions of people who keep moving here.  That alone favors the side that is trying to reinvent our country, because all these other people don’t even know the original ideas that started our country. 

And who’s going to tell them?

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

A defining issue of our time - a letter to the newspaper


Jesse Jackson probably didn’t intend this with his column on the midterms (Oct. 24), but it raised perhaps the defining issue of our times. 

When our nation was founded, the emphasis was on unalienable rights which our Founders believed God gave to human beings.  They believed that government, their government, should exist to secure those rights. 

But now that we have removed God from public life, nobody is talking about unalienable rights anymore, but government-given rights. 

The difference is that government-given rights usually require other people to pay for them.  If you have a right to health care, then you have a right to take my money to help pay for it.  If you have a right to a good paying job, then you have a right to take my money to help pay for it.  If you have a right to a college education, then you have a right to take my money to help pay for it.  If you have a right to an abortion, then you have a right to take my money to help pay for it.

Everybody talks about the rights that they want and believe they (should) have, but nobody talks about what it means to give them those rights. 

Jackson sees the midterms as primarily about health care.  I see a much bigger issue here: a trend to keep expanding the list of rights that people have without mentioning that this requires everybody else to pay toward that.  We are already $21 trillion in debt, and this is, I would say, the primary reason.

Friday, October 19, 2018

What is an American?

The Heritage Foundation asked what it means to be an American.  This is what I wrote them.


What is an American?

The definition of an American is changing in that the definition of America is changing. 

We are not teaching the children of our public schools or in our colleges what America is, and we are certainly not teaching it to the millions of people who come here from all over the world.  They don’t need to become citizens, because we give that privilege to their children, whether their parents are Americans or not.

When they begin voting, getting elected to public office, and make laws, they will do them in ways that are contrary to the founding principles of our country.  In a generation of two, we will find ourselves in a very different country.

There are fewer and fewer people today who know the founding principles of our country, and they generally don’t have the platform to challenge what is going on.

The Declaration of Independence defines our country probably the best.  The core principle is that God gave humans unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights are individual rights that precede and supersede government.  Government cannot take them away, and government exists to protect those rights.  When it fails to do that, we have the right to replace it with a different government.  Our Founders would have done that already if they were still alive.

But wait a second.  How did the Founders know that God gave us rights, and what God were they talking about?  Every nation in the world at that time had their god(s) and their religion(s), but none of them believed in these unalienable rights. 

Our Founders believed that the Bible revealed God and His plans for humans, and they believed Christianity was the vehicle through which God was working in human lives. 

Today we are told that our country is a secular country and was always intended to be one.  As such, government cannot favor one religion over another and must act indifferently to all of them.  Essentially, a secular country is an atheistic country, but it can’t say so until the transformation is complete.

But if Christianity is not at the core of what we are as a nation, then you don’t have unalienable rights.  Your rights come from the government.  And those rights are different from the rights that come from God. 

The rights from God are things you can do freely without government intrusion.  Rights from the government are things that belong to you, and it’s the government’s job to see that you get them.  This requires laws that restrict behaviors of other people and usually requires them to pay for things for which the government deems is their right.  So the government requires people who don’t believe in abortions to pay toward those who do.

A country that believes in freedom, such as what unalienable rights entails, is a country that must also be moral and religions.  Like John Adams said, our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  You can’t give all kinds of freedoms to people if the people don’t have a strong moral code that directs them to do good to other people. 

Our country has turned its back on the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the love your neighbor as yourself, which formed the moral foundation of our country for almost 200 years and traded it in for tolerance, equality, fairness, and diversity.  We can see the results in the incredible increase in spending today to protect our people from those who would do us harm and the increase in those who would.

You don’t have to be a Christian to be an American, but you do need to see that Christianity is at the core of what we are as a nation.  We need to teach the principles of Christianity if we are to continue as the nation we were founded to be.

The First Amendment is about the government not creating a state church as they had and still have in England.  It is not about removing God from our public schools and the public square.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t have taken almost 200 years for the courts to rule that way.  Our Founders knew what they meant by it.

Also, they could not have guaranteed freedom of religion, unless religion, and a specific one at that, was consistent with the highest values of our land.  It is a statement that all religions are equal and are free to come here and practice their religion in blissful harmony.  The Founders fully expected that in a free society there would be free discussions that would prove the truth of Christianity. 

At the time of the founding of our country, one major world religion was burning alive widows on the pyres of their dead husbands, and another was enslaving and killing those it considered to be infidels.  While people have a right to practice their religions, the First Amendment is not to be understood that any and all religions could practice everything they believe in our country.  Religions are not equal, and the morals of Christianity were the morals that guided our country and its laws.




Sunday, October 7, 2018

Why the Van Dyke Verdict was Wrong


The Van Dyke verdict was a wrong verdict. 

Why?

Because the charges were wrong.  The only realistic choice the jury had was between first degree murder and second-degree murder.

The trial itself was a mistake.  It was only done to appease the mobs angered by the hundreds of killings and shootings that nobody seems to be able to do anything about.

We hire people to put their lives at great risk to uphold the laws and to protect the public.  A trial, charge, and verdict like this will make their job a hundred times more dangerous. 

A retired Chicago police officer friend of mine posted a compilation video on Facebook of cops being killed in the performance of their duties, because they could not respond fast enough to an unforeseen attack. 

We are now expecting our police officers to act only defensively, giving those who would do them harm an unacceptable advantage. 

In the long term, this ruling will mean an increase in the loss of lives of police officers and an increase in the loss of public safety. 

As for Van Dyke: if his conduct was unreasonable for a police officer, as determined by police officers, then they should be able to terminate his work as one.  To do more I believe is a mistake, and a serious one.