The 3 Myths Of A Secular Government In America (Part 1)

Bible and Flag The 3 Myths of a Secular Government in America  (Part 1)

It is often said that religion and politics don’t mix. We are also told that our government (and accordingly, the public square) must be neutral on matters of religion. It cannot favor any one religion over another. Hearing these statements so often, one is greatly tempted to believe they are true.

There is one slight problem. These are meaningless statements.

People who use these expressions have a limited understanding of religion. They have particular religions in mind and particular doctrines of that religion that are subject to different interpretations. And politics and government (especially in a multi-cultural society), they contend, must be entirely separate from religion. And, of course, there are atheists and others with no religion whose views must be held with the same regard as everyone else.

But what exactly is a religion? In common usage, it is a set of beliefs and practices involving God. However, that is a far too limited view of what a religion is. A religion purports to describe reality, all of it. It offers its explanation of the origin of the world, the nature of human beings, the meaning of life, the rules of life, what is true, and what is false.

In other words, a religion is a worldview. Everyone has a worldview. It may not be thoroughly thought out. It may have inconsistencies, blatant falsehoods, and obvious distortions. But everyone has one.

People live out of what they believe about life, themselves, and other people. Some worldviews are called religion because God is a part of it. And some worldviews don’t include a God, but they are still worldviews. And just like people live out of their worldview, so do governments.

This is why so-called secular governments keep growing. There is no God for people to rely on, so government has to fill that void by being the great protector and provider for its people.

In older dictionaries, the idea of religion necessarily included a god. But not now. It can be simply “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

The most non-religious (atheistic) governments in the world are communistic. There is no god; but there is the government to see that everybody behaves and is taken care of, so to speak.

As countries become less religious, they become more communistic or socialistic. The common idea is collectivism. The void gets larger, and the government grows to fill that void.

Christians believe in a Trinity; that is, they believe that God exists in three persons, not as three separate Gods, but the three distinct personalities make up the one God. There is a secular trinity as well. The government is like God the Father, the provider, protector, and judge of the people. Science takes the place of the Son. The work of the Son makes the Christian life possible, and science is the servant of secularism energizing and supporting the cause.

True science is just the principle of observing and measuring and experimenting to determine how nature works. But science becomes and has become a religion when it says that only what can be measured and observed is real and objective truth. There is nothing beyond or outside the observed universe. This is a religious statement just as much as “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Christian dogma has been replaced with naturalist dogma.

The third part of the secular trinity is relativism. This is the spirit of the age. There is no Lawgiver outside of nature, and that involves simply physical laws. So anything called truth beyond that is individualistic. If it works for you, who is to say that it is wrong? Cultures have formed, and they are all equal expressions of individual initiative.

But new dogmas have come into being, and the government is the enforcer of these new beliefs. The beliefs (rules) are simple and few: Tolerance and fairness (or equality). Tolerance allows individuals to live their own truth within their own world, and fairness mediates among the masses because it is only inequality that promotes division and hostility between people.

So secularism is a worldview and essentially a religion, a religion without a god, but a religion nonetheless. It doesn’t require weekly worship services. Political rallies every election year are enough.

So to say that a government can be secular is just semantics. It just means naturalism, or practical atheism. It’s not a matter of religion or no religion, but what religion. A religion with a god or one without? There is no middle ground.

The second myth is that our government was intended to be a secular government. There are two problems here.

One is that we have forgotten our history and reinterpreted it and our historical documents. When the First Amendment was written, the issue before them was the idea of a national church as was common in Europe. This was rejected, but individual states had state churches; and that was written into the various state Constitutions.

A common quote from one of the Founding Fathers was that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Our government and our nation requires a religious and moral people to exist simply because the majority can vote for anything they want, and they will and they have. It is human nature to seek power and influence and to live beyond one’s means, and those are two of our government’s biggest problems. Those who are in power do what they can to stay in power, and they spend other people’s money beyond their means to do it.

Our founders knew that if the people lost their religious and moral foundation, this form of government would not last. It would die a slow death through massive government debt.

Immigration: So What Exactly Is It Again That We Are Trying To Fix? (Part 2)

Obama Immigration Policy SC Immigration: So what exactly is it again that we are trying to fix?  (Part 2)

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Did I do something wrong again? I thought this article was insightful and interesting, and all under 1,000 words.

If we want to fix immigration, we first have to know and agree on what is wrong with it.

There are different views on what is wrong. The most obvious problem is that we have maybe 11 million people who are not supposed to be here. And our country has lost the will to remove them. Many of them, of course, were brought here as children, so they personally bear no culpability.

The second problem that we hear about is that it is taking too long for the families of immigrants still in their home countries to be able to come here.

However, there are two other problems not being discussed that need to be addressed. The first I mentioned in part 1, that we are rewarding bad behavior by giving free citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrants. As long as we do this, we will always have an abundance of illegal immigrants. And I noted also how the 14th Amendment is being misunderstood and abused to apply here.

The other problem will be seen more clearly after we ask the bigger question: Why do we want immigration in the first place?

The main reason we allow and encourage immigration, so we are told, is for what they bring to our country in terms of hard work and their entrepreneurial spirit. Yes, our country was built on immigrants, but it was not the first come first served totally open immigration that we have today. We chose the countries of origin, and we put a priority on what they could contribute to our country.

The more important reason, however, though not mentioned in public, is that the people already living here are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to replace the population. So our populace is aging with fewer younger people to support the elderly and the ever growing federal government. So the idea is to bring working people into the States so we can have a larger tax base to support an aging population.

However, since 1965, our government’s priority in immigration has been to reunite families. Noble, compassionate intent, but it defeats the whole purpose of immigration. This means that we are not only getting the taxpayers but the entire family, which essentially resembles the demographics we already have here.

For example, I have two siblings who are not working, one due to age and another due to health. My extended family includes more of the same. So if I were the immigrant and my entire extended family were to come here, all the supposed advantages of immigration would be nullified, taxpayers offset by non-taxpayers.

So, as our current immigration system is set up, there is no real advantage to bringing in these 700,000 new people every year. Except one. The Democrats believe they will have a lock on their votes.

The only real advantage of immigration would be if we pursued and prioritized the best and the brightest. Of course, their immediate family would be allowed, but to concentrate on reuniting the entire family essentially nullifies any perceived benefits to immigration.

So what exactly would or should immigration reform look like?

1) We must first stop rewarding unlawful behavior by giving instant citizenship to the children of those who are in this country illegally. What do people risk by entering our country illegally? A return trip home? And what are the rewards? For many, it is the citizenship of their children. Yes, of course, there is also the free medical care (if you go to the county hospitals) and a better life in so many other ways.
2) We must secure our borders, so we can control the flow of people into our country. And we must fix our visa system, so that visitors who extend their stays cannot disappear off the radar.
3) We need to implement the E-Verify system immediately. This is the best way we have now to ensure that companies do not hire people who are not here legally.

If we don’t do these first three things, we will have this same problem again and again and again.
If we are not serious about enforcing the laws we already have, any new laws would simply be a joke. We have three states now that offer driver’s licenses to illegals. And these are the people who make our laws? If they have no respect for the laws we already have, why are they in office?

4) After we deal with essentially ending the flow and incentives for illegal immigration, those who were brought here as children could be given legal status with a path to citizenship. However, those who are still children living with their parents, if the parents are no longer able to find employment, they may find themselves returning with their parents to their country of origin. Those who were already deemed US citizens can come back when they are able to live on their own.
5) We have far more people wanting to come here than we can assimilate. So why are we showing no apparent regard for what they can contribute to our country? Political and religious refugees should always be welcomed here, though there have been cases where entire ethnic or religious groups have been targeted for extinction, but that’s for another article.

So we can and should show preference to those who can be of most benefit to us and who are most common to our culture. There is no reason or justification for bringing 700,000 new people into our country every year without looking for what value they can bring to our country.

If we don’t do everything here, our immigration system will still be broken. And there is still the issue of the melting pot. For another time.

Immigration: So What Exactly Is It Again That We Are Trying To Fix? (Part 1)

 

Illigal Aliens SC Immigration: So what exactly is it again that we are trying to fix?  (Part 1)

If you want to fix something, you first have to know what it is supposed to look like when it’s not broken. That goes for immigration as well.

But I wouldn’t call what is going on now fixing anything. They are trying to clean up a mess years in the making through neglect, political expediency, and willful disregard of the laws of the land. That same moral rebellion that was energized when the courts found religious and moral instruction and prayer and talk about God not proper in public schools and then later in public life at all found it hard to keep a lot of laws. It turned a blind eye to illegal immigration, probably because it was easy to exploit people with secrets to hide; and besides, if we threw off all those restraining personal rules, why should we strictly enforce rules on others, especially if no one is being hurt?

The real problem with immigration is that a rule (the 14th Amendment) made after the Civil War to give freed black slaves citizenship was transformed into free citizenship for anyone who could be born within our borders by any means. Now our politicians know, or should know, that this isn’t really the case because the children born here of foreign diplomats aren’t given citizenship. And even the Native Americans didn’t receive citizenship until the next century with an act of Congress.

So to say that children born here to illegal immigrants automatically become citizens is an abuse of our Constitution, wishful thinking, and an act of pandering to Hispanic voters. This is like telling people it is wrong to rob banks; but if you do, you can keep the money. Just pay taxes on it, of course.

We are providing a strong incentive for people to come here by whatever means because it is worth the risks they take to give their children the privileges of citizenship. That’s why people rob banks. They weigh the risks against the potential benefits and find it worth it.

And why do I get the impression that the major impetus behind immigration ‘reform’ today is that the Democrats feel they will have a lock on the votes from all these new voters? And why would that be? I would venture to say that the mere matter of not being citizens is not a stumbling block to Democrats for getting immigrants to vote. This is certainly the main reason they oppose voter ID laws.

What is being touted as immigration reform is really nothing of the sort. The children of illegals, brought here through no fault of their own, are given legal status. But then who will have the heart, or the gall, to send their parents back to their country of origin? So the parents get a pass as well.

This ‘reform’ will only try to clean up the mess of years of intentional indifference, only to let the problem reoccur down the road. I don’t believe them if or when they say this will be different. We’ll be back here again in another generation. If any legalization occurs before the borders are secure, the borders will never become secure.

And as long as we provide the incentive of free citizenship, we will always have an abundance of illegal immigrants.

Those who turn a blind eye to illegal immigration are strong on pointing out all the benefits of immigration, even illegal immigration. Indeed, there are benefits; but we need to look a little more closely at what is going on here.

The primary reason we need large numbers of immigrants today is that the people already living here are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to replace the population. So our populace would be gradually aging with fewer younger people to support the elderly. In the past, families supported their aged, but now we need more taxpaying workers to pay for our ever expanding government. So we should not be surprised that our government is in no hurry to slow down any form of immigration.

We’ve have been teaching our daughters to pursue careers more than families, so we should not be surprised that families are shrinking.

We are told of the need for immigrants because of their entrepreneurial spirit. But I see no reason to see the current crop of immigrants as more entrepreneurial than the rest of us. With promises of free medical care and citizenship for new born children, it is not just the entrepreneurs that we are attracting.

We used to favor immigrants who had qualities we were looking for. Now we seem to have little say in who comes in, though I have read that white Europeans are having a real hard time.

Some say that diversity is our strength. Well, yes and no. Diverse minds can bring new perspectives on solving common problems. But diverse minds can also have different goals, different values, and different ways of approaching life.

In the first case, they are united around a common goal. In the second, they are irremediably divided. Look at Washington D.C. today.

Our government is divided over two diametrically opposed views of how to run our country. There is no way to compromise on most issues. If one side says that we are taxed too high and spend too much, any compromise will have higher taxes and more spending. Just less of an increase.

We used to have more of a consensus on what America stands for, what it means to be an American. Our nation has lost its sense of what it is we actually stand for. The more diversity we have sought, the more we have cast aside our values to find the lowest common denominator. And that seems to be merely the fact that we all live in the same country. And that’s about it. So the more diverse our immigration base, the less we share of common values, common interests, and common identity.

Photo credit: luna715 (Creative Commons)

The Two Alternatives To Stopping The Violence

Bible The Two Alternatives to Stopping the Violence

I am saddened and sickened by the constant news of the killings in Chicago. If we want this madness to stop, we have only two real alternatives.

The first is to tightly control everything that goes on in our society: police on every block ’round the clock, frequent random searches of cars and persons, numerous traffic checkpoints in higher crime areas, and surveillance cameras everywhere.

But our country started with a war over liberty. And liberty will not work if the people do not have the restraints within themselves to do what is right.

Since our country was first colonized in the 1600s, through its official birth at the end of the 18th century until the middle of the 20th century, our public schools taught about God and our responsibility to Him and each other. The Bible was taught, and prayers were said.

Then in the middle of the 20th century, this was found to have all been unconstitutional, though it had been in common practice for about 180 years after our country’s founding with the full support of our country’s founders, the ones who wrote this First Amendment that apparently now forbids it.

Our country has worked hard to scrub all mention and sign of God from our culture, and then we wonder why people act with so little self-restraint or regard for others.

The Bible taught us to love our neighbors, and now we are taught to merely tolerate them. Which is another way of saying to ignore them.

Without God, we have to keep making more and more laws to try to stop the actions of people who live only for themselves because they have little reason to care for others. And where laws make certain actions harder to act out, intent malevolents will only seek out new ways to perpetuate their violence. We worry about guns. In other parts of the world, the weapons of choice are explosives.

The guns are the symptoms and not the real problem. Until we return to “one nation under God,” we have no hope of stemming the violence without becoming a police state.

Photo Credit: knowhimonline (Creative Commons)

Evolution: Why It’s Wrong And Why It Matters (Part 1)

Evolution SC Evolution: why its wrong and why it matters  (Part 1)

I am not a scientist. But that’s okay, because evolution isn’t really science anyway. When you think of science, you probably picture people in white coats looking at test tubes in a laboratory, searching for answers to the big questions in life. Searching for truth, reality, and a way of unlocking all the mysteries of life.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

What tools does science have for its task, or what tools does it use to answer these questions? Observations, measurements, and repeatable experiments.

With the scientific method, information about our world began increasing rapidly.

But then something happened.

At first, science limited its inquiries to things it could see and observe and measure. Gradually, things that couldn’t be observed and measured were considered less real. They were just beliefs, unworthy of people who were really in the know. Then beliefs became irrelevant, even inimical to truth.

Science can’t observe God, measure Him, or subject Him to repeatable experiments. So first, it merely said that science is not concerned with God, only material things. But then it began working with the assumption that material things were all there was. They went from confining their area of expertise to what can be observed and measured to concluding that what can be observed and measured was for all practical purposes enough. There was no need to accept anything beyond that.

Yes, I know this is a generalization and that there are many individual exceptions. But they came to believe, not from empirical evidence but simply from their working presuppositions, that all reality can be explained entirely by natural processes.

Now if there is a God, at some point, somewhere, you would expect that He and the world would intersect, that He would actually do something in the world. But science would not admit that. It would never conclude that. Whatever happened had to have had only material causes.

If you could take a time machine back to the beginning of the world and you saw God actually call the world into existence by the words of His mouth, science would never accept that as truth. What this means is that, while science is believed to be the source of all truth in the quest for understanding the world, it automatically precludes certain conclusions from its work.

It is interested in truth as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with God. It’s like trying to solve math problems and denying the existence of the number 3.

Whether or not God did indeed create the world, they will act under the presumption that He didn’t. And all their theories, like evolution, are their best ideas of how all this could have happened on its own.

If God really did create the world, anyone who seriously wants to know the truth about the world and life would want to know that. If science really wanted to know the answers to life, it should be able to reach that conclusion. But its methodology is limited (it can’t put God into a test tube or submit Him to a lie detector), so it out of hand dismisses it as a possibility.

They say it is based on the best evidence, but I would like to show that it is rather based on a leap of faith far greater than that attributed to any religious believer.

First of all, evolution believes that life evolved through minute random mutations over millions of years. After millions, even perhaps a billion years, every living thing on earth now should be in the middle of some evolutionary process. Evolution would have no way of knowing or saying that it has reached perfection. Things would have been constantly changing for better or worse, with the worse things gradually dying off.

So every living thing, plant, animal, or human, would/should be in some state of transition. The evidence would suggest then that evolution all over the world has stopped for a few centuries at the same time with everything having reached a state of equilibrium. And this is all supposed to be random, unguided?

Imagine that astronauts were to travel to Mars. While exploring the planet, they find a computer on the ground. Their first thought would be: “Someone has been here.” Why? They know that a computer could not be assembled without intelligence, someone designing it, and then putting it together in a precise manner. You could put all the required components next to each other for billions of years, and they would not make any progress toward making a computer.

If they found only a table and chair, they would conclude the same thing. If they found the words ‘Mary loves John’ scrawled in the ground, they would conclude that some intelligent life preceded them.

Nothing is more complicated in the world than a living thing, particularly human life. The proteins that form our DNA are joined in ways that do not occur naturally and actually constitute a language considerably more complex than ‘Mary loves John.’

To say that humans evolved from apes can almost seem believable when said with a straight face by someone with a beard and glasses and wearing a suit.

It’s when you go back to the beginning of it all that the whole thing stretches all believability to the point of absurdity.

How could life have started in the first place? Let’s say it was caused by lightning striking the ground under the right atmospheric conditions. Poof! Living dirt. A miracle.

But we need some more miracles almost immediately. This living dirt must have some way to create energy; otherwise, it would die in short manner. Another lightning strike would kill it, so maybe a lightning strike close by creates a system for this living dirt to metabolize other dirt for energy. This living dirt can now exist for more than a few moments.

But now for all this to have any significance, it needs another miracle. If this living dirt doesn’t reproduce itself, it will soon be gone forever. So lightning strikes close by again, and now this living dirt is given the ability to reproduce itself.

So now we have had three totally unlikely, impossible (?) miracles; and living dirt is starting to spread over the earth. No, wait. Locomotion. We need another miracle for this thing to be able to move out of its location; otherwise, we will just have a mound of living dirt. So lightning has to strike again, close by; and somehow, this creates the ability of locomotion in this living dirt.

Now if all this had been what the religions had been teaching, scientists would have laughed them to scorn. But it gets better.

At this point, we need another miracle that makes all the previous ones seem run of the mill by comparison.

We have a world filling with living dirt. This living dirt would be changing through random mutations; but now, some of these need to be randomly developing complementary reproductive systems, strictly by chance, of course. And amazingly enough, when at least two of these living dirt things have finally reached completed complementary reproductive systems, these two living dirt things need to be close enough to each other to actually reproduce together.

And science wants us to believe that all this happened by itself, with no intelligence guiding it and no outside power doing anything. And they call faith blind? You would think perhaps that the self-reproducing organisms would have been the one that prevailed through natural selection.

To say that the world and life was created by intelligence is or rather should be a logical conclusion of science. When all natural explanations of the world and life rely on events totally contrary to experience and experimentation, then the God hypothesis is not only fair, but logical.

In my next article, we will consider why all this is so important.

Photo credit: atheism (Creative Commons)