|
Cutting Edge Ministries
|
Many believe, that in the west today, there is a separation between church and state, which is simply another way of saying a separation of religion and state. A separation in which religious institutions do not make binding laws for the state and a separation in which the government neither promotes nor opposes one world or religious view over others. Unfortunately, there has never been a true separation of religion and state either in the west or any where else in the world. David Noble rightly points out that ‘…all worldviews contain a theology - that is, all begin with a religious declaration. Christianity begins with “In the beginning God.” Marxism/Leninism and Secular Humanism begins with “In the beginning no God.” Cosmic Humanism begins with the declaration “Everything is God”’ (The Battle for Truth, p. 13, 2001, Harvest House Publishers).
All governments have been promoting a religious world view while opposing others. This has always been the case. In the Islamic world taxes are used to promote Islam through education and the media[1] (even though many non-Muslims live in those countries and may not like their taxes being spent to promote Islam). In communist countries atheism is promoted as ‘scientific’ and ‘factual’, while all faith is seen as fiction, a fantasy which makes simple minded people feel good[2] (even though many people in the communist world believe that God does exist and believe science supports such a view). In the west the secular humanist world view is promoted through government funded media and education and seems to enjoy critical immunity from government funded organizations[3].
Now some will object by saying, “Secular Humanism is not a religion;” many secular humanists say it is not a religion but that is not how many people who believe in God see Humanism. If a Muslim claims Islam is not a religion, that it is something more or a Christian says that Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship (which I agree with) are secular humanists inclined to agree? No they will not. Neither will those who do not hold to the Humanist world view accept that humanism is not a religion. Those who object to secular humanism being called a religion usually are not familiar with the literature of prominent Humanists. The writers of the first Humanist Manifesto (1933) state that “to establish a religion of humanism is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility that rests upon this generation." Also, there are many Humanists who view humanism as a religion. One of the authors of the original Humanist Manifesto, John Dewey, wrote A Common Faith in which he states “Here are all the arguments for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race” (p. 87, 1934, Yale University Press)[4]. Dewey heavily influenced public education in America and used the class room to promote the religion of humanism. One humanist, G. Richard Bozarth, wrote in the American Atheist
“And how does god die? Quite simply because all his religionists have been converted to another religion, and there is no one left to make children believe they need him. Finally, it is irresistible — we must ask how can we kill the god of Christianity. We need only insure that our schools teach only secular knowledge…. If we achieve this, God would indeed be shortly due for a funeral service” (“On Keeping God Alive” cited in Legislating Morality by Geisler, N. & Turek, F., p.92, 2003, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Oregon)[5].
Now Atheists would object strongly if their taxes were being used to promote Christianity in schools and through the media. They should not be surprised when theists object to the government promoting an anti-theistic world view. This, however, creates a problem for the government because nobody’s neutral, everyone thinks they are right. While the government funds the media and education someone’s absolutes (their non-negotiable’s) will always be promoted[6]. As long as government funded education and media exists one world view will always be promoted over another.
It would seem that the only solution is to have no government funding for the media or for education[7]. (Naturally such a change would have to be brought about gradually.)
If there was a true separation of religion and state, where humanism was no longer promoted, what would it do to reduce tensions in the world? For example, would it make those Muslims or communists, who regard secular humanism as immoral, more willing to embrace democracy?
Much of the Islamic world rejects secular humanism and consequently clings more firmly to Islam. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is being fuelled in part by the immorality of the west. Even moderate Muslims think their only choice is between a government which promotes Islamic law or one that promotes humanism, whose morals they find distasteful[8].
We are advancing technologically but morally we seem to be in trouble. With advanced technology comes increased moral responsibility. What will the world be like in 50 years time? Divorce is on the rise, there are increased problems associated with gambling, drug addiction and crime. Attitudes toward the elderly are changing and many parents seem unable to handle their own children. What happens to a society when vice increases? Winston Churchill was right, “The further back you can look, the further forward you can see.” While there have always been problems never have the problems seemed to be on such a large scale. Can we afford to continue as we are?
Society’s problem Ravi Zacharias points out that secularism has created a pragmatic mindset “and pragmatism will always find ways to circumvent and misuse the law rather than revere it” (1996, Deliver Us from Evil, p.61). The pragmatist is not guided by virtue but the principle “don’t get caught.” ‘Tacitus wrote, “The more corrupt the state, the more laws.” That is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom”’[Emphasis added] (Os Guinness, 2000, Time for Truth, p.86).
The state, no matter what the people are like, must maintain order.
The essence of government is force: whatever its end, its means is compulsion. Government forces people to do what they would not otherwise choose to do, or it forces them to refrain from doing what they would otherwise do. So, when we say “government should do x,” we are really saying, “people should be forced to do x.” It should be obvious that force should be used only for the most serious reasons, such as preventing and punishing violence. The frivolous, improper, or excessive use of force is wrong. We used to call it tyranny. Unfortunately, too many people think that calling for the government to do x is merely a way of saying that x is desirable. And so we are increasingly forced to do things that are not genuine social duties but merely good ideas. The result is that the role of state coercion in our lives grows greater and greater (Joseph Sobran, cited in The Absolutes by James Robison).[9]
Misguided causes
Obviously, the less virtuous people are the more force governments are compelled to use to maintain law and order[10]. The government will do this because of pressure from those who demand harsher penalties (which is understandable because order must be maintained) and because they know anarchy will eventually result in their overthrow.
At some point, a government will come to power which will implement additional laws, tougher penalties and restrict freedom of speech in an attempt to maintain order. (The beginnings of a totalitarian state. This would be unnecessary if people were more self controlled and treated others as they would like to be treated.) When justice is not seen to be done stricter and more visible law enforcement becomes increasingly attractive. (Such as Islamic law, unfortunately under the Sharia there is one set of laws and punishments for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. For law to be effective justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. Perhaps this is one of the great weaknesses in western democracies; it is not seen to be done.)
Other (well meaning) people respond by seeking to implement socialism, communism or the welfare state as they believe poverty is the primary cause of crime and family breakdown. Unfortunately, these systems of government fail to address the heart of the problem, the loss of virtue. (But how do you create virtue without indoctrinating the people? This will be addressed in the following.)
As a society we have mistakenly believed that the government can solve all our social problems. We long to live in a society where people have pure motives, keep their word and protect the vulnerable and weak; in short we long to live in a society in which we feel safe. We long for love, not more programs. This is the one thing the government cannot do; it cannot make people love and care for each other. When the government tries to provide for the needs of the unemployed it would seem that love is discouraged rather than encouraged, after all isn’t the government going to take care of everything so why should I bother to help those in need?
Many people believe that all unemployed people should be given money no matter what their personal problems may be. But when the government does this is it truly being kind? Everyone knows what happens if you give an alcoholic money. And what happens if you give money to an unemployed father who likes to smoke pot and play his X box all day? (an X Box is a computer game) Will giving him money make him a better father? Will giving him money help his little boy? Not likely, it will probably make things worse. Some will say, “if the government does not give the unemployed and disadvantaged money who will”? People who say such things obviously believe that people are not capable of taking care of each other without government intervention. What little faith they have in ordinary people.
There are many people within our society who volunteer their time to help others. These people can exercise the kind of discernment needed to genuinely help those who are disadvantaged rather than simply handing out money as the government so often does.
‘Discrimination is evil and destructive because it is rooted in prejudice but discernment is just and constructive because it is rooted in compassion - to treat everyone exactly the same is as cruel as arbitrarily treating everyone entirely different’(Booker T. Washington, former slave and leader of the civil rights movement 1856-1915, Emphasis added).
Obviously individuals and voluntary organizations can exercise greater discernment when helping other people as they are more intimately involved than government can ever be. These are the kind of people who know the limits of government and the great advantages and rewards when individuals voluntarily help others. These are the kind of people who ought to have the most influence in society at all levels, including government.
But:
How do we create a society in which those who care the most have the greatest influence?
At present those who have the greatest influence in government are not necessarily those who care the most about others. Those who run for government or lobby governments are often thinking only of their own interests. How are we to empower those who care about those outside their little group rather than those who are only thinking about what personally benefits them? I believe the answer lies in creating a true separation of religion and state.
A Step in the Right Direction: A true separation of religion and state
The State must not promote one religious world view over another as this violates the separation of Church & State (religion and state). Unfortunately, as already stated, Secular Humanism, which is being promoted by governments, is a religion[11].
In a true separation of religion and state it would not be the role of religious organizations to create and enforce laws; neither would the States role be to feed the unemployed, provide education (which includes funding for the media[12]) and take care of the sick (though the State should assist individuals and organizations with some of the problems the State helped to create)[13]. Note: Any school or educational institution advocating violence towards those of other faiths would be closed down.
It should be noted that if atheists are the people who care the most they will be the ones who build the most schools and volunteer their time to help the poor more often than others. Which ever world view promotes the greatest care for others will be the one that will eventually exert the most influence in a society where there is no government interference.
Isn’t that the way we want it to be?
We want those who care the most to have the greatest influence in our society whether they call themselves atheists, Hindus, Muslims or Christians. When governments stop promoting one world view over others we will see who really does care the most. A true separation of religion and state will then exist which will allow equal opportunity for all religious world views. When there is a true separation of religion and state the ideas of elite groups will not be promoted by tax payers’ money. There is a lot of hysteria around today and a lack of objective inquiry. As a Christian I believe that historically Christians have cared more for the oppressed and poor than atheists (see 6 Modern Myths about Christianity & Western Civilization by Phillip Sampson and How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt.). If I am wrong and atheists have cared more for others then atheism would rightly become the dominant influence when there is a true separation of religion and state. Those who reject a true separation think that their beliefs are the right ones and it is their beliefs which should be promoted by the government. Those who reject a true separation of religion and state are elitists who like to use other people’s money (in the form of taxes) to achieve their own goals.
Ok, I have talked about the things the state must not be involved in if there is to be a true separation of religion and state; what should the state control?
Some of the roles of the State are (or should be) to create money (or credit)[14], implement just laws[15] and enforce them, create jobs and ensure that the poor are not taken advantage of by the rich and establish safe work practices (this is the government’s contribution to the poor). The State must also provide a defence force and an infrastructure (e.g. roads, railways, a postal service etc.). The State could also set tests to establish standards of education. (But must not fund education; while government funds education and the media there cannot be a true separation of Religion and State as one world view will be promoted over another. Nobody’s neutral.)
A true separation of Church and State does not exclude atheists, Muslims or any one else from establishing schools or from feeding the hungry. Under such a system, the government would have very little power associated with propaganda and those who care the most would have the greatest impact on society. (The government would, however, have the right to limit the activities of those who encourage their followers to take the law into their own hands. But the government must not interfere with religious debate. Adherents of any belief system must be willing to accept criticism from others, treat others kindly and counter lies with truth rather than seeking to silence them, which stifles freedom of speech. The way to disarm lies is to spread the truth. See More outrages, more revulsion, more enmity)
A Fractured Society?
One person suggested that a true separation of religion and state, as I have suggested here, would lead to a fractured society, one in which minority groups, due to a lack of decent education, would congregate in areas which would then become slums. Is there some truth to that?
I think there would be groups who would be poorer than others, just as there is now[16] . An example of this is Muslims in the west, they tend to have lower employment rates than non-Muslims. Because Muslims tend to stick together low socioeconomic communities are created. Like wise, in Islamic countries non-Muslims tend to be poorer and they tend to inhabit the same districts [17]. Regarding education, in Islamic countries non-Muslim children often attend Muslim schools, some parents choose to send their children to those schools, others do not have any other option. Like wise, some Muslims choose to send their children to Christian schools. A similar kind of thing happens in the west. Under the separation which I have proposed this kind of thing would continue.
Regarding television, if there was true pay TV, where only the channels you use are paid for, no single group would be able to use their money to propagate their beliefs to others by way of television. If someone doesn’t want to watch the Hindu channel they don’t have to, you only get what you pay for.
Now some will say disapprovingly, others approvingly, “if that was done in the west Christianity would become dominant.” Perhaps, but what would happen if that was done in countries which are predominately Muslim or Hindu? I think the Christians would fair far better in those countries once the government stopped promoting one religious view of another. (There is much room for improvement according to Patrick Sookhdeo. See footnote 17) Once there was no longer any state interference, I believe the Christian world view would gradually become the prevailing world view in those countries. I believe this because I think the Christian world view leads to economic prosperity, humanitarianism and justice, more so than any other religion. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps another world view is superiour to the Christian view, if that is the case a Hindu, Humanist, Buddhist, Islamic or some other world view might become or remain the dominant view. That’s ok if one of them does. The point I am trying to make is this, in time we would see which world view is most attractive to the people when the government no longer uses tax payer’s money to promote the view they think is best for the people.
[1] See Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality by Pervez A. Hoodbhoy
[3] I've never seen the SBS or the ABC broadcast a show which attacks atheism or humanism (The ABC and SBS are both government owned and funded). In today's world Humanism and Atheism are the reigning world views among the elite and as such are treated as sacred. Because of this we are not likely to see productions like Icons of Evolution or Unlocking the Mystery of Life on those stations. Neither are we likely to see a book like Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson being used as a text in universities or high schools. If the concept of irreducible complexity was taught in biology not many people would believe macro-evolution fifty years from now. The theory of macro-evolution ought to be challenged in education as there seems to be no scientific evidence which supports the theory (according to Phillip Johnson, professor of Law). See also
Note: Many people seem to confuse humanitarianism, the humanities and humanism as if humanitarianism and the humanities always equate to humanism (or rather some purposefully confuse these terms to sell the humanistic world view). So for those who aren’t clear humanitarianism is giving aid to the poor, the sick, hungry etc (a good thing which Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc take part in without holding the humanistic world view); the humanities encompass the study of the arts (literature, music etc, which is also a good thing that many non-humanists pursue) and humanism which is the heady belief that there is no higher authority than man and that man is the measure of all things (which does not necessarily encompass humanitarianism or the humanities e.g. Stalin held the humanist world view).
[4] Other books have been written claiming that Humanism is a religion. Julian Huxley wrote a book entitled Religion without Revelation, K. Kolenda wrote Religion without God and there is a magazine called the Religious Humanist.
[5] Do the sceptics dare put atheism under the spot light? See Can man live without God by Ravi Zacharias
[6] We all hold to some views which we refuse to give up. Everyone thinks their non-negotiables (their absolutes) are so important that they are what is best for society, if only other people would embrace them. The Hindu says, “If only all people would accept that all ways lead to God, there would be peace”. The Muslim says, “If everyone would accept that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet then there would be peace”. The atheist says, “If only people would accept there is no God then there would be peace”. All views lead to tension when people try to use government education or government funded media to promote their views. Even more tension is created when people attempt to pass laws which restrict or disadvantage those who hold opposing views. We might find some views offensive but we must not attempt to silence them.
The surest signs of a healthy society are open and free debates. We must be able to agree to disagree. In a democracy protecting the rights of our adversaries is as important as protecting the rights of our advocates (Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826, cited in The Absolutes by James Robison).
We must not try to get the government to impose what we believe to be absolutes on society through government funded education and media. James Robison understands this clearly, in his brilliant book, The Absolutes, he states:
The powerful truths of the absolutes cannot be imposed. They must be received and embraced freely.
Many people are afraid of the term absolutes and with good reason. Whether it be an atheistic communist government telling people that they must believe the governments absolutes or face prison (See Bold as a Lamb by Ken Anderson and The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) or the absolutes of an Islamic extremist government who will make you pay more tax if you don’t accept their absolutes, or the absolutes of some medieval Christians who tortured people for what they considered heresy, anyone’s beliefs can be frightening when governments try to enforce them. We must be free to debate what we believe without government interference.
The government must not attempt to promote an absolutist view or relativistic view regarding morals and religion in education and the media. Both views are potentially oppressive and it is unfair for others to have the government force those views on them when they do not accept them.
We all think our beliefs are right regarding religion. Even those who claim not to know what is right regarding religion think they are right. Listen to what they say and you will quickly discover that they do in fact believe that there is a right and wrong and they believe their view happens to be the right one. In a public discussion post-modernists and relativists will say others are wrong for claiming to be right. They will say Christians are wrong for saying Jesus is the only way to God. But they can only say others are wrong if they themselves think they are right (at the very least they think they are closer to the truth than others). “All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind”. And since relativists like to denounce certain views they do not in fact think all views are equal (their words betray their true belief). If all views are equal, as relativists claim, then the view that Jesus is the only way to God is just as valid as any other view and relativists have no right to say Christians are wrong for saying Jesus is the only way. (Relativists also seem to confuse subjective truth claims with objective truth claims.) There are no true relativists only people who claim to be (See Relativism by Beckwith & Koukl and The Absolutes: Freedom’s only hope by James Robison).
[7] Some assume that the problems in many Islamic countries are caused by the private schools. Assuming private schools are the problem then naturally public schools are the answer. But if this is true why don’t we have a lot of problems with our private schools here in
If we wrongly diagnose the problem there is no way a cure can be found. It is important the real problem be accurately diagnosed if we are to find a real solution.
There are 3 major problems with the countries that have schools which encourage violence toward those who hold different beliefs.
So the problems in these countries stem not from the private schools but from the fact that there is not a true separation of religion and state which (naturally and always) encourages an extremist element. If all the schools in such a country are public, then the ideology which the government wants promoted will be promoted. If there is not freedom of belief, freedom of speech and equality under the law, can such a government be trusted to promote the values it denies its citizens? Obviously not, so public schools are not the answer.Until there is a true separation of religion and state where the government treats everyone and all religions equally under the law; problems will persist whether you have private or public schools.
Another problem with many schools today is that children are taught what to think not how to think. There is a difference between education and indoctrination. Education is being taught how to think indoctrination is being taught what to think. The western schools are just as guilty of this as schools in communist or Islamic countries. In education today children and adults are taught what are considered facts and then they are told to remember those facts. That is indoctrination (unless it is to do with objective laws such as maths, physics, chemistry etc). I’ll give you an example.
At a class in Uni, a friend of mine watched the film by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, which the class debated after the film. (This illustration is not an attempt to determine whether or not Michael Moore is trustworthy. It is simply to illustrate a point.) This sounds like education but it is it? For it to be education the students have to investigate the claims Michael Moore is making before the debate begins otherwise the debate will be held with the students assuming that everything Michael Moore espoused is true, when that may not be the case. Therefore it is indoctrination whether or not Michael more is trustworthy or not.
The class should have been told to investigate Michael Moore’s claims to find out what things are true and what things are false. If the students did this they will be in a position to debate the issue instead of merely repeat much of what Michael Moore espoused. After watching the film the teacher should have told the students that they will be having a debate about the film in the following week; the class will be divided into teams and every student given the chance to debate for and against what Michael Moore has claimed. This would have given the students the chance to seriously consider the arguments for and against Moore's position (that's education).
Indoctrination happens at university on all kinds of issues e.g. euthanasia, mental health, Darwinism, political issues etc. Unfortunately, the view of academics, which is assumed to be true by teachers and students, is often politically or religiously motivated. Assumed truth, including truths which academics assume to be true, is often not true at all. If students are not encouraged to investigate the accuracy of the claims being made it is indoctrination even if it happens to be the best explanation.
A true education is about discovering new things (acquiring knowledge) and learning how to discover things worth discovering. The quality of information obtained is more important than the quantity. Learning a lot does not make a person wise and it may not mean they are properly informed. Some of the most dangerous people in this world are those with a lot of knowledge but very little wisdom. They believe people they should not while not believing those they should. They seek out the wrong sources for information while ignoring others. Academia is guided by prejudice just as much as any other part of society. It is time Universities and schools started to be places of education rather than places of indoctrination. Whether you agree with me or not, I am sure you would agree that if we spent more time investigating what was true and false when academics and journalists make claims we would be able to make better decisions on important issues (e.g. elections). And there would also be more understanding and less tension in this world. (For a more in-depth look at the importance of education listen to Michael Bauman’s lecture The Meaning of Meaning.)
[8] Humanism often creates tension, for example, when the government uses our money to promote so called ‘art’, which is meaningless to most or just plain offensive. (It seems that the greatest art came into existence without government funding. Men like Shakespeare and Mozart became famous because of their talent not because they received money from the government. If a person is truly talented those who believe in him or her will offer support.)
[9]
When a wicked person keeps the law, they are only doing it because they are afraid of the punishment the government will impose. And even then they will try to break the law if they think they can get away with it.
Just laws cannot change wicked people into good people. Just laws, when properly enforced, can reduce criminal activity, but they cannot motivate people to pursue the highest ideals (love, peace, honesty, courage etc).
George MacDonald, the great 19th Century author, wrote:
“…to try too hard to make people good, is one way to make them worse; … the only way to make them good is to be good….”
Most of us are lazy; we are not willing to pursue virtue. We want others to be good and try and make others behave the way we want them to behave toward us; but if we are not good we will make this world a more hostile place despite our sincerest efforts. (There is nothing noble about trying to get others to treat us the way we would like to be treated. Even a child can throw a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.)
Good people appeal to our conscience; they show us what is good by way of example. Good people inspire what is good in us if we are able to accept what they say and learn from their example. (But if we are unable to accept what they say we will grow to hate them because they make us look bad. This is what happened to the Pharisees when confronted with Jesus. “With humility comes wisdom.”- Proverbs)
The law, while informing us what is right and wrong is unable to inspire us to be good, only a person can do that.
(Note: The laws role in telling us what is right and wrong is very important. If the law of the land, because it is unjust, fails to teach people what is right and wrong then standards within society begin to change. What one generation finds abhorrent future generations may think cool. Just laws play an important role because they set standards for behaviour within society; good people play a most important part in society because they inspire others to uphold just laws by their example. For more about the importance of the law see Chapter 15 in To Everyone an Answer by Michael Bauman entitled "Legislating Morality" and the book Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler)
[10] As to the type of punishment we, as a society, are prepared to use will be determined by our view of what happens to a person after death. For example, if we believe that after a person dies nothing happens to them, they simply cease to exist, then the death penalty is the worst possible thing that can be imposed on a person for when they die all hope for them also dies. If we believe a person might end up in hell where they will suffer forever with out hope then to put someone to death is the most inhumane of all punishments. If, however, we believe that after death a person falls into the hands of a God who hates sin but loves them then the death penalty is not such an awful thing. If you believe that God will destroy sin and that the only way He can destroy sin is by destroying the evil desires which cause people to sin, then putting a murderer to death is not only the best thing for society it is the kindest thing we can do for the murderer as well. (I believe everyone has to die two deaths, a physical death and a death to self. See A Good God for more on this controvesial issue.)
Whether we view man as a machine or moral agent will also influence how we think criminals should be treated.
[12] In light of State owned media promoting Secular Humanism State television productions should be extremely limited (perhaps to as little as one news program which tells us what the government is doing). Also, much sensualism is driven by the advertising dollar. Sex and violence gets viewers; more viewers’ means TV stations are able to charge more for advertisements, which also increases the price of goods. (True pay-TV, without commercials, maybe part of the solution.)
[13] The State could provide some help for individuals and organizations regarding health care. The Government could provide pharmaceutical schemes and support for hospitals by paying for a large percentage of the cost of medical equipment. This could be done by ensuring that taxes from products which cause many of our health problems (e.g. Smoking, alcohol and hydrogenated fats) are allocated to health care only, via rebates.
It is necessary that the government does not provide health care, education, welfare and assistance to the media because all of these things can be used and are (whether we like it or not) to promote a particular ideology within society. Governments are very aware of this and sociologists are always trying to create what they regard as the 'ideal' society. Here is a very clear example:
“… churches may conduct worship services when licensed by the government but may not give to the poor, carry on education, or teach religion outside of church. State publishing houses in turn cannot publish religious literature; schools cannot teach religion but must actively teach atheism; and the government has embarked on a campaign to discourage orthodox religious participation and aggressively promote atheism” (Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict, 1987, p. 115, citing Soviet policy between 1918 & 1929).
The transition from government ownership to private ownership regarding education, welfare, the media and health care would have to happen gradually. (Regarding health care, the government would be wise to help organizations control communicable diseases.) Of course, NGO's would have to accept some regulations; for example no medical facility could refuse treatment in the event of a medical emergency. Obviously those groups most willing to help others despite racial or religious differences would have the greatest impact on the public.
[14] I personally believe that whenever an individual or group of individuals create or destroy credit capitalism is undermined. Abraham Lincoln also held this view, he believed that only the government had the right to create and destroy credit.
[15] As a Christian I believe politicians should not attempt to implement a biblical law based on the Old Testament, rather members of parliament should attempt to implement the moral law which is common to all mankind and does not distinguish between race or religion (See “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe” in the first section of C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity for a clear concise description of the moral law and see the first chapter of Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler to see how this applies to government). Note: A true theocracy is not possible before Christ’s return. Christians must not attempt to implement one. See Ch 7 of Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Kingdom’s in Conflict by Charles Colson for more on this important subject. Ravi Zacharias in The Lamb and the Fuhrer: Jesus talks with Hitler also makes some very interesting points about the need for a true seperation of religion and state.
[16] When a group of people are poor it causes them to look closely at why they are poor. If they are being treated exactly the same as everyone else then it should cause them to look closely at what it is they believe and why they believe it, especially when people from other religious groups volunteer their time and money to help them. (This already happens when Christian groups such as World Vision help Hindus, Muslims etc.) Beliefs are powerful, they influence the way a person lives. If a person believes that the world owes them a living they are more likely to be lazy. If a person believes that they should be grateful for what ever they have and that they should work with their hands so that they might have something to give to others then they will work hard and be kind. Beliefs influence behaviour. (To see how a religion can influence a persons attitude to education and work read Islam and Science by the Muslim professor Pervez Hoodboy. Mr Hoodboy has a B.Sc. (Electrical Engineering), B.Sc. (Mathematics), B.Sc. (Solid State Physics) and Ph.D. (Nuclear Physics) from MIT. Mr Hoodboy’s book is excellent; unfortunately he has bought into a few popular myths. See 6 Modern Myths by Philip J. Sampson, Ph.D. sociology).
[17] See A People Betrayed by Patrick Sookhdeo to see how this has happened in
© 2005 All Rights Reserved.
Create a free website at Webs.com