In my college dormatory there resided a young man whose penchant for sleeping late brought him into ill favor with many professors. It was, however, his loud snoring which his roommates found intolerable. One fine spring morning he awoke to find himself in the middle of a commonly walked thourghfare surrounded by bemused students. While most people would have been angred at being the butt of such a sophomoric prank he was nonpulsed and simply asked “How did I get here?”
That is a very good question, one that this article will attempt to explore.
   No matter where you are, physically or philosophically, you started from somewhere. There is a base from which you came. My thesis is this: Politics and Religion are inseperable. To assert that political ideas can be formed apart from a basic understanding of reality, a basic world view, is patently absurd. You got here from somewhere! That, of course, begs the question “from where?”
   Most people never answer the question because they never ask the question. Forming opinions about important matters without first understanding your philosophical base (world view) is utterly and dangerously subjective. You can’t begin to comprehend how you arrived “here” if you don’t know from where it is you began.
Here is a brief and very personal example.
   God exists and has revealed Himself through creation, human personality and Scripture. The point at which these three objectively converge is reality, regardless of subjective opinion. From this basic understanding is logically and reasonably infered all we refer to as human rights, law as a means to secure these rights and the solely defensive nature of law enforcement to protect these rights.
   To claim to affirm the above-mentioned principles and then to cast a vote for a candidate opposed to them is to be guilty of a disingenuous disconnect. Belief and action are inseperable. The one follows the other and it cannot be otherwise.
   On the other hand, if you reject God’s existance and revelation, it’s hard to imagine a basis from which to conjure up the concept of human rights. In fact centuries of philosophical contortions have failed to produce anything truly satisfying. So what does it say about a world view when it is compelled to commandeer a concept which naturally follows from a world view which it rejects? Is that not a disingenuous disconnect of a rather more serious nature?

Thanks for reading and for thinking.