Religion, or the lack of it, in either case becomes the primary orchestrator in political maneuvering and decisions. For example, the principles that true conservatives espouse are Biblical in nature even if they lack complete understanding of their source. On the other hand, liberalism does not require its adherents to denounce the existence of God, but only to ignore His edicts and wisdom, which is the more subtle form of atheism. To be an atheist of any design a person has to deny a first cause; in order to reject this, you have to veto your rational powers. The laws of thermodynamics (and in particular the second law, the law of entropy) dictate that if the universe had been here ninety billion years, it would have run down; by now it would be wasted and burned out.
In a country where “freedom of religion" is allowed, an individual who is an atheist has the freedom to express his views which is perfectly acceptable with us. If someone wants to exhibit his ignorance, that’s their business. However, they are not free to demand a respectful hearing from those of us who have some sense. In America we need to distinguish between liberty and license. Granted, any person has the liberty to be atheistic in thought and philosophy, but those of that persuasion do not have the license to expect us to listen to the claptrap put out by Rousseau, Voltaire, Clesus, Porphory, Payne, and Ingersoll. We can refuse their nonsense as quickly as they disregard the Bible.
The root of the real division in politics stems from the willingness to include God or the desire to exclude Him. It is not any more complicated than that. When Paul encountered the Greek philosophers in Athens (Acts 17), he acknowledged their reverence toward an “unknown” god which the Apostle declared to be pure superstition. Greek philosophy is still held in high esteem by the Ivy League elites, but it is predicated upon questions, not answers or solutions. Paul engaged the aristocracy with an explanation to the age old question…”If a man die, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14). This is the most fundamental question before humanity. All agnostics guess. No follower of Darwin has any more assurance of eternal life than the foolish philosophers Paul debated. The bedrock evidence Paul submitted was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This golden nugget of truth was surrounded by a larger concept ---the existence of the God of first cause who was unknown to the intellectuals.
The Preacher launched his sermon with the cosmological argument: “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24). The logic is quite simple: the world must have come from somewhere or something. If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the container was gently shaken for 150 billion years, the watch would not accidentally get together and start running. The only sensible answer to the problem of the existence of the world (to a man who in intellectually honest) is the existence of an intelligent being behind the order, the cosmos. The chances that mankind could come into being by any evolutionist’s theory are the chances you would take betting on a print factory exploding into the air and coming down in the form of a dictionary.
The next proof for God comes from conscience: “that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27). Man is born with a universal belief in a supreme being. No tribe has yet been discovered which lacks this. They know that some being creates and controls life. The only people who doubt belief in a supreme being are those who have been educated out of it and have been taught to apply relativity to all matters so they can live like the devil and justify themselves. There is no such thing as an uneducated, natural atheist. Romans 2:15 says about heathen people: “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.” The existence of God is written in the human conscience. Whether a man has a Bible or not, or the law or not, his conscience bears witness to the Ten Commandments.
The conscience is the springboard for the moral argument: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring” (Acts 17:28). Man has an intellectual and moral nature that animals do not have, showing that the Creator must not be merely an inanimate force but a living, intelligent, moral being. Anthropology and the study of ethnology shows that throughout the races, in any type of ethnic culture, there are standards of right and wrong and, though varying slightly from culture to culture, there is not one that does not consider murder a breach of moral standards. The only way that can be disregarded is to be convinced otherwise by those whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron (I Timothy 4:2).
The NEA provides the loudest voice for promoting the theory of evolution, and that organization is 100% Democratic in its political leanings. They are both joined with unwavering support by the abortion bunch. It’s not difficult to understand why God must be reduced to an “unknown force” so the philosophers can continue to make a living. The sad result is fewer know the answer to the question, “If a man die, shall he live again?”
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9).