Broad meadows

A question that I have asked others in debate about what constitutes legitimate governance is this: “If you are not going to govern by moral concerns, then what are you governing by?” It’s not a rhetorical question, but it never gets answered. I think what most people think I mean are questions of sexuality, but what I mean is are they operating in a just way that punishes those who harm others body, property or falsely against reputation ? Are they working toward the truth of a matter or simply looking for a method of political convenience. Is the governmental structure something that benefits all or only itself? What one believes about such things impacts how those who have the authority of title govern.

As one of the founders of the American form of government said is that it is meant for a moral people and is unsuitable to any other. Why? Because government is meant for those who won’t govern themselves. On an individual level, this constitutes a tiny minority against a backdrop of the vast majority keeping themselves in relative check. Most of the people over the course of a lifetime have had a neutral to positive impact on my life. Not perfectly, but well enough that we can function and even work together to create something positive.

There are larger concerns of national security that all countries must address. The case for sovereign nations is an easy one to make. If one country has a government that goes rogue and begins attacking others, other nations can hold that country accountable. But if there are no nations, who holds a rogue government accountable? It can only end in bloodshed and tyranny.

Which brings me to why worldview in governance matters. If the twentieth century should have taught us anything (and continues to teach) is that atheism at the highest levels of government will have a catastrophic and malevolent effect on the population of that country. Their presupposition of not being accountable to anything higher than themselves causes invariable tyranny and violence against its own people. For them, the end always justifies the means. Lying, murder , theft of a country’s wealth, nothing is off limits because there is no constraining principle. Whatever restraint that they might show is easily cast off.

As a result of what is thought of as “secular governance “ the governments of the world attacked the people of their own countries with a biological weapon and the people of the earth will now have to wait to see what the fallout will be from such an attack. I have said that the shot much of the world was forced to get is the physical manifestation of the second seal. What this would mean in terms of what one might expect in biblical terms is that, along with other means such as abortion or war, will ultimately lead to a population decline of 25%. How long will that take? Hard to say. That’s when things will begin to change and God gives his response to mankind.