Book: https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781792402081/epubcfi/6/36[;vnd.vst.idref=cha
pter06]
GOVT 200
Worldview Analysis Assignment Instructions
Overview
For this assignment, you will write an essay providing examples of how some facet of “process
philosophy” has impacted American government and/or society. You may focus on just 1 example, or
you may discuss 2–3 examples.
Options include the following topics:
A specific piece of legislation.
The “party platform” of either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party (or both).
Family and marriage.
Economics.
Civil rights.
Education.
In discussing one of these topics, the goal is to relate how a particular political perspective derives from
process philosophy (such as socialism). In making the connection, incorporate clear references from the
required reading. Include at least 2 references which may include the textbook, scholarly resources, and
provided readings. Be sure to adhere to the format specified in Read: Course Style
Guidelines, located in Module 1: Week 1.
Instructions
Follow the below instructions to compose your assignment:
Length of assignment – 2-3 pages.
Make sure to include a bibliography page
Format of assignment – APA
At least 2 sources
Acceptable sources - Scholarly articles published within the last five years, the Bible, online
articles given as assignments, and any other pertinent source that helps the student answer
the assignment prompt.
Note: You may submit your assignment to the Worldview Analysis: Draft Submission Assignment to
check your paper for plagiarism. Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin
plagiarism tool. After reviewing your Turnitin results, make any edits necessary and submit
your Worldview Analysis: Final Submission Assignment.
America's Constitutional Tradition
The US Constitution is an exceptional document in its unparalleled creation of a federal constitutional
republic that limits governmental power in secures the God given rights of individuals. However, it was
not written spontaneously. It was the fruit of nearly 300 years of reform thinking. It is an achievement
that was centuries in the making and is nothing less than a history of God's hand of providence. Nearly
1000 years ago, in the year 1075, Pope Gregory the seventh declared the Roman Catholic Church free
from the rule of Emperor Henry the fourth. This begin what is known as the paper revolution. In it
granted the Catholic clergy legal supremacy over secular authorities. In turn, this enacted two main legal
jurisdictions in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church, and yielded a spiritual sword across Europe in
juxtaposition to the temporal sword held by Europe's emperor, the Catholic Church consequently
developed a canon law system which controlled broad areas of life that many today consider secular
and clean marriage, education and the poor. However, tensions arose in the centuries that followed in
competent priest abuse parishioners. While secular leaders grew tired of paying taxes to the Catholic
Church, concerns continue to mount as a Catholic, church, doctrines begin to deviate further from
scripture. In 1517, the priest Martin Luther, spark the flame, which became the Protestant Reformation,
when he declared that the Catholic Church had overstepped his biblical authority along with a host of
doctrinal errors. Luther's reformation of catholicism led them to replace the two source three with a
two kingdoms framework. The church became the heavenly kingdom. And the earthly kingdom was to
be governed by the law of Christian princes. Under Protestantism, the church itself no longer governed
with courts and legislatures as it had done under Catholicism. The prints and formed an unstructured by
the Scripture via the church, was to be God's instrument for governing society according to God's laws.
Protestantism begin to reform the people in church of England at the seeds of American
constitutionalism, began to be planted. In the centuries that followed, America's constitutional tradition
was formed as Englishman continue to achieve greater and greater liberty from the King and
Catholicism. Throughout this history, certain principles were increasingly realize that defined this
tradition. First, power was shifted from the monarch to the legislature. Second, the monarch became
limited constitutionally. Third, the individuals God given rights to life, liberty and property was
recognized forth. The main purpose of the state was to secure those rights. Ultimately, Little by little,
authority was rarely seen as coming down from God to the individual who then grants a portion of that
authority to Seoul government. The power of the state was limited to constitutionally in civil
government was given the task of securing the God given rights of those individuals. This trend is
paramount. These principles are clearly demonstrated in the primary documents that form the history
of English freedom. They testify to a faithfulness to Christ and to biblical principles. The Magna Carta of
1215 is highly significant because it puts limitations of the King's power in the spirit of Deuteronomy 17.
In order to finance as water reclaim lands and Burgundy, King John the third attempted to taxes burns.
The Barents resisted King John's arbitrary rule to feeding him at the Battle of running Mead and forced
him to sign Magna Carta. Thus, the law was made above the king, and consequently the rule of law
replaced arbitrary rule. It's secured the historic rights, the nobles and made the king a first among
equals. In addition to the rule of law, Magna Carta is the source of bedrock principles in American
jurisprudence, such as due process, trial by jury and habeas corpus. The Magna Carta also declared the
church to be free. Thus, the church wasn't able to continue to influence the state and ensure that it
remained upon the bedrock of biblical principles. What are fine for this appeal to their constitutional
rights is Englishman, when declaring their independence, they had in mind the liberty inequality found in
the Magna Carta, as well as the first charter, Virginia, 1605. Virginia as name in this charter refers to all
lands claimed by England in North America at the time. It clearly displays a Biblical purpose for seven,
the new world. Paragraph three of the document even states that they were attending to the glory of
his divine majesty in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness. Paragraph
15 in the charter guarantee that the colonists and the children of the colonists would enjoy all the rights
of Englishman. It was these rays that the American find father sought to preserve and the War for
Independence. As mentioned in the previous presentation, the Mayflower Compact of 1620 represents
the application of Puritan, specifically separatists theology of covenant to the affairs of civil government.
Originally, the passengers on the Mayflower only granted authority to settle in the northern most parts
of Virginia. However, when the ship arrived off the coast of New England, they needed to craft a new
governance system to avoid sedition and mutiny. Because the pilgrims had a history of forming
covenants, there are providentially prepare to exercise authority and power given to them by God. Thus,
the companies together to form a civil body politic by crafting and signing the Mayflower Compact. The
document says three reasons for the endeavor. One for the glory of God, to for the advancement the
Christian faith, and three, for the honor of King and Country. The plume of code of law 16 36 is a
candidate for being the first true written constitution in the modern world, being much more than a
written code of law. It established a parliamentary system based on local self-government. Moreover, is
an early example of federalism. Each town and Plymouth colony elected representatives to the colonial
government, which pass laws for the entire Commonwealth. That is a federal republic. The English
Petition of Right of 628 may be considered a strong restatement of Magna Carta. When the House of
Commons delivered it to King Charles, he angrily dismiss Parliament, which in turn triggered a mass
exodus of Puritans in New England and eventually the English Civil War. In actuality, the petition
acknowledges new rates for Magna Carta in reiterate the necessity of parliamentary consent of taxation.
In rejected course of loans. It oppose arbitrary arrest and imprisonment while strengthening habeas
corpus and due process. Finally, it denounced the forced housing of troops and the imposition of martial
law in American colonists would remind the king of these rights over a century later. The fundamental
orders of Connecticut of 1639 stand as the first true archetype of the US Constitution. This is because
three already existing tenants united together to form the colony of Connecticut. The preamble, this
constitution reveals how Christ centric and Biblically based the document is. It says that we're a people
are gathered together. The Word of God requires that to maintain the peace and une of such a people,
there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God. The preamble states
that its purpose is to maintain and preserve the liberty impurity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus, as also
the disciplines of the churches. Thus, it recognizes the church as a separate and distinct jurisdiction. The
Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 is said to be the first modern Bill of Rights. In it, we find the
idea that the fundamental law of the land should also be embodied in a written instruments. What's the
people who have a sensitive? Also, the law should constitute a limitation upon the powers and
discretion of the administrators and judges. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 came about falling
England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, that overthrew the Catholic king James the Second, and
welcomed women marry, who were prostitutes to the throne. It confirms basic human rights and
officially end of the divine right of kings in England. In the mid to late 18th century, parliament and the
king began infringing on these rights in a number of ways, including excessive taxes without the consent
of the colonies, dissolving colonial governing bodies and quartering large bodies of armed troops among
the colonists. In the declaration resolves the First Continental Congress of 1689. The colonists appeal to
their constitutional rights as English subjects, namely life, liberty, and property. And they declared
parliament to be tyrannical. Virginia crafted its own constitution of Virginia in 1776, which precede the
US Constitution in a number of ways, including the establishment of three branches of government. Its
side, the law of nature as the basis for individual rights to query the taxes could only be levied by the
legislature, argued for the right of trial by jury, and condemned the maintenance sustain armies without
the consent of the people. It is the first constitution to include a right of free press. And it was one of the
most important foreigners to the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution. The value and importance
of the Declaration of Independence, 1776 can hardly be overstated. It is a document by which the
United States of America was birth to querying herself a sovereign and independent nation from British
rule. Though it may indeed be seen to have the influence of enlightenment philosophy and can thus be
called a product of Christian rationalism. Biblical foundation upon which it is based is unmistakable in
the very first sentence and state's powers which the colonies assumed in dissolving their allegiance to
Britain were entitled to them by the laws of nature and of nature's God. This statement is a clear
reference to its use by Sir William Blackstone, the famous commentator of English common law.
Blackstone held that all human legislation must conform to God's supreme law as revealed in Scripture,
which he called the laws of nature and nature's God. Thus, without conforming to Scripture, no human
law could be held as valid. Therefore, the signers of the Declaration of Independence essentially stated
that they look to the Word of God to find the liberty of self-government upon which the new nation was
founded. The Declaration of Independence recognized that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. The founders knew that equality under the law
was totally dependent on the realization that supreme creator had created all humans to be of equal
worth without recognizing God's divine image on humanity, there is no concrete basis for any consistent
understanding of human rights. But the founding fathers as a whole were brilliant legal theorists who
understood the necessity of routing legal equality and the foundation of a creator God. It would take
nearly 100 years for this understanding of equality under the law to be realized for the slave population
in America. No human government has ever been or ever will be perfect in the history of slavery in
America is a tragedy beyond description. Yet we can be glad that the United States abolished slavery by
finally recognizing the very quality that has always been described in her find documents. Today, the
struggle for equality under the law is not over in America, especially for pre-war babies. In an era where
over 1 million unwanted babies are born every year. There is a great need to once again remember that
all men are created equal, no matter their gender, race, age, or physical limitations. All human life is
sacred and worthy of protection under the law. In the declaration, the founders clearly made the case
that the authority came down from God to the individual, who then granted a portion of that authority
to civil government. In this case, a new government was formed. We see the founders recognize own,
any form of government becomes destructive to human liberty. Instead of securing it, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it. The reason why the Declaration of Independence list the long train of
abuses of the King of England is because the colonists were providing evidence that he'd broken the civil
social covenant. That is, he had affected a material breach of that covenant. Thus, the colonists were
compelled to form a new covenant as United States of America. Clearly the founders were establishing a
government based on biblical principles of covenant and jurisdiction. In the last paragraph, after
listening oppressions the English king, the document states that the founders were Appealing to the
supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. How does such a statement square with
the theory of many modern scholars who seek to rewrite history by saying that the prevailing
philosophy, the founders was deism. A final point on the biblical foundation of the declaration of
independence can be seen in the very last sentence where the founders expressed what they call a firm
reliance on the protection of divine providence. Again, upon looking at the great texts, the declaration,
can it really be said that the founders helped to a philosophy of deism, which posits that God has no
interaction with his creation. Instead, the statement shows that the founders trusted God for the
success of the new country. They knew that their endeavor needed the help of a sovereign and
providential God who would act on their behalf. In short, the very document that founded the United
States of America, appeals to God for his protection. In that documents final sentence before each man
sign his name, There's no doubt that God's hand of providence has secure the blessings of liberty to
America. In for the presentations, we will discuss how we may continue to rely on God's providence for
the good of the nation.
Biblical Principles of Government and American Constitutionalism
Hello, my name is Dr. Caleb Fisher. I'm here with my colleague here in the helm School of Government
doctor gave her done. Hello. And in this course we're talking a lot about biblical principles of
government and economics and the interplay of worldview ideas and how they impact politics and even
everyday life. And in today's discussion with dr. for Don, we're going to talk about the impact of biblical
worldview that's related to the history of American constitutionalism. And kind of set the stage for you.
Let me, let me share with you some credentials and where a doctor for Don got her education. A BA in
history in political science from Indiana Wesleyan University, a master's in public policy from the
Robertson School of Government, regent university. And we both share that degree. A wonderful
school, Absolutely. And education. Her PhD is in 17th century political, British political thought from the
University of Leicester in England. And she's also a reader. It, she was a reader and ginger ale house. And
just for the sake of our viewers, gave Tyndall house is not the publishing house that a lot of expressions
here in American and tell us a little about the significance of that. House is actually a premier Biblical
Studies library located at Cambridge University in Cambridge. And it actually Holmes's a number of PhD
readers, day readers who are there to do a lot of research on, on theology, manuscript evidence. And it's
associated with Emmanuel College, Cambridge as well. Yes, I was a reader there for about four years
while I was actually working on my PhD. And I have very privileged position when I was there. And
suffice it to say that, that the research community, nothing to do with Facebook. You, they're really
digging into the historical texts and he didn't even your research question the 17th century British
political thought, the significance of that for our, for the purposes of this discussion, the purpose of the
course, the American founders were influenced by these thinkers without the correct, Yes. That's
correct. Well, I wasn't me UK. I had the privilege to take up a degree with University of Leicester. And
one of the issues that arose was whether or not 17th century British political thought was also infused
with biblical principles. And part of my research task was to determine whether or not there was a
biblical republicanism. And so I basically tried to understand how, what gentlemen who are often
referred to as commonwealths men or Republicans, how they actually use the scriptures to find a way to
replace what was known as the ancient British Constitution, especially after the death of Charles the
first. And so for about 11 years, we find a number of political thinkers, anywhere from James Harrington
to John Milton to Sir Henry vain, who were attempting to use the Bible politically to develop
constitutional systems to basically perpetuate republican government and Britain. Very good. And of
course, the founders looks into that example as well. Let's start a little bit more basically. In this course
we do introduce won't view to you. And so sometimes oral communication and repetition is helpful
because these are big ideas and big concepts. So docked for that is because one, what is a worldview?
Yes, One of the things that we always want to keep in mind we talk about worldviews is that we're
looking at fast truth systems or life systems that are packaged with all sorts of presuppositions,
propositions and ideas. And every worldview, whether we're talking about a biblical Christian worldview
or a Marxist worldview or a rationalist worldview, will actually attempt to answer some basic questions
in life are questions that deal with issues of origin, truth and knowing, or how we can know issues of
value and purpose and destiny. And once those basic questions are answered, we next have to ask the
question, how are we going to live? And so now we move into what is known as the external
institutional frameworks. So anywhere from government, families, civil self-government through
education or the aesthetics are the arts all the way down to international relations, economics, and law.
So it actually includes both internal components of ideas and presuppositions. But the real thrust, of
course, is to determine how man should actually live. So we're looking at a full, fully 4D or a complete
package, a truce system, which basically tries to address all the major issues in life. Why is it so
important this notion that I actually have to think through what I believe about everything in life. Not
just what I'm doing in the moment. Not just what I'm doing for for vacation or for my career, but every
area of life, whether I've thought about it much at all, I have to make sure that's encased within a
biblical world. Why is that important? But we assume relative to a biblical Christian understanding, that
every single area of life is sacred to God. So we never assume that there's a sacred or secular dimension
to life. We certainly don't assume that only your individual walk with God and your personal covenant
with God is important and valuable. We also assume that got covenants with us in every single area of
life. Including all of the corporate spheres of which government is a part as well. So I think it's important
to remember that we're trying to bring life back together. Again, we're not trying to assume that there
are certain aspects or fragments or dimensions of life that for some reason or simply off limits to God's
truth. And so we take the scriptures as the absolute truth of God and we, we discover what those moral
absolutes are with us. Political principles are those economic principles, are those legal principles, et
cetera. And we then apply those to those institutional frameworks. And I think we also need to
remember that we're talking here about human relationships. And as Christians sometimes we tend to
focus solely upon or individual relationship with God. And we need to remember that we also walk in
corporate relationship with each other. So the question that arises relative to institutions is, how are we
going to actually relate to each other economically, legally, civilly, socially, et cetera. And that leads to
the next question. I would say if you're, if you're watching this, you might feel, I'm not really I'm just kind
of busy. I've got a lot going on with, with family work, life. And here I'm taking this course that is
challenging me to apply biblical truth to every area of life. Specifically government. I think for a lot of our
viewers that perhaps that's not your favorite area where you're taking this course as part of general
education. And that can feel a bit overwhelming. However, according to doctors, we're not saying here
that the good news that this is also an act of worship as you grow throughout these ideas and praise the
Lord for that. But there's a journal implications that leads us to our next question. What would be some
of the in you've, you've sort of already spoken it is. But some of the biblical distinctives of a biblical
Christian worldview, right? When we talk about biblical Christian worldview, what we're primarily saying
is that God's truth, especially as those trues, that he's revealed to all of us, generally in propositional
form in the scriptures that those truths really apply to every single area of life. And when we, when we
talk about the nature of biblical absolutes, of course we are including moral laws, moral absolutes, and
moral truths. But we're really assuming that every single dimension of life comes under the authority of
God. So that means that we need to determine, well, what is God's highest standard for my personal
walk with him. But what is also God's highest standard relative to civil government? What should
magistrates be doing? What is the relationship between those who govern and those who are actually
governed? How should we actually relate to each other economically, especially in terms of private
property and the redistribution of that property relative to market systems are managed systems, et
cetera. But we're really talking about some fundamental propositions that God has revealed to us in His
word that we really do believe our normative other pre-existing. We never assume that man has
invented them. Assume that God is actually delivered this to us in such a way that we can actually
understand it. Unfortunately, we're not going to discuss every area of a biblical worldview today. You're
welcome. We don't have the time for that, but what specifically, what does the Bible have to say about
principles of government? Yes, I know that many times when we talk about government, even as
Christians, we tend to assume that government is mainly external. And we actually have to back up and
deal specifically with issues of internal government. And talk about the nature of government as being
part of God's character as well. So what we do is we, we go through, we discuss issues of the sovereignty
of God, The self-government of man. And then we can deal specifically with issues of civil government,
which is more external and form. And so when we talk about the sovereignty of God, one of the issues
that arises right away is, is what kind of authority discard actually have over our lives. And we talk about
the jurisdiction of God. And we'd like to say that God has absolute and total jurisdiction over our
behavior as well as our conscience. And because God has actually made us, he's created us in such a way
that we're very much like him were made in his image. God has all the authority to deliver laws and
propositions relative to how man should actually live in the fact that God can actually charge man. But
got to jurisdiction is total. From that, we actually assume that no person, no magistrate, no department
of government, no particular branch has that kind of authority over man. So we deal with an issue first
and then we'll talk about the nature of individual self-government. Now, many of the American founding
fathers, those that were some of the original colonial founders all the way up through the Federal
Republic. Many of them would actually employ the term Christian self-government. And the idea here is
that God had actually delegated to man as an individual I domain of personal, individual authority. So we
were to actually walk and work out God's way and we'll in our personal affairs. And so there was a
dimension of our being whereby we could actually govern ourselves. And that dimension was also off
limits to the magistrate because it involved individual liberty of conscience. And then finally, the
external aspect of government is the civil form. Now, most Christians will actually lead to the civil form
first. We do not do that. We assume that the sovereignty of God, we assume that individual self-
government. What help us to understand what the role of civil magistrates is? Whether we're talking
about national authorities, regional authorities, state authorities, or local authorities. So when we talk
about the biblical principles of government, when we actually come to civil frameworks, we assume. By
enlarge given what the scriptures communicate to us that magistrates, civil magistrates, are profoundly
limited in the authority that they have over man. And even of course, in respect to his behavior, we
never assume that magistrates have any authority over matters of conscience or liberty of conscience.
Then we're talking about necessarily immune. Interesting point that in a biblical worldview, power and
authority is running. It's better to say authority is shared among various sources. No one's entity has all
the power. It's running rich impact of society, many partitions, diversity of authority, yes, rushes and so
forth, the family, right? And I also hear you saying that the beauty of this is that and a bigger core of you,
we have a direct and personal relationship with the Father through Jesus Christ. We're not just human
doings, we are human beings made in God's image. We've been set free right, from the power of sin
that has dramatic implications. We don't separate that from the role of government. So my question
then is all of this rich, comprehensive, holistic approach to life from a biblical perspective. How, if at all,
is that different from, say, libertarianism, which is sort of popular today, we're going to probably a little
bit vague for many people, What would be some of the major points of distinction? Well, let me just
back up and make this comment and then it might be helpful in understanding or comments about
libertarianism. I think one of the issues that we probably need to discuss is the actual purpose for which
God made man. And a lot of individuals walk in the assumption that somehow man is actually here to
serve the state. Now, the biblical dynamic makes it very, very clear that we are to love God with our
entire being, our heart, our minds or conscience or behavior, everything comes under that domain. The
magistrate never has that kind of authority. So when we talk about the nature of jurisdiction, we're
really asking the question, who has the authority and what is the lawful use of that authority? And I
always like to propose that if God has actually made us like himself in his image, and if it really is true
that he made us to walk and blessed fellowship with Him. That's our primary objective to walk in
fellowship with God. In the second grade command, which says that we are to walk in fellowship with
our neighbor. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is, it can also from those particular on
propositions be assume that in order for any of that to occur, if I actually have duties and obligations
that are devoted to God that I missed, actually submit to God. And if I have duties and obligations, some
of which are very legal to my neighbors, I have to have some kind of a liberty environment for that to
occur. Now our Founding Fathers would often call that ordered liberty. And the assumption was that
there was indeed a rule of law. There was a pre-existing legal framework, a dynamic that Matt himself
did not invent and could not simply change even if he consented to do so. And so we talk about liberty
within the Christian dynamic. We're talking about liberty under law, under moral absolutes, under God's
pre-existing legal framework. Keep it in mind that man does not invent government, man does not
invent economics. Man does not actually invent the fundamental dynamics of any institutional
framework. What man gifts to do is actually institutionalize them, but God actually ordains them. So the
kind of liberty that we're talking about here is not absolute ties. Do not assume that man can do
whatever he wants. Libertarianism by its very nature actually absolutely ties us the nature and essence
of liberties such that man now can come away from or can actually disconnect himself from any kind of
restraint, whether we're talking about restraint from God or even restraint from state. And so there's no
real absolute moral foundation. One of the other issues that arises is under or libertarian dynamic. And
again, I'm speaking mainly a philosophical libertarianism is the notion that all contracts are valid if
people consent. It has never been assuming that the biblical Christian dynamic that man can simply
consent to anything that he wants to do work and can cut any kind of contract that he wants to cut. The
nature of this dynamic is different. It assumes that this is God's reality. That God has actually studied
preexisting legal framework through which the reality is intended to operate. And we have to recognize
that reality in our relationships. There are just some things that I simply do not have the authority to do,
although I might have the power to do it, because I might have the ability to do it. But we're talking
about authority. And authority biblically again, deals with this notion that someone has got the lawful
position to actually govern u power is there to render authority right? Efficacious, it comes second, but it
doesn't come first. We find that many times within the libertarian dynamic that the emphasis is upon
the fact that people can simply make choices, any kind of choice they want. And if they can consent to a
particular relationship, a particular kind of contract, Then that's actually okay because you have to
consenting parties and that's not part of the biblical dynamic. There are some things we just can't
consent you. Very good. Thank you. And let's, let's apply all of this to the history of American
constitutionalism and how we got where we are today, right? Many times when we think of the
American Constitution with dynamic our minds will immediately run to the 1787 text. And then of
course, when it was ratified in 1789, the US Constitution. We have to remember that the entire federal
dynamic also incorporates the state constitutions as well. We'd like to think of constitutions relative to
the American founding political experience as political covenants. And so a constitution by its very
nature, assumes a higher arrangement, a higher order of relationships that actually incorporates a God
as a witness or as a test state or to that kind of transaction. And so the idea here is that God actually
gets to set the parameters of the arrangement. That God actually gets to decide what the dynamic of
civil government is going to be for man. And so with that in mind, we have to remember that, that
constitutions also declare limitations upon magistrates because magistrates are also under a law
themselves. So if we think in terms of covenants, the idea that government, by its very nature, is to
administer law and to administrate continentally. Assuming that there are enlarged part dimensions of
absolutes that must be recognized and all of our relationships. And so the American federal dynamic
assumes there is a covenantal approach governmentally, which keeps that God, at the heart of the
entire dynamic has been sovereign. At the same time also recognizes that magistrates must be limited
for purposes of justice and ordering a very, very fallen world. Well, this has all been wonderful
information. And again, we're, we're always sympathetic to you as a student because you're probably
very busy working hard. Maybe you're trying to stay awake. Although this has been a captivating
interview, can't imagine why that would be an issue. But if you're working a lot hours and you're
bouncing somebody obligations. If we wanted to wrap this up with, with kind of taking away from the
rich history of ideas and just to focus and if we could on your personal testimony, he made a point. The
little girl, you never separate the personal from the political right. It is deeply intimate through Jesus
Christ. Recall, be vulnerable and loved her to accept God's love through Christ to rest. And that, and that
in turn informs everything with you about government and society and so forth. And I think case in
point, Dutch Financial testimony and how you came upon write your studies. So when you share a little
bit about that Rap, awesome. Yes. The importance of this topic became very vital for me when I actually
entered either the mission as a young missionary and ventured through some of their discipleship
training schools. And one of the issues that I really had to grapple with was whether or not God actually
cared about government and law, science and the arts and in international relations. And many times I
was told growing up that these were things that Christians didn't actually need to trouble themselves.
Whereas with, because God was really only interested in our personal walk with him. Well, I knew that
wasn't true, but I couldn't necessarily found what I was actually thinking. The first thing that happened
to me was when I was in college at the age of 18. And I took a course at the UW Madison, Wisconsin
extension campus in my hometown on post reconstruction in America. And on the first day and the first
five minutes, my professor walked into the room and announced himself as a Marxist-Leninist from
Boston State University. Now this was at the height of the Cold War. And in that really troubled me and I
knew that I needed to determine why Marxism and Leninism was theory, country are antithetical to
Christianity. And then just advancing forward very, very quickly. My first real international experience or
relative to these issues was actually in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia in 1985. So by the time I got there, I had
already been equipped with some great tools and principles that were actually part of the Francis
Shaffer ministries of libri in Switzerland. I actually did a school of evangelism and Lausanne, Switzerland
and came in direct contact with some of the folks from Labaree. And so since I was on my way to
Zimbabwe, Rhodesia, or knew that Robert Mugabe was in power. He was a tyrant of tyrants. And, and
my question was, what do I do when I get there? And I really wanted to know, how does God's truth
actually address issues of tyranny, persecution, totalitarianism. I really began to educate myself upon
the application of truth for the whole of life. And found Zimbabwe, Rhodesia at the age of 20 to be the
first place where I had to really grapple with some of these issues. Just a follow-up question very quickly.
This Marxist professor, you know, a lot of Marxist would not acquaint themselves and link themselves to
the tyranny of the Soviet Union, right? Because that's, that's Stalinism, Leninism, it's a whole different
ball of wax, they would argue. And in Marxism after all, is about sharing your goods and sharing with
one another and each according to his need, each quarter is really what is antithetical to Christianity
about Marxism? Where does it go astray? Well, if we were to look at the Marxist learner's perspective
and contrast that with the biblical Christian perspective. If we're going to look at two worldviews, we
find that the nature of this differentiation is at every single level of life. And as a matter of fact, there is
not even a common core of presuppositions that they share. So I don't think it's important for us to
remember that worldviews by their very, very nature, must address all the same questions in life. So a
Marxist is going to address the issue of origins. He's going to address the issue of truth and knowing
what we call epistomology. He's going to address the issue of value and he's going to address the issue
purpose of destiny. And he's going to come up with answers that are tumbling antithetical to the
biblical. And because of that, institutional frameworks are going to look completely different as well.
And it's not just the economic differentiation. Every single area of life now is going to look different. But
what we're going to find if I could add this very quickly, is that from a Marxist perspective, the
substructure of life is indeed the economic of the most important structure and everything else built
upon it. And, and that might help us to understand they're not so subtle distinctions on the nature and
ownership and the distribution of property. But free biblical Christian, we always assume that God is at
the core of everything and that there's no particular institution of life that his salvific, the church doesn't
save you. The government doesn't save you. Economics will not say to you, these are all dimensions of
human relationships. Jesus is the light of the world. And so we could go through and discuss all the
variations relative to Marxism and Leninism and of course Christianity. But at its core of the
presuppositions are vastly different. There is no similarity whatsoever. I think that's a great way to
finish. Jesus is the light of the world. He has sufficient to get you through this course and your degree?
Yes, sufficient as the living Word of God to speak to every area of life and we do well to understand that.
So thank you so much for your time. Thank you.
Christianity and Rationalism — Differences
The previous presentations in this module have explained how biblical principles played a key role in
America's founding documents. This presentation, we'll discuss stark differences between the biblical
Christian worldview and that of rationalism, specifically that of the Enlightenment. This is an important
distinction to make because many argue that it was rationalism and ideas from The Enlightenment.
There were the primary influence in America's founding. As reminder, rationalism is heavily influenced
by the world you starting point of naturalism. That is that man, using science, logic, and reason can
create the ideal society. This belief was certainly a driving force in the Enlightenment, but as we will see,
it was not a driving force and the American find era, nor is it helpful for achieving a truly just in free
society. As with all worldviews, a person's belief about God is always the starting point that determines
the way they do everything else in life. The biblical Christian worldview understands that God is the
ultimate. He is the center of all things. As Colossians 116 states, all things were created through him and
for him. Rationalists, among other hand places man at the center. Instead of seeking knowledge by
seeking God through his inspired word, the enlightenment taught that fallen man is capable of achieving
knowledge and perfectibility buys own mechanical efforts and his exercise of rationality. When one's
worldview replaces the perfect God has the highest authority with fallen man. The results throughout
history have been disastrous. There had been three major expressions of the Enlightenment in history
that we should consider. The first of the French Revolution. Liberal leaning scholars often attempt to
categorize the American War for Independence and the French Revolution together. The one, the
service, they may seem to look very similar. They were opposite in regards to the underline worldviews
that were at stake. The American colonies fought secure and enable rights granted to them by God. This
is because they predominantly held to a biblical Christian worldview. The French Revolution, whatever
was an effort to implement the rationals faith envision man could reach perfection by removing God
from the equation and granted himself, which ever writes he reasoned necessary. Thus, the French
Revolution deliberately sought to exterminate what remained of biblical Christianity in France. However,
the effort finally disintegrated into the massacres that became known as the Reign of Terror and the
eventual military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte in 799. The second major expression of the
Enlightenment can be seen in the rise of Charles Darwin's evolutionary faith known as the Darwinian
hypothesis. His book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, was
immediately controversial. Bill was hailed by rationalistic revolutionaries, though was met with
resistance from the biblical Christian tradition. The Darwinian hypothesis has become the prevailing
dogma in today's intellectual and scientific communities. The third expression, the enlightenment, is the
Marxist analysis of history. This theory was also met with resistance at first, but it has now been adopted
by most intellectuals in the world. If you travel to the majority of universities in America today, you will
find that the Marxist analysis of history and a call for evolution, whether implicitly or explicitly is still
being taught. Now let's take a look at how rationalism impacted America specifically. First, let's consider
what can be called the Christian rationalist conglomerate. Refers to how the reformations emphasis on
the covenantal approach to life with all its biblical Christian presuppositions, was eventually merged
with rationalism in America. As reason became the ultimate source of knowledge instead of God's
revelation scripture, that dualistic approach to life emerged. This created a division between that which
is considered sacred, in that which is considered secular. Social frameworks such as civil government,
were then crafted without the guidance of scriptural propositions, no longer was thought that Biblical
principle should apply to government or other areas of life outside the church. Secondly, we see the
change from biblical to evangelical Christianity. As Christians began to view some areas of life is sacred
in other areas of life as secular. Without God's sovereign authority over all of life, they begin to retreat
from certain spheres of society that were deemed secular or evil, such as government. This a vacuum
and institutions that became vulnerable to rationalistic dominants. Christianity became diminished, the
church affairs and attendance. This sort of dualistic approach dominated Christianity into the mid to late
20th century. And as mentioned the Module 1 presentations. It's a Christian apologists like Francis
Shaffer to reject this false dichotomy between reason and faith and between the sacred and the secular.
We should go back further in history than that. The influence of the First Great Awakening was
profound. It represented a series of intense religious revivals across Colonial America and parts of
Europe. Itinerant preachers such as George Whitfield and John Wesley did much to bring the powerful
message of Jesus Christ to thousands across the colonies. Were passionate sermons about a loving God
who would pay the price of send that much to counteract the influence of enlightenment rationalism
with it's cold, mechanical, non-relational approach to Christianity. Thousands of genuine conversions
took place across the colonies as people found spiritual freedom through the truth of the gospel.
However, the transformative impact of the First Great Awakening brought with it accusations of rapid
and often proceed hyper emotional and spiritual subjectivity. This came at the expense of mature
pastoral guidance, spiritual orthodoxy in church governance, the personal salvation experience, part of
the personal covenant would come to be exclusively emphasizing Christianity. This resulted in the
ecclesiastical and especially the civil social competence being pushed further and further into the
background. Now we will take a look at the American quote, Revolution of 1776. There are some
scholars who suggest that the American War for Independence was not a revolution, but a counter-
revolution aimed at preserving and perpetuating Christian rationalism. However, the sign documents are
clear evidence that the colonists did not embrace a separation between faith and reason, between the
sacred and the secular. Certainly it is true that they rejected a state run church. But then again, so does
Scripture itself. Further their view of government was based upon the biblical idea of covenant and
recognize the need for limited government to restrain the sinful tendencies of would-be rulers.
Rationalism and contrast tends to believe that man's reason cannot be tainted by sin. This is likely the
major reason that the French Revolution had no sense of restraint are built-in checks and balances.
Because the Jacobins did not see the potential for sin and arrogance and their own motives. Further, the
Declaration of Independence is itself a clear statement that the founding fathers were establishing a
government based upon biblical principles of covenant and a material breach of that covenant on the
part of King George. It provides a clear and accurate evidence of a long train of abuses of King George
and how that's broken the civil social covenant with the colonies. These violations a period have been
the most decisive reason for declared independence. After they had exhausted the available legal
channels, a petition and redress of grievances. It is true that the founders borrowed from Locke's
writings as they are particularly the case for this material breach an intern. It is also true that Locke
tended to embrace the notion of Christian rationalism. On the other hand, it is also true that a lot of
Locke's arguments were based upon numerous scriptural references and examples. And where I
disagree to Scripture, such as with the notion that man's intellect was untainted by sin, was the same
place where the founders part ways with him in their approach to government.
Introduction to Helms School of Government
Hi, I'm Sean acres, Dean of the helm School of Government here at Liberty University. I'd like to
welcome you to this course and spend a few minutes visiting with you about studying government here
at Liberty University. Whether we are working with the College of General Studies to provide
government courses to all of our students. Are working with students to help them develop a career in
government or pre-law or criminal justice, or strategic and intelligence or international relations. Our
professors, we're very hard to provide a foundation in the ideas of constitutional government and free
enterprise that have worked for so long to make this nation great. Those ideas really can be summed up
in a couple of broad themes that really came to light during the founding of the nation. One of those
ideas is that rights, natural rights, inalienable rights come from God, and that governments are
instituted among men to protect those rights. And the second one is that within the realm of that
authority, that people should govern themselves. Let's talk for just a minute about both of those. The
first really came to bear in the Declaration of Independence. What the founders were leaving a system
of tyranny where they said, We've been in a system where man governs over man. And we really think
that the, that the Judeo-Christian way of doing things is when man governs himself. And they did this by,
by laying out a document called the Declaration of Independence. And they said in that document that
we hold these truths to be self-evident. That we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable
rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And they went on to say that
governments, that the purpose of having a government was for people to be able to come together and
create a structure that would protect their inalienable rights. Now, this is fairly common idea today in
the United States, but at the time this was a revolutionary idea. That rights weren't created by men, that
rights weren't created by governments and given to me, um, but just the opposite, that, that
unalienable rights were created by God and given to people. And that the whole purpose that we have
government for is for people to come together and say, we're going to put together an organization,
structure, a corporate body, a covenant between us that says, here's how we're going to protect those
rights that God gave us. Now they made another decision that was very important. It's foundational to
the understanding of free economies and free governments. It's foundational to an understanding of
liberty. And it was this that in the past where a single person who through something called a title of
nobility. In other words, because of where you were born or your last name, or how much money you
had. Those are the things that in Great Britain entitled 1 to govern. Our founders in the United States
decided to do something incredibly different than that. They said that those things aren't going to be the
deciding factor that we should govern our cells. And you saw our tradition spring up with both the
Declaration of Independence and later seeing that fulfilled in the constitution of limited constitutional
government. And what that means is something like this. That the government has only the powers that
the people gave it through the constitution and that those powers are limited. And that the people who
are going to serve in government aren't going to do so because of what their last name is, because of
how much money they have, they're going to do so because of their abilities and their moral virtue and
their willingness to step up and play a servant leadership role in the nation. And that's why you saw not
Nobles coming forward to serve in government. But you saw doctors and lawyers and shop owners and
ship owners and people who worked for living show up and say, during part of the year, I'm going to give
my time to serve as a leader in the United States. Now you flash forward over 200 years and we still
exist under that very same constitution. And to this very day, we still govern ourselves. Now, a course
like this helps you understand how we govern ourselves well and how we, we fail to govern ourselves,
but the system is still in place that we govern ourselves today. If you go to Washington DC and you visit
with congressmen and you visit with senators, you find out that they are doctors and that they are
lawyers and they are business owners. And they are small business owners and they were farmers and
they hold all the jobs. They're still the people governing. The people, the people we, the people
governing ourselves through a structure that the founders were wise enough to design some 200 plus
years ago. Now, oftentime we think that studying government only applies to those who want to go into
government. But the fact is that the, when you're in a position of self-governance, that government
touches everything that we do. If you're going to be in the medical profession, there are laws that
govern that. And the people who shape those laws are the ones who have the most influence in the
medical field. If you're going into aviation, there are people who shaped the aviation laws and
regulations and they're generally the ones who lead in that field. If you're going into any area of life, we
typically have a set of laws and a set of policy, and there's somebody who operates in that field who
understands government. Now, if they understand government as limited constitutional government,
and they understand that Judeo-Christian underpinnings of limited government and of a free market
system. Then you get an entirely different set of rules and regulations and laws and level of oversight
than you do from a different worldview. So what you find is the study of government is linked very, very
closely with worldview. And the one that's most closely associated with the founders of the United
States in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is a Judeo-Christian worldview, a biblical
understanding of right and wrong, good and bad. The human relationships that we talk about whom we
say the word governance. Thank you again for joining us for this class. I hope that you enjoy it and all of
your studies here at Liberty University.
Key Biblical and Historical Concepts
Understanding the proper approach to government means understanding the need for balance. Balance
between order and freedom. A balance between what is good for the many and what is good for the
individual. In a balance between adjust process and adjust outcome. In all three cases, a biblical
perspective on government will serve as well. There are many ways to classify and present the principles
of government. And indeed the course readings and presentations have much to offer in that regard.
Therefore, this presentation, we'll try to provide a simple overview. First, you must start with the idea of
authority. Biblical perspective on government obviously starts with who God is and by default, what
government is not. Since we know that God is the source of all truth, power and authority, we know that
government should never have unlimited authority or control. Since we know that only God is perfect
and that man is sinful, we believe in limited government to save us from the tyranny of simple leaders. A
good king may be able to accomplish many good things if he has unlimited power. But more often than
not, we're apt to have bad kings, not good kings. The Bible also tells us that we are made in God's image.
Thus, we have an eligible rights. Enable rights are rights given to us by God, which we can either give
away. Your takeaway. Note the distinction here. As stewards of the gifts God has given us. We cannot
advocate these rights, we must be self-governing. This means that pursuing a life of addictive behaviors
or becoming withdrawn from society such that we do not care for neighbors is not in keeping with
biblical mandates. This idea of self-government is crucial to having a balanced approach to government.
A modern view of government favors and expansive state. Since humans are not made in God's image
and must be acted upon by their physical environment to achieve meaningful change. Modernists argue
that a powerful state is needed to achieve such manipulation, whether it is through redistribution of
wealth or some form of behavior modification. A postmodern approach to government might favor the
other extreme. Selfish individualism, which is not community-minded, in favors maximum personal
freedom, even at the expense of community engagement and personal responsibility. On this point, we
are reminded that in scripture we are taught the difference between freedom and liberty. Freedom is
the abyss Everyone wants, but that doesn't exist for humans either. We were slaves, the center, we
were servants of God. As slaves to sin, we become the victim of circumstances, the tyranny of others in
the slave of addictive behaviors. As servants of God. On the other hand, we have liberty, which is not
unlimited freedom, but rather the freedom to do the right thing, to be self-governing, to care for others,
and to serve God with all that we are. That is true happiness and joy. This all in turn takes us back the
starting point that only God has all authority and control. Understanding God's sovereignty is important
for achieving true balanced and government and society. It could be said that we have a God shaped
hole in our hearts which can only be filled by him. Therefore, if we try to use other things in our lives to
fill that hole, to find contentment in them instead of God, some very bad things happen. First, we were
faced with extreme insecurity because only God can fulfill us. In short, there is avoiding our hearts and
in our lives. This insecurity then causes why don't you responsiveness. The first is that we seek to control
others, to give us some sort of security. In its extreme form. This leads to tyranny. The second extremes
that we allow others to control us. We essentially try to escape life. Thus, we give ourselves over to
addictive behaviors, end or we pursue pleasure at the sake of personal and civic responsibility at its
extreme and leads to a citizenry that is unaware, an apathetic about government and was being done by
leaders. This would lead to either anarchy and are eventually tyranny. This then leads to our next point,
the need for covenantal relationships as the basis for site. The biblical idea of covenant is a mutually
beneficial, long-lasting relationship designed to be a benefit to all members. All members of a covenant
relationship agree to care for one another. By virtue of caring for one another, every member has
personally benefited. But this requires, as mentioned above, the notion of self-government. I opec, self-
absorbed living is not optional for any healthy society. We learned of covenant from God himself.
Though we didn't need anything from us. He formed a covenant with us. We see this both in the Old
Testament with respect to the various covenants he made with people, especially the people of Israel.
And we see it in the New Testament, regard promises a covenant with anyone who puts their hope in
Christ. We learn then that if God was willing to give us his own son to save us, that we shouldn't turn live
sacrificial for others. Thus an a covenant love and duty are intertwined. We learn to go the extra mile to
care for one another. You can probably imagine what happens when an entire society is based upon a
covenant. Relationship can't be coerced. We see that a political covenant is based upon liberty in limited
government. Power is shared among various power centers and no one's sources all of the control or
authority to preserve rights and freedoms, especially at a annual rates. The term structure and
agreements associated with the covenant are all written down in the constitution. Much as we saw with
the Book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, it is essentially the Constitution ratified in describing
the terms and condition of God's covenant with Israel. And if we think all of this is entirely theological or
philosophical, with no bearing on the real-world of government and politics. A little history would be
helpful. Remember back to the Protestant Reformation. It was more than just a theological
disagreement. Luther and others were also concerned about the political fusion of church and state
between the Catholic Church and other political entities such as the Holy Roman Emperor. During that
time, political and military force was being used to coerce people back into the Catholic church. German
princes, another nation's rose up and revolt to this effort. And as a result, process developed a theory of
government and politics based upon covenantal theology. Their study of scripture and the biblical idea
of covenant help them to articulate a new approach to government as described above. Limited
government, freedom of conscience and religion, separation of powers and so forth. They even
articulate ideas for when it was acceptable to rise up against a tyrannical state. In other words, when
there was a material breach of the covenant. As an example of this concept, we know that a marriage is
a covenant relationship. It is more than just a contract. Love and duty are indeed intertwined in minor if
even consistent offenses are not a basis for breaking off a marriage covenant. Indeed, we know that God
hates divorce. There are only very severe reasons for a new marriage, such as adultery or abuse. And so
it is with our approach to government, when government acts so tyrannically that the very nature of the
coding relationship with its citizens is violated, such that enable rights and freedoms are compromised.
Then government has effectively destroy the relationship and we are no longer bound to it. This is
essentially what Locke argued in his Second Treatise of Government. And in turn it is this collect a set of
ideas about government and society then form Protestant thinkers and rice during that time period,
many of those Protestants flipped political in Ecclesiastes persecution in Europe by coming to America to
set up colonies here. And they brought with them a covenantal approach to building society. The first
political agreement, the Mayflower Compact, was itself steep and covenantal language. In fact, one of
the Latin words used for covenant in the Bible is pack. Them are compact and English. Further, these
incoming Collins use similar church compacts to form their new colonies when they arrived. Turn, these
compacts eventually served as a basis for state governments. And the trend continue to even into the
formation of our nation. Another Latin word used for covenant in Scripture is foetus. Does that term
sounds familiar? It should, because it describes the very system that American government is based
upon. Federalism. This idea, speech, the sharing of power among the national government and the state
governments. It is entirely in keeping with a covenantal system of government in which power is shared
among various sources to limit tyranny and maximize freedoms. In a biblical approach, we don't just
have a government that is set up properly. We have a group of citizens who are self-governing and not
interested in exploiting and controlling others. Nor are they interested in escaping their biblical
responsibilities by pursuing pleasure or another irresponsible, addictive behaviors. This is the good life.
It is the pursuit of happiness, the founders talked about as one of our God-given in amenable rights. In
short, the pursuit of happiness means that we are living our lives for God's glory in obedience to him.
And by doing so, experiencing true joy in this approach, we realized that we need some government, but
not so much as to undermine our own self-government. It also means that we are living for eternity and
therefore not overcome by Carlos greed and materialism. We do not seek to exploit others or to use
technology to do so. It is no easy task living this way. And we see an America, an addiction to
materialism, entertainment and pleasure in an apathy as well as an ignorance of important matters such
as government and politics. Hopefully the ideas shared in this course will help future leaders as we seek
to serve God with all that we are. Ultimately, we can only do so by calling out to God for divine aid to
the resurrection power of Jesus Christ. The next presentation, we'll take a closer look at how these ideas
impacted the formation of the US Constitution.
1
Worldview Analysis
Name
Institutional affiliation
Course
Tutor
Date
2
Worldview Analysis
Political parties are the fulcrum of America’s democratic processes. The parties have
ensured there exists a competitive political environment that is driven by ideologies rather
than personalities. Had the country not had effective and strong political party system and
structures, perhaps the situation would be much different. While the United States is a multi-
party democracy that allows as many political parties as possible to engage in political
competition, the two political parties that have been dominant in the country are the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party. On the 8th of November 2016, Americans went
to polls to choose their 45th president. The leading presidential candidates in the contest were
Democratic-Party-Sponsored Hillary Clinton and the Republican-party-sponsored Donald
Trump. Hillary Clinton is an experienced former powerful White House operative, having
served as Secretary of State under the first term of President Barrack Obama. On the other
side, Donald Trump is a billionaire businessman and a former reality show personality who
had no prior experience in politics or military affairs (Allin, 2016). In the face of these facts,
Americans were presented with an opportunity to choose from what people would call an
‘insider' and another person who others called an ‘outsider.' The 2016 elections were a
testament to how political party ideologies differ between political parties and how these
ideologies influence voters. This paper examines the Democratic Party and Republican
Party’s leaning on liberalism and conservatism respectively.
Several issues emerge between the two political parties (The Democratic Party and
the Republican Party) that defined the ideological perspectives of the sides. Some of these
issues included immigration, healthcare reforms, and gun control (Jacobs & Caeser, 2016).
While appreciating that the ideological perspective of the parties played a critical role in
defining the beliefs of the candidates, it is also apparent that each candidate had their
ideological backgrounds that defined their approach to several issues.
3
Traditionally, the Democratic Party has taken a liberal approach to issues while the
Republican have taken a conservative approach. These ideologies are applicable in issues
related to but not limited to immigration, abortion, religion and the management of the
economy among others. Using the 2016 contest between President Trump (Republican Party)
and Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party), one may see the elements of conservatism and
liberalism between the two parties that each of the candidates represented.
The liberal perspective of the Democratic Party may best be demonstrated by the
stance of the party on matters of abortion and parenthood. In 2005, Clinton together with
other Democrats voted in support of abortion as a way of improving the lives of women and
making sure that unwanted pregnancies are not sustained. The question of abortion is one of
the hot topics in the country that most politicians would not want to touch. During the reign
of President Obama (a democrat), the State Department proposed a bill in which the
government was intending to cut funding for groups that promote abortion practices.
However, Hillary Clinton came out loud and said that she was personally going to lobby
President Obama to veto the bill (Clinton, 2009). With regards to these actions, the liberal
credentials of Clinton come to fore. She was of the opinion that women have a right to
procure an abortion in the event the pregnancy had threats to their lives. In the abortion
debates, two factions have emerged. The first faction is known as the pro-life while the
second faction is known as pro-choice. However, in most of her speeches, Clinton maintained
the position that was taken by her party which advocated for a safe, legal and rare abortion s a
way of protecting the rights of women to make choices regarding their affairs.
Unlike the Democratic Party that presented has demonstrated liberal tendencies, the
Republican Party whose candidate in the 2016 elections was President Trump comes out as a
conservative outfit. While it is known that GOP is associated with conservatism, it appears
that Trump took the limits to another level. Unlike Clinton, President Trump is pro-life and
4
does not support any practices that would lead to the death of an unborn child (Jervis, 2017).
When Trump was campaigning, he stated several times that it is necessary to defund all the
parenthood initiatives that are associated with abortion. The primary point of the argument is
that there is a need to protect the lives of the mother and the child. By standing strongly
against abortion, Trump demonstrated conservatism as opposed to the liberal Clinton who
supported abortion.
In conclusion, the political ideology between the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party played a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the 2016 presidential
elections. Trump represented the conservative ideals of his party while Hillary Clinton also
represented the liberal ideals of the Democratic Party.
5
References
Allin, Dana H. "President Trump." Survival 58.6 (2016): 237-248.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. "Foreign policy address at the council on foreign relations." US
Department of State 15 (2009).
Jacobs, Nicholas, and James W. Ceaser. "The 2016 Presidential Election by the Numbers and
in Historical Perspective." The Forum. Vol. 14. No. 4. 2016.
Jervis, Robert. "President Trump and IR theory." H-Diplo ISSF Policy Series 2 (2017).
