Paige says that studying for history is pointless because of the fact that it only portrays the "winners." I disagree with what Paige is claiming. First off, let's just say we are studying for a test in U.S. history. All history books cover mostly the same events, such as the World Wars, the Great Depression, the Civil War, and more recently the terrorist attacks of 2001. To say that history covers only the "winners" is very inaccurate. Sure our textbooks talk about all the success America has had such as winning the World Wars, but not all about that event is positive. We lost tons of soldiers who risked their lives during those wars. Now even though we won the war, not everything was a success or a victory, such as all the lives that were lost.
Furthermore, why would our textbooks talk about the Great Depression? This was a time where America was greatly struggling. This event has nothing to do with the "winners."
In addition, there is the Civil War. Half of our country against the other half. The north won the war, yet it was also a loss for the south, who was still essentially part of our country. You can't say that history only includes stories from the winners because the Civil War is a prime example of an event that portrays both the winners and the losers, and how that event shaped America to the way it is now.
More modern, back in 2001, our country experienced tragedy as the Twin Towers were destroyed by terrorists in hijacked planes. That event was not about the winners, because obviously, our country that day was attacked and greatly affected. Sure because of that we now have safer security checks so hopefully that will never happpen again. But, you can't say that all events are written by the winners, because obviously we have sections in our newer history books that are devoted to that, and we were essentially the losers, yet we still included it.
Therefore Paige, through the different events that I just discussed, all are included in America's history, yet in all of them we are not the "winners." However we still include them as part of our history.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Economics 2
Why do you think Socialism doesn't work? The response to this question is quite simple, yet many people simply don't understand this. If you haven't realized, we live in a fallen world. Sin is evident in our everyday lives. Socialism is an attempt to establish a utopia, or perfect society, by redistributing wealth so that everyone has the same amount, and makes the same amount. This of course elimates private property. Do you really think it is possible to establish a system where everyone makes the same amount and owns the same amount? This is impossible in a corrupt, sinful world that is filled with greed. Therefore, in this fallen world, Socialism will never be successful as it tries to create a heaven on earth.
In addition to the fact that Socialism is unsuccessful in a fallen world, the the system of everyone's jobs and earnings being the same lacks motivation. This is an economic system after all, yet if everyone made the same amount, their wouldn't be any motivation. For example, if a janitor earned the same amount as a doctor, then where would the motivation for the doctor be? Then essentially nobody would want to be a doctor because of the fact that it takes lots of schooling and education, and if your getting paid the same as a janitor, then why not just be a janitor? It's easier. People are not rewarded for how hard they work. Therefore, Socialsim is impossible as it lacks any motivation for those who live in Socialism.
Therefore, Solcialism is an economic system that is doomed for failure. Because we are sinful, and because Socialism takes away the motivation of its workers, this economic system will never be a success.
In addition to the fact that Socialism is unsuccessful in a fallen world, the the system of everyone's jobs and earnings being the same lacks motivation. This is an economic system after all, yet if everyone made the same amount, their wouldn't be any motivation. For example, if a janitor earned the same amount as a doctor, then where would the motivation for the doctor be? Then essentially nobody would want to be a doctor because of the fact that it takes lots of schooling and education, and if your getting paid the same as a janitor, then why not just be a janitor? It's easier. People are not rewarded for how hard they work. Therefore, Socialsim is impossible as it lacks any motivation for those who live in Socialism.
Therefore, Solcialism is an economic system that is doomed for failure. Because we are sinful, and because Socialism takes away the motivation of its workers, this economic system will never be a success.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Economics 1
After watching this video, there are a few things that I would like to touch on. First off, Mr. Moore says that "Socialism is democracy." First off lets distinguish what socialism is. Socialism is "An economic system in which the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government..." (Noebel 354). Democracy, according to dictionary.com is "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." I would say that in response to his quote that this is a yes and no answer. Socialism is democratic in that it prohibits those from owning private property, leaving every man equal. Democracy does aim to keep each individual having equal rights. On the other hand however, I would say that socialism is not democracy. According to our definition of democracy, it states that "...the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them..." However capitalism is more democratic because it allows others to own their own business for example and make their own profit. Socialism is less lenient, therefore I don't think he can flat out say that socialism is democracy because it isn't completely.
Also, Mr. Moore states that "Socialism is Christianity..." This is not biblically accurate. Implying that socialism is Christianity implies that everything stated in the Bible is economically equal. There are many areas where the Bible talks about private property. For example, if God was against private property, then why would He give us the commandment: "Thou shall not steal?" By giving us this commandment, He acknowledges that private property exists, and that one should not steal from another. Later on, Mr. Moore talks about how we are now in the twenty-first century and that we should have developed an economic system by now that is morally right and equal in which no one owns more than another. This is trying to create heaven on earth. This will never happen on earth. We are all sinful, and our sinful natures cause us to want and not be content with what we have. He makes a good point, but we are never going to have an economic system like that on this earth.
Therefore, Mr. Moore has some truth to what he's saying, but I think that what he's saying isn't always true.
Also, Mr. Moore states that "Socialism is Christianity..." This is not biblically accurate. Implying that socialism is Christianity implies that everything stated in the Bible is economically equal. There are many areas where the Bible talks about private property. For example, if God was against private property, then why would He give us the commandment: "Thou shall not steal?" By giving us this commandment, He acknowledges that private property exists, and that one should not steal from another. Later on, Mr. Moore talks about how we are now in the twenty-first century and that we should have developed an economic system by now that is morally right and equal in which no one owns more than another. This is trying to create heaven on earth. This will never happen on earth. We are all sinful, and our sinful natures cause us to want and not be content with what we have. He makes a good point, but we are never going to have an economic system like that on this earth.
Therefore, Mr. Moore has some truth to what he's saying, but I think that what he's saying isn't always true.
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Global Secular Government
To start this off, I would like to say that there will never be a global secular government. There are a ton of countries and with contradicting ideas and philosophies that would make one peaceful world government impossible in this sinful world.
Secular Humanisnm, along with other competing worldviews of today's societies such as Marxism and Cosmic Humanism, all seek to create a unified world government. For example, because we are focusing on a secular global government, let's focus on what a secular humanist global government would be like. Secular world government entails "A non-religious political body that would make, interpret, and enforce a set of international laws" (Noebel 333). Secular Humanists beleive that this can actually be achieved. However, as Christians, who understand that we are all sinful realize that it is not only impossible to achieve a secular world government, but it would also be a bad idea. Reasons for this include:
First and foremost, this world is sinful. By creating one world government, we would be achieving what these worldviews long for, which is essentially a utopia. This is impossible. A utopia would imply that there would be no flaws or disagreements, but because we are sinful this is impossible.
Secondly, as already briefly mentioned, everyone has different ideologies and ethics. How is it possible to have one form of government that appeals to everyone while they all have different ideologies? It is impossible.
Thirdly, as part of those idealogies, comes the idea of morals. Every worldview has its different views of morals. Ideally, since as Christians we know that God has established his morals through our conscience and mind and the Bible, and that we would have to be in a perfect world, in order that everyone beleive in the same morals. This is not the case though.
One must realize that there is no possibility that there will ever be a unified, worldwide government. There would be more problems and much more chaos if the was a global secular government because it would not be religious and those who have their own religous opinions wouldn't be able to tolerate it causing conflict and chaos. As sinful human beings, we will never be able to achieve a utopia, or even a worldwide government.
Secular Humanisnm, along with other competing worldviews of today's societies such as Marxism and Cosmic Humanism, all seek to create a unified world government. For example, because we are focusing on a secular global government, let's focus on what a secular humanist global government would be like. Secular world government entails "A non-religious political body that would make, interpret, and enforce a set of international laws" (Noebel 333). Secular Humanists beleive that this can actually be achieved. However, as Christians, who understand that we are all sinful realize that it is not only impossible to achieve a secular world government, but it would also be a bad idea. Reasons for this include:
First and foremost, this world is sinful. By creating one world government, we would be achieving what these worldviews long for, which is essentially a utopia. This is impossible. A utopia would imply that there would be no flaws or disagreements, but because we are sinful this is impossible.
Secondly, as already briefly mentioned, everyone has different ideologies and ethics. How is it possible to have one form of government that appeals to everyone while they all have different ideologies? It is impossible.
Thirdly, as part of those idealogies, comes the idea of morals. Every worldview has its different views of morals. Ideally, since as Christians we know that God has established his morals through our conscience and mind and the Bible, and that we would have to be in a perfect world, in order that everyone beleive in the same morals. This is not the case though.
One must realize that there is no possibility that there will ever be a unified, worldwide government. There would be more problems and much more chaos if the was a global secular government because it would not be religious and those who have their own religous opinions wouldn't be able to tolerate it causing conflict and chaos. As sinful human beings, we will never be able to achieve a utopia, or even a worldwide government.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Abortion
I will respond to the claim that "The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?"
Unfortunately, neither of these ideas would work 100 percent. Forcing a woman to use contraception or making abortion illegal, would result in less abortions, but both are hard to mandate. Women would “forget” or “not want to use protection” and some would engage in back alley abortions, which could result in the death of the mother as well. So I think what we need is a better way to educate all women of reproductive age as to the real consequences of getting pregnant.
This assertion says that by getting rid of abortion, you take away the rights of that individual. While people are granted civil rights, it doesn't give the woman the right to control another’s life. Many may claim that the fetus is not human, therefore you can't say that you are killing a living human. Really? How is a fetus not human? The Law of Biogenesis says that living things produce after their own kind. A human is not going to produce a dog, or a cat. A human, therefore will produce a human. You can't say that it is your own right to control the fate of an innocent child. We have laws in our society today that make it illegal for one to murder another. What's the difference with this debate than the topic of murder? Both are taking the life of someone. You can't say that the fetus is not human. Back to my evidence on top of the Law of Biogenesis which adds to my argument that the unborn are no less human than we are. For instance, there is an acronym that is often used that proves that there is no difference whatsoever. It is called SLED. The "S" stands for "size." We must point out that larger people are no more human than smaller people. Secondly, "L" stands for "Level of Development." I think that everyone would agree that a toddler is no less human than a teenager. Sure, the knowledge that the teenager has is far greater than that of a toddler, but that doesn't make a teenager more human than a toddler. Next, there is "E", which stands for "Environment." As Scott Klusendorf puts it "A newborn in an incubator is not less human than a child outside the womb." Finally to finish our acronym, we have "D" which stands for "Degree of Dependency." Again, Klusendorf points out that "People on insulin are less viable but no less human."
Before engaging in sex, there are many ways in which one is able to prevent oneself from becoming pregnant. One must realize that ideas have consequences. Just because the parent made a mistake, doesn't make it okay for them to take the life of an innocent child. It's not like there isn’t an alternative to abortion. The child could be put up for adoption as there are many married couples that cannot conceive and would love to have a baby. There are also ways that one can prevent from becoming pregnant. In America we honor the rights of each individual equally. Now that we have proved that a fetus is human, that fetus has the exact same rights as its mother. The mother has no right, whatsoever to take the life of another living being.
Therefore, in the assertion that I am responding to, there is absolutely no supportive evidence that would give the mother a right to end the life of her child. A woman has many other options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy. I want to end by saying: You think that killing is wrong, yet you want to support killing an innocent human being. How is this justifiable? It simply is not.
Unfortunately, neither of these ideas would work 100 percent. Forcing a woman to use contraception or making abortion illegal, would result in less abortions, but both are hard to mandate. Women would “forget” or “not want to use protection” and some would engage in back alley abortions, which could result in the death of the mother as well. So I think what we need is a better way to educate all women of reproductive age as to the real consequences of getting pregnant.
This assertion says that by getting rid of abortion, you take away the rights of that individual. While people are granted civil rights, it doesn't give the woman the right to control another’s life. Many may claim that the fetus is not human, therefore you can't say that you are killing a living human. Really? How is a fetus not human? The Law of Biogenesis says that living things produce after their own kind. A human is not going to produce a dog, or a cat. A human, therefore will produce a human. You can't say that it is your own right to control the fate of an innocent child. We have laws in our society today that make it illegal for one to murder another. What's the difference with this debate than the topic of murder? Both are taking the life of someone. You can't say that the fetus is not human. Back to my evidence on top of the Law of Biogenesis which adds to my argument that the unborn are no less human than we are. For instance, there is an acronym that is often used that proves that there is no difference whatsoever. It is called SLED. The "S" stands for "size." We must point out that larger people are no more human than smaller people. Secondly, "L" stands for "Level of Development." I think that everyone would agree that a toddler is no less human than a teenager. Sure, the knowledge that the teenager has is far greater than that of a toddler, but that doesn't make a teenager more human than a toddler. Next, there is "E", which stands for "Environment." As Scott Klusendorf puts it "A newborn in an incubator is not less human than a child outside the womb." Finally to finish our acronym, we have "D" which stands for "Degree of Dependency." Again, Klusendorf points out that "People on insulin are less viable but no less human."
Before engaging in sex, there are many ways in which one is able to prevent oneself from becoming pregnant. One must realize that ideas have consequences. Just because the parent made a mistake, doesn't make it okay for them to take the life of an innocent child. It's not like there isn’t an alternative to abortion. The child could be put up for adoption as there are many married couples that cannot conceive and would love to have a baby. There are also ways that one can prevent from becoming pregnant. In America we honor the rights of each individual equally. Now that we have proved that a fetus is human, that fetus has the exact same rights as its mother. The mother has no right, whatsoever to take the life of another living being.
Therefore, in the assertion that I am responding to, there is absolutely no supportive evidence that would give the mother a right to end the life of her child. A woman has many other options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy. I want to end by saying: You think that killing is wrong, yet you want to support killing an innocent human being. How is this justifiable? It simply is not.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Law #4
Critical Legal Studies, or CLS, is the idea of going against "social norms" in order to achieve both "equality" and "justice." They beleive that law is a way of the wealthier and more powerful to maintain their place in society. They will essentially go against social norms so that the oppressed are no longer oppressed anymore. The word "equality" is more the idea that people are equal, through race, religion, ethicity...etc. "Justice", on the other hand, is more the opinion of the people, or their judgement.
According to the verses provided, Christians are able to "do justice" in different ways according to theses verses. First off, we must realize according to Deuteronomy 10:17 that God "shows no partiality" amongst his people. We all are created equal in God's sight. Also, in this passage, we are called "to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees..." Furthermore, in Jeremiah 22:3, we are called to do what is right and just, and to rescue the oppressed. By knowing what is right and just we are able to carry out justice in our everyday lives. In addition, the verse in the book of Micah says that God has called us "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Finally, as Christians, we are called "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." As Christians, we are called "to do justice" through the ways listed above. We have the Bible, and our concious to help us along the way, that will reveal God's will to us, thus giving us guidlines on what is, and what isn't "justice", according to the person of Christ.
According to the verses provided, Christians are able to "do justice" in different ways according to theses verses. First off, we must realize according to Deuteronomy 10:17 that God "shows no partiality" amongst his people. We all are created equal in God's sight. Also, in this passage, we are called "to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees..." Furthermore, in Jeremiah 22:3, we are called to do what is right and just, and to rescue the oppressed. By knowing what is right and just we are able to carry out justice in our everyday lives. In addition, the verse in the book of Micah says that God has called us "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Finally, as Christians, we are called "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." As Christians, we are called "to do justice" through the ways listed above. We have the Bible, and our concious to help us along the way, that will reveal God's will to us, thus giving us guidlines on what is, and what isn't "justice", according to the person of Christ.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Christian Approach to Law vs. Islamic Approach to Law
Although Christians and Muslims agree on some topics, there arer many areas in which these two religions disagree. One of these topics in which the two disagree is that of law. I will examine the differences between the Christian approach to law and the Muslim approach to law.
As Christians, we beleive in natural law, or the idea that physical and moral laws are revealed to us through general revelation (i.e. our conscience), and built into the structure of the universe (as opposed to the laws that are developed by human beings). So we believe that God reveals to us both physical and moral laws. In addition to our beleif in natural law, Christians also believe in divine law. Divine law is any law that come directly from the character of God through special revelation (the Bible). Therefore, the Christian law consists of five basic principles. They are: 1. "The source of all divine law is the character and nature of God" (Noebel 287). 2. The moral order reflects the character of God-which include His holiness, justice, truth, love, and mercy. 3. We are created in the image of God and we are significant. "God established human government to protect human life, rights, and dignity" (287). 4. When Jesus took human form, human life assumed even greater significance. God the Creator became God the Redeemer (John 1:14)" (287). 5. God will, through Christ, judge the world (human race) according to "His standard of good and evil (Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, 2 Corinthians 5:10)" (287). Finally, the last thing about the Christian approach to law, is that the only time one can go agianst a law is if it goes against Scripture.
The Islamic view and approach to law differs from the Christian perspective. Shari'ah law is taken from four different sources. These include the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Ijima, and Qiyas. In the Islamic worldview, there is no individual freedom. Also, there are five categories of human behavior in the Islamic religion. They are: 1. Acts that are commanded or required. These include things such as the five pillars of Islam. 2. There are acts that are recommended, such as charitable acts above those commanded. 3. There are those that are forbidden, which include thievery, drinking wine, or sexual immorality. 4. There are those that are disapproved, such as divorce, which is permitted but not recommended. Finally 5. There are those acts that are indifferent, with either positive or negative consequences. The word Shari'ah refers to the "body of laws that Muslims believe are applicable, while fiqh is the human endeavor to understand and apply those laws" (291). All in all, Islam lacks indivual freedom, and does not reveal the nature of God, only his will. To conclude, the Islamic law is different than that of the Christian law in that it is Rex Lex, or in other words, the law is not above the king. Christians on the other hand believe in Lex Rex, the idea that the law is above the king and that everyone is subject to the law.
As Christians, we beleive in natural law, or the idea that physical and moral laws are revealed to us through general revelation (i.e. our conscience), and built into the structure of the universe (as opposed to the laws that are developed by human beings). So we believe that God reveals to us both physical and moral laws. In addition to our beleif in natural law, Christians also believe in divine law. Divine law is any law that come directly from the character of God through special revelation (the Bible). Therefore, the Christian law consists of five basic principles. They are: 1. "The source of all divine law is the character and nature of God" (Noebel 287). 2. The moral order reflects the character of God-which include His holiness, justice, truth, love, and mercy. 3. We are created in the image of God and we are significant. "God established human government to protect human life, rights, and dignity" (287). 4. When Jesus took human form, human life assumed even greater significance. God the Creator became God the Redeemer (John 1:14)" (287). 5. God will, through Christ, judge the world (human race) according to "His standard of good and evil (Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, 2 Corinthians 5:10)" (287). Finally, the last thing about the Christian approach to law, is that the only time one can go agianst a law is if it goes against Scripture.
The Islamic view and approach to law differs from the Christian perspective. Shari'ah law is taken from four different sources. These include the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Ijima, and Qiyas. In the Islamic worldview, there is no individual freedom. Also, there are five categories of human behavior in the Islamic religion. They are: 1. Acts that are commanded or required. These include things such as the five pillars of Islam. 2. There are acts that are recommended, such as charitable acts above those commanded. 3. There are those that are forbidden, which include thievery, drinking wine, or sexual immorality. 4. There are those that are disapproved, such as divorce, which is permitted but not recommended. Finally 5. There are those acts that are indifferent, with either positive or negative consequences. The word Shari'ah refers to the "body of laws that Muslims believe are applicable, while fiqh is the human endeavor to understand and apply those laws" (291). All in all, Islam lacks indivual freedom, and does not reveal the nature of God, only his will. To conclude, the Islamic law is different than that of the Christian law in that it is Rex Lex, or in other words, the law is not above the king. Christians on the other hand believe in Lex Rex, the idea that the law is above the king and that everyone is subject to the law.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)