History #1

There is truth to Paige's statement that history has been written and obscured by the winners, but that is absolutely not the case in every significant piece of history. Sure, some accounts of history may have been over exaggerated out of pride but for the most part, the negative aspects of history have more truth and meaning than the positives. For example, the most accurate holocaust accounts have been from those who were prisoners or those who were first hand witnesses to the horrors that were going on within the concentration camps. Other examples would be the great depression and the terrorist attacks on the twin towers. Those events tore our nation apart, yet mark significant points in our history as we were able to overcome those hardships and rise out the shadow of defeat. These were in no sense "winners" yet they gave the most accurate and moving accounts that became permanent in history. It is important to know the truth, whether it be the triumphant successes or the sorrowful tragedies; both have been very impactful to history.

Economics #2

This guy really is serious isn't he. He honestly believes that every single person under this government can live equally and spread the wealth around equally and be happy. Sorry, but that is completely illogical and absurd. Human nature is evil, plain and simple. There's no way that those who work hard could be content with making the exact same amount as someone who choses to work at the easiest job in the world. That would not be fair at all and there is no way for human nature to accept that and to simply move on and not care. People are greedy and they are always looking to satisfy their pride by identifying themselves above others through money and belongings. Furthermore, socialism also means that the government would be in complete control of our lives. They would decide the amount everyone gets paid despite the time and effort put into one's job; they would own everyone's belongings so that not one person would have more than another; and they would take away the ambitious' pride and individuality.   

Economics #1

Michael Moore said a handful of interesting things, most of which I disagree with. First off, he states that socialism is democracy, is Christianity, is Buddhism, and is every other different religion because in the end he believe all religions are exactly the same. Uh I don't think so! I don't even how he can even begin to argue that statement, because there are many distinctions that differentiate each religion from each other. This claim was rather frustrating how ignorant he is to the different religions. As a Christian I do not worship Allah or Buddha or believe in evolution or anything else that a Christian does not believe in. However, I do see a small validity to his point in that all people have the same sinful nature despite their religion, that causes the rich to take 9 slices of pie for themselves and leave the last piece for other to fight over. Socialism on the other hand, suggests that we all should divide the pie equally despite any social difference. This would mean that everyone would make the same amount of money and reap the same benefit whether you are a well educated lawyer or janitor. Not fair at all. Sure it may seem like it is "for the common good" but it would cause more destruction than reparation as people would become less passionate about pursuing well needed and prominent careers that are needed to help society run smoothly and successfully.

Global Secular Government

The idea of a global secular government is completely absurd, and kind of funny actually. Just the thought of everyone in the world cooperating with each other and living in harmony is a huge long shot and fantasy, just like John Lennon's song, imagine. There is so much corruption in this world, the only way for a utopia to happen is if groups of radicals were destroyed and every country in the world gave up their power and leverage over one another to establish one government, just simply won't happen. Also the fact that there will be lots of rebellion as well as contradicting world views, lifestyles, and ethics that will cause people to clash rather than live in peace. 

Abortion

1. 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? 


Obviously, if a woman does not want a child in the first place, they should take careful precautions before hand to ensure the risk of becoming pregnant is diminished as much as possible. This would reduce any controversy over abortion altogether. However, there are many spontaneous acts of sexual intimacy where there is no protection available or if a couple takes a risk that goes wrong or just merely does not feel like using protection. All these examples lead to unwanted pregnancies and not to mention rape victims as well. So no, the government cannot force women to use contraception or undergo sterilization, but they can force a woman to continue a pregnancy without taking away her right of "choice". Would it be right to say a woman has the right to choose between killing her infant child, because she is unable to properly care for him and give him the love he deserves? Absolutely not. That is murder, plain and simple. In the same way, aborting a human fetus is in no way different then murdering a small child. Oh wait, a fetus is not considered a human being and is therefore not considered murder? I don't think so. As said by the law of biogenesis: Any offspring that comes from a species is of that same species and nothing else. The unborn fetus in a woman can be nothing other than a human being. That being said, there are four different qualities of an unborn to a born human; size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependancy. First of all, is a new born baby less human than a grown man due to it's significant size difference? No. During the pregnancy, the unborn is substantially smaller than any born human, but it is still human despite the size difference.  Does the mental state of a two year make it any less human than to that compared of a college students? No. Same goes with the unborn, it is obviously less intelligent due to less experiences, but they are still human. Is a baby who is kept alive in an incubator less human than a baby who can live and breathe on its own? No. The fetus is no different then a premature human baby living in an incubator, it is just receiving it's nourishment from a different location. Finally, Is a diabetic who lives off insulin, less human that a healthy man? No. Similarly, the unborn is still human even though it relies on the umbilical cord to survive, and is no different that a diabetic who relies on insulin. No that we've proven that the unborn fetus is no less human that you and I, giving a woman the right to "choose" abortion, is no different than letting her choose between killing a young child out of mere inconvenience. It's murder, all in the same.  

Law #4

Within the Critical Legal Studies article, equality is understood as justice from a racial, ethnic, religious, and feministic (etc), viewpoints. The main point is that without equality towards a group of people, there is not justice. Equality promotes justice and justice cannot be achieved if there is no equality. For example, during the civil rights movement, the whites were unequal towards the blacks and the only possible way for justice to be served was for equality to be put into practice. They say justice is also following man's laws, and anything that contradicts that is unjust. 


On the other hand, the Bible says otherwise. Deuteronomy 10:12-19 says "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 that I am giving you today for your own good." We are not supposed to follow the justification of man's laws, but follow the ones God has already given us; observe and live by them for they are for our own good. Furthermore, "This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right" (Jeremiah 22:3). Going back to Deuteronomy, we are told to do what is just and right in the eyes of the Lord from the moral laws that he has given us. Furthermore, Micah 6:8 tells us "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." If we are to love mercy than we must first be willing to humble ourself and accept it. This could go hand in hand with equality and how God wants us to treat each other equally as we would want to be treated, for everyone was created by God and no one is superior to the other. If we view everyone as equal, we would have no problem loving the mercy of others. 

Law #2

Are legal standards limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual? No. If laws were based on the determination and interpretation of each individual then there technically would be no laws at all. Everyone could completely change the meaning of a law if it was based on their "interpretation" such as assuming the law do not run red lights could simply be understood as don't run a red light when there are cars around, if no one is there and its safe then go right ahead. It could also be as drastic as saying it means don't wear a red shirt, completely changing the meaning as if it never existed in the first place. Apart from the laws that man gives us, the moral laws of what is right and wrong that God gave to all of us should be used to help interpret the laws of man. For example, if man creates an absurd law such as making it wrong to give away your possessions to others then our morals should kick in and urge us to disobey that law if there is someone in obvious need of help. God wants us to help others and do unto others as we would like them to do unto us and this would alter our interpretation of mans absurd law as morally unjust and give us the determination to disobey man's law for the overall good. Therefore if any law contradicts what God would want us to do, then we are urged to follow what the Bible says rather than man. 

Law Posts

Governments are not responsible for creating laws, nor are they the ultimate authority for creating them (accept for tax laws or things that are not based on ones morals). First and foremost, laws have always been engrained into society, even before any form of government existed. God gave each of us a sense of what is right or wrong and we do not need to be told by a person of higher authority to figure it out on our own. For example, the small child that has not been blunty told that stealing is wrong, once he disobeys his parents orders not to eat a cookie before dinner, is overwelmed by an unbearable amount of guilt. This is proof that we all have universal morals, or a conscience that was given to us as a gift from God so we can descern right from wrong. Moreover, no one needs to be told that killing is wrong, thats just a natural instinct all sane human being have. Now back to the government's role in all this. They are merely responsible for enforcing the natural laws that we've carried since the begining of time, not creating them. By having a government to enforce the laws, we have a way to punish those who break the rules and keep society under control (for the most part). On the other hand, the government does create their own laws such as traffic and tax laws that haven't neccessarily been naturally excersized since the begining of time, but it is along the same lines that our conscience still acts on it's own and natural instincts kick in and ultimately tell us it's obviously wrong and unsafe to drive fast or run red lights. All in all, God is the ultimate authority that creates the laws that have inspired our hearts to direct us to what is righteous and deflect us from what is morally unjust.

Feminism

Going through Genesis 1-3, it is very clear that society's natural inclination of woman contrast greatly with the purpose that god laid out for them in the Bible. Feminist today  strongly fight for "equality" between both men and women, arguing that they deserve to be involved in the workforce just as much as men. On the other hand, the Bible tags women as Adam's "helper", "completer" or "warrior." Women are intended to take up roles as the "housewife" and attain the responsibilities of caring and nurturing their children fighting to protect them like a warriors, and also satisfy her husband desires that she too longs to complete. Feminists focus way too much on the their differences between males as a negative thing in a sense that they are not equal, where as they should view their unique differences as an opportunity live out their purpose that God intended for them to benefit their families.

Sexist+Homophobic=Church?

Even though the Church may appear to be homophobic and sexist, that is not true at all. We do not shun the person who is a homosexual, rather we shun their actions and decisions. We, as followers of Christ, are called to accept and love everyone despite their beliefs, but it is important that we don't associate ourselves with them.

I disagree with the statement that it is "the states best interest to be more involved in parenting, even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home." The way a parent raises their child should be their choice, not the government's. Everyone has their own beliefs and it is wrong for the government to force a family to raise their child by specific precepts that conform to the governments desires yet contradict the parents' beliefs. That means our first amendment rights of speech and religion would go down the drain if they were able to control how we instruct our kids and any religious morals of the parents have any. However, if the government had to be involved with families and personal life and decisions, I believe the only thing they could control or manipulate would be the methods to which a parent raises their child. Simply, condemning punishment methods such as severe beatings that is considered abuse as opposed to spankings or non health or physical threatening punishments. Thats probably all the government could do. Definitely not control the morals by which parents raise their kids or behavior and corrective punishment, that is completely absurd.