History #1

To begin, I don't think Paige realizes what she is really saying here. As a Postmodernist, she does not believe in metanarratives, absolute truths, or pushing beliefs that she has on others. Her argument, on the other hand, does exactly this. Here, she is most certainly making a truth claim about the state of history, which is contradictory to her belief system.

As for her argument, I personally believe that for the most part history is reasonably and fairly written, as well as objectively true. History, in and of itself, has a system of checks and balances which makes this possible, including the fact that it was written by everyone: winners and loosers alike. It would be unfair to completely discredit Paige's statement because of course some of history is written by the winners, but then again, some of it is not! However, to add on to this, I think the real argument against Paige's statement resides in the fact that history, for the most part, is and was written by eyewitnesses of events that have occured. What better evidence, what better credence is there then from eyewitnesses to events in history?

One of the best examples of the reliability of eyewitnesses is during the past wars that have become a part of our history. The Civil War, and both of the World Wars have been documented in history because of eyewitnesses who have taken the time to write down their accounts of what has happened, whether or not their side was winning the battle, or ultimately the war. It is when countless accounts of historical happenings from different points of view match up (which has happened in all of these named wars), that history comes alive as being a true, reliable, and objective source.

Think for a minute about the city of Troy. For years people believed it to be fake-to be a made up story by author Homer, in his book the Illiad. However, in 1870, archeologist Heinrich Schliemann found reminants of an ancient city, using clues and directions he found refrenced in Homer's books. Though people may claim history to be fake, and not objectively true, even true tales of lost cities from long ago match up with what authors say.

In closing, it is important to realize that people, like Paige, may have their own opinions about the importance of events in history, but you cannot doubt the facts: the eyewitness proved, objective facts.

Economics #2

Oh Marxists--When will they learn? It is quite typical of Marxists, namely Mark and Sarah in this case, to believe that the government should not only equally distribute wealth, but that the State should own everything (meaning no private property). Yes of course this sounds like a utopia in which the poor would no longer be poor and the rich would no longer be hierarchial over the rest of society, but I wonder if they ever stop to think about what could go wrong with this type of government (an economic system for that matter).

In regards to Mark and Sarah's question of whether socialism works, or whether it doesn't, I strongly believe that socialism does not work and cannot work. This is mostly because of the fact that this world is populated by corrupt human beings. Many worldviews fail to agree with this, yet it is absolutely true. With such a foundation as corrupt man, of course an economic system of equality has no chance of surviving! Something Moore said on the subject of wealth really struck me. He claims that a problem with today's economic system is the fact that a "vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people." To this I wanted to say to him, yes this may be true, but how would spreading the wealth to every competitive, sinful human being work any better?! Even now in a democracy, the poorer people of this country (not all of course, but many) rely on the handouts of the government, and abuse the welfare system of this nation. With a nation of corrupt human beings, how would creating equality in the workplace get rid of the natural tendencies man has toward sin? Towards always wanting more, and never satisfied with what they already have?

I think another problem with socialism, which causes it not to work, is the removal of competition by enforcing equality within the "working man's world." The removal of competition ultimately takes away the motivation that drives people to get up, go to work, and provide for their families. The removal of competition not only removes motivation, but it removes the possibility for increased profit. With an opportunity to compete in the American business world today, business have the opportunity to make an increased profit, which in turn pumps money into the economy, and into the government as well through various required taxes. Socialism, unfortunately, allows for none of this.

Lastly, socialism does not work because as it takes away private ownership, it also takes away the self worth that people find in ownership. People obviously take pride in their possessions, and many even find their own worth in their possessions (whether or not this is healthy is for another blog). Removing the opportunity for private possessions is therefore oppressive, ironically the opposite of what socialism (and Marxism) claims to do.

Economics #1

"Socialism is democracy" began Mr. Moore in his video which inspired the crowd as he fervently spread his socialistic ideals to the masses. I had always thought that socialism was simply a way of viewing the economic system, but in fact it is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital, land, ect. in the community as a whole. Knowing that we here in America live under a Democracy (or at least say we do), this statement puzzled me. However, I was even more shocked (and intrigued) as he stated the following: "Socialism is Christianity and Judaism, and Islam and Buddhism. All great religions say same things that Marx said..." First of all, I applaud Mr. Moore's efforts to harmonize his speech by introducing all religions equally, but I believe after learning more about the economic systems of different religious groups that this statement may not necessarily hold true. To begin, each view of economics must embrace either Socialism or Capitalism (free market), yet at the same time no economic system fully embraces one of these forms (except for the Marxist view which embraces only Socialism). To distinguish the two, Capitalism occurs when all or most of the means of production are privately owned. On the other hand, socialism occurs when ownership is controlled by the government (in other words, no private property). Moore falters when he says that Socialism is Christianity. This ultimately says that Christianity remains a just economic system through public ownership which prevents greed, envy, and lust brought on by Capitalism. This however, is not Biblical sound. Throughout both the new and old testament, the Bible preaches about stewardship of property: private property. God has given us the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded through the motivation of private property. Therefore, saying Christianity is Socialism is not only false, but opposing. Yes, Christianity may embrace certain aspects of Socialism just as every economic system does, but it certainly is not based or founded on the Socialist system. Next, Islam. He is right: Islam and Christianity have similar economic systems but they aren't fully Socialistic as he claims in the beginning of his speech. Islam maintains four basic principles when it comes to economics: unity, equilibrium, free will, and responsibility. In direct contrast to Moore's statement, Nobel states in the Understanding the Times textbook, that "Muslims attempt to distinguish their approach to economics from both Capitalism and Socialism, alleging that their view is a mediating approach" (364). In other words, Islam economics mixes both economic systems, rejecting Socialism's denial of private property yet rejecting Capitalism's absolutism when it comes to private property. Clearly, because Islam has pieces of each economic system it cannot be fully Socialistic as Moore says. To continue, Moore claims that "all great religions say the same thing" regarding their economic system of choice. Having already disproved this point through the analysis of Christianity and Islam, I move now to Secular Humanism. Moore is right in some way: Secular Humanism does embrace Socialism because "they believe in the inherent goodness of humanity and in human ability to overcome evil-theoretically the only thing that prevents a socialist economy from succeeding." In essence, they embrace interventionism: political activity undertaken by a state to influence aspects of the economy usually in order to uphold certain moral values. Of course, Marxism upholds Socialism completely while undercutting the Capitalistic system of economics. The real difference, which disproves Moore's point that all religions believe the same about economics is revealed through the Cosmic Humanist approach to economics. Their beliefs of this are shaped by their political goal of creating a world system of self government. In response, they economically call for a "universal system of exchange" through what is know as Universal Enlightened Production, or the belief that positive thought creates wealth. They believe that traditional economic policies like Socialism or Capitalism are inadequate for a "transformed world." Clearly religions do not agree for the most part about what economic system is best. Their stark differences not only prove that they have differing ideals but that they aren't in fact "Socialism" as Moore claims them to be. Religions must not be grouped like that for they are different in every way and must be preserved that way in order to give an accurate depiction to the public.

Global Secular Government?

Despite the faults of today's national government, a global secular government would be dramatically worse. A secular world government is a non-religious, political body that would make, interpret, and enforce a set of laws internationally. The secular belief (and ultimately the belief of this ruling body) revolves around the fact that just as humans evolve, so should government. They claim that we, as human beings, are perfectable, and believe that a global government, unified in the secular belief system, would bring peace to this world. While all of this sounds ideal in the fact that the world would finally become unified, this belief forgets man's innate sinful nature. Because man is sinful, man's law is sinful. Following a sinful set of laws, put into place all over the world, we will not at all be able to "evolve" and create a world of perfection. To continue, a global secular government, not at all rooted in God is inevitably unethical in its practice. The Understanding the Times curriculum claims regarding this, that "to cut off law from its ethical sources is to strike a terrible blow at the rule of law." With a global secular government, there is clearly no ethical accountability. Coincidentally, many worldviews integrate the idea of an ideal government into their political beliefs. Marxists dream of the day when the proletariat will rise up and create the utopia of a classless society. Similarly, Cosmic Humanists work to reach a Collective Consciousness, through the "New World Order," which is their own ideal government. It is important to realize that however similar these religions may be in terms of political beliefs, they are really quite different.

Although a global secular government claims to create equality in the political system, it ultimately fails. A Secular Humanist government seeks to bring the world to order by changing human relationships. Furthermore, they seek to equalize people, getting rid of dominance and submissiveness, but they again forget to factor in man's sinful nature. Man simply cannot be equalized. As human beings we are prone to the idea of hierarchy, and crave leadership to guide us through life. Furthermore, a global secular government does little to create equality. Such government would ultimately oppress freedom of religion and eradicate the symbols of Christianity in an attempt to equalize every part of society. Government very much uses the "foot in the door policy," meaning that if it can control one area or aspect of society, it can ultimately control the others as well. Such a government would not only be dramatically overbearing, but it would take away the equality we can all experience now under a democracy which gives every citizen access to liberty through freedom of speech and religion to name a few.

One last fault of this government comes through the idea that because of the diversity of the world, unity cannot be an option. All around the world, people have different ideas regarding religion, values, morals, treatment of others, and priorities just to name a few. Another very important difference between the people of this world is the way in which they view government. Different cultures find different ways to implement government successfully, and a political system one country or culture may choose to use may not fit with another culture. The United States functions (arguably) very well under a democracy because of the "melting pot" of cultures in which it houses. However, as seen through the years of conflict with the Middle East, namely Iraq, a democracy would not work because of the Muslim religion, and the Shari'a law which they follow fervently. Despite the fact that we were all made in God's image, we are all different. Therefore, we must embrace these differences and work to create a government that works for our own, unique, individual culture. We must preserve these differences rather than forcibly conform to a global secular government which will in no way create peace in this broken world.

Abortion (argument #2)

I would, for the most part, agree with this claim, however some of the time, under some circumstances, under some situations, this statement does not hold true. It is amazing how much media has picked up on this issues that seems to be rapidly growing. Movies and tv shows alike portray teen pregnancy as if it were really no big deal, but in reality, it can cause great strain on the part of the mother, as well as everyone around her.
I believe it to be true that teen moms are more likely to leave school more often. Becoming a mother takes a certain level of maturity, responsibility, and drive which most teenagers have not acquired yet. When the responsibility of a baby comes into the picture on top of schoolwork, sports, friends, family, and extracurricular activities, teen mothers often snap under the weight of what they must deal with. Caring for the baby (if they plan on keeping it) becomes the priority as it very may well take a toll on their life and health as well. As a result, a mother who cannot go to school cannot get a job and support her baby, especially if the teen does not have a supportive family, or if a father figure for the baby is not in place.
As to the second claim regarding prenatal care, I believe that this varies from situation to situation. Teen mothers who have an emotionally and financially supportive family will most often be able to be provided with adequate prenatal care, making for a better, safer pregnancy. On the other hand, teens living without emotionally and/or financially stabilizing families will most likely be unable to receive the support they need to make it through the long months of pregnancy. This also comes into play with the third claim: that teen mothers rely on public assistance. When teens are unable to find support for themselves and their babies at home, they have no choice but to turn to public assistance. However, a stable home life will more often than not reduce a teen's need of public assistance.
I do agree with the fourth claim, that teen moms are more likely to develop health problems, yet again it rather depends on a situation. A rape victim may not only have physical damage done to them, but the experience may spark emotional problems as well. In the worst case, these emotional problems may lead the young mother to decide to abort the baby. Unfortunately, right now we live in a world where this is a completely acceptable option, and many teens who believe they cannot handle the responsibility of caring for a baby, often turn to this. Of course, this may only increase their emotional problems. Pregnancy in teens especially, can cause a lack of acceptance on the part of society, family members, and even peers. As a result, a pregnant teen may become very depressed, and feel completely ostracized.
I believe that this last claim is quite true: teen moms are more likely to end up getting divorced. To begin, most teens become pregnant by a boyfriend rather than a husband, and although they many have some commitment to each other, it is usually not enough to last through something as stressful and committing as the birth and caring of a human being. High school dating for the most part isn't about finding who you want to marry, but finding out what kind of qualities you are attracted to. For this reason, and the lack of interest in relationship commitment as well as the large responsibility a baby brings into the picture, most teen moms find themselves divorced, alone, and having to care for their baby on their own.
In conclusion, I believe that overall the odds are stacked against teen moms. Depending on their own unique situation however, the level of their depravity can vary. However, it must be noted that our society is beginning to grow and change itself to align with issues like teen pregnancy. Online schooling allows teen moms to receive an education without sacrificing their health or their baby's. Furthermore, free pregnancy clinics, and various types of public assistance and non profit organizations work to ease the stress, both emotion and physical, that teen moms must go through. We must, as Christians, work to raise awareness of the issues that come with teen pregnancy and urge society to take a Biblical approach regarding this issue, showing society that chastity wipes clean all of these problems.

Law #4

Equality and justice are both widely used words in the business of law and most specifically, Critical Legal Studies. Critical Legal Studies seeks, in fact, to embrace equality and justice by overturning social norms that do not represent the nation in the way it should be represented. Additionally, CLS lawyers see great flaws in the liberal legal system that is held on a pedestal today, and embrace the theories of postmodernism instead, aiming to deconstruct the law in order to overturn the oppressors and the oppressed. Equality and justice, however similar they may seem, are slightly different in meaning and use. Equality works to create a sense of "equalness" in quality, rank, or degree, while justice focuses more on the judgement of people, and the administration of punishment or reward. In a perfect legal system, justice works to bring equality to the world-this is how these two terms coincide. Critical Legal Studies lawyers believe that they bring equality to the world by breaking down the hierarchy of law, but equality may not always be right in every situation. In regards to homosexual marriage or abortion, we as Christians know that God does not want His people to partake in these things, but Critical Legal Studies lawyers look at these issues, see that homosexuals, for instance, are feeling "oppressed" and seek to change this by bringing equality to marriage. Similarly, CLS lawyers approach justice radically, as they want to turn the tables of law and make sure that the oppressed are no longer in disparaging situations. However, they will often go to extremes to make sure this happens, and although they may try to break hierarchy in law, it ultimately cannot be broken.


As Christians, we have a large responsibility to "do justice," which the Bible speaks adamantly about. We are, in fact, called to not only fear the Lord, but remember that God shows no partiality to any of His people. Therefore, we are equal in His eyes and are all under the wing of God's defense. We are to recognize this and "do justice" by loving those who are not loved, and change not only the way we view other people, but how the rest of the world views them as well. God doesn't look at the homeless man on the street any differently than he does at you or me, and we must ingrain that into our memories if we are to ever successfully "do justice" in the world. Similarly, Jeremiah commands us to carry out justice in this world by doing what we know to be right, to rescue the oppressed, and not waste our lives doing what we know to be wrong. We need to carry out these things in such a way that we set an example for everyone else! Although Jeremiah commands us to rescue the oppressed, we must not confuse this with the Critical Legal Studies' view of deconstructing law. Yes, we must rescue and help the oppressed, but do it in such a way that we help to sooth the cycle of oppression--not by radically changing the legal system that God has put into place for man to carry out. Micah reminds us that we must remember that God has given us the steps to act justly, and in order to carry out His will of "doing justice" we must be mercy givers to others. Furthermore, as James says we must not only help those who can't help themselves, but we must also keep ourselves from being polluted by the world so that we can set an example for others, and stop the terrible cycle of oppression the right way!

Law #3 Post

It is true that there is much debate occurring today about the Shari'a law which Muslims hold to. In fact, the ways in which Christians and Muslims view the idea of law and approach law are very different. From a Christian standpoint, law is from God, our Creator, and this law shares the very nature of Him. We are accountable not only to God but to those laws as well, and we must follow His laws even when society chooses to go down another path. As Christians, we believe in what is called "natural law" in which God reveals His law and will through revelation. In turn, we can know God's will through our conscience, or our inherent sense of right and wrong.

Shari'a law, or the law that Muslim's hold to, is quite different from Biblical law. It governs every aspect of society from marriage to business to religion. While Christianity affirms that God reveals His will and Himself through the law, Shari'a law says that God has not revealed himself or his nature through law. Because of this, law becomes nothing more than a strict set of rules that must be followed without fail. This causes us to ponder the following question: why follow someone who not only are you not able to see, but you aren't even able to know their nature? Furthermore, while Christianity holds to God's law resolutely, Muslims believe that some passages in their Qur'an can overrule others--therefore, law becomes open to their own interpretation from situation to situation, removing any consistency. Despite the inconsistencies, Shari'a law is not only strict, but most certainly threatening at times. While Christianity finds great freedom within the Christian religion, Muslims cannot find that same individual freedom within their religion. In fact, the idea of freedom of expression is not a part of the Muslim legal tradition. Women and non Muslims especially feel none of the freedom in the Muslim religion that women can in Christianity. Furthermore, this is where Christianity is different: God sets boundaries through law so that we may bear His image respectfully, yet He allows us freedom at the same time. The Biblical worldview provides a law that respects at the same time the greatness and depravity of man, something that the Shari'a law cannot even try to accomplish!