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!

Law #2 post

You ask if laws are up to the determination and interpretation of each individual. First of all, it must be noted that there are two different kinds of laws: man's law and God's law. God has put our governmental system in place in order to ensure that our country remain safe and prosperous. However, man is sinful, and often man's laws will go against God's laws. Since the beginning of creation, God has structured rules in which we are to follow. Contrary to popular belief, God's laws are strict but they are not put into place to make life miserable! Instead, God has put these rules into place in order that we may be more like Him as we strive to be "lights" for God in this sinful world.

We are called to follow both man's law and God's law if they agree on a particular issue. However, partially laws are up to the interpretation of an individual. This is especially true from a Christian standpoint, because often laws that the government (or man) makes go against what God says. In this case, it is up to an individual to go against what the government says and follow God's law first and foremost, as this is one of the things he calls us to do. For instance, issues of abortion and homosexual marriage becoming legal are at the forefront of government discussion today. If laws regarding these topics do end up passing, we must be ready to go against these laws and follow God's laws instead, as He clearly commands us not to indulge in these practices.

On the other hand, laws are not up to the interpretation of individuals if both God's law and man's law rule the same about a certain issue. Both God's law and man's law, for instance, forbid the murder of human beings. If we choose to commit this crime, and interpret the law ourselves, we are going against not only man's law but God's law as well! God has put the government in place for our own safety and we must be prepared to follow the laws that the government sets out for us. Much controversy arises when a law is passed by the government yet God has not said anything on the topic. For instance, traffic laws: are we to follow them or not? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, there were no need for traffic laws! In this case, we must interpret that traffic laws are there for our safety, and God calls us to submit to the laws of our authority. Following them will not only set a good example for others, but ensure that we are safer in this sinful world.

Rules are both up for interpretation and not to a certain extent. We must realize that although we cannot see God, He is just as much there and governing over us as the government we can watch on CSPAN. We must remember, furthermore, that God is our creator and redeemer, and we must follow His laws even when the government chooses not to!

Law

You say that Sarah thinks that laws are created only by societies. As a secular humanist, her views of law are rightly this. Secular humanists believe in what is known as "positive law" in which man, or society, devises his own rules. For a secular humanist, law and rules bring order to their lives, yet they are subject to change. Positive law rotates on the fact that only humans know what is best for their society, so they clearly reject the idea of divine law, or the idea that God governs His people and has put into place a set of rules that we, as His people, must follow.

In answer to your question, governments are not the ultimate authority for creating laws. As Christians we believe in divine law, or natural law, which holds to the idea that God, our supreme creator, not only created the Heavens and the Earth, but law as well, and put the idea of law to use through the creation of absolute laws, or rules that we must follow. God laid out his plan for creation, and put rules into place from the very beginning. Adam and Eve, after breaking God's only rule, were banished from the garden because they went against God's set rules. We of course see this idea of rule breaking and punishment still alive today. After the Garden of Eden, God laid out a list of rules in the Ten Commandments that he gave to Moses to safeguard and teach to the people. It is easy to think of God as a strict parent that keeps us all on a tight leash, but in reality the laws that God makes mirror His nature. We can therefore be more like God if we choose to follow the rules that He has set out for us, and it is this that He wants us to do.
While it may seem that governments make the rules in our country, it is ultimately to God that we should be answering to. God of course wants us to respect the leaders that he has put into place to help govern us, but whenever something in the law contradicts God's word we should be prepared to go against the government to follow our Creator and ultimate law giver. God is the ultimate authority for the creation of laws as he created even the idea of law itself, and although government may try to persuade us differently, is it God to whom we answer in the end!

How Should Christians Respond to Feminism?

Christians should respond to feminism in a rather cautious way, yet still in a way that declares the truth. First of all, it must be noted that God created man and women to bear his image equally. Furthermore, not only were men and women created in God's image, but they were called to different tasks. This is often something feminists forget, focusing more in the lack of equality seen between gender today. God calls us to different roles, specific roles, and we must remember that God created each of us with a purpose, whether or not we know exactly what our purpose is. God did not create every person on this Earth to be employed in the same job, live in the same place, eat the same food, or drive the same cars! We were created to live in this world that He created, spreading His gospel as we strive to improve the world and our relationship with our creator despite the sin-infested world in which we live. We, as Christians, need to respond to feminism by making known these ideas: that God calls us not to be cookie cutter robots, but individuals with specified tasks. Feminists need to realize that God sees both genders that he has created as equal, and loves everything that he has made!

Christians must also bring to light the fact that women and men cannot find fulfillment in the same things. While women find fulfillment in relationships, men find ultimate fulfillment in a job, or career. God designed men and women differently, to carry out different purposes, and therefore no matter how hard radical feminists try, men and women cannot be exactly the same: we are not internally wired to be the same!

Throughout Genesis 2, God speaks of the creation of man, and the specific tasks that he has laid out for man to complete. While man is to be the "little king" or head of the household, women are meant to be the helpers, and completers of man. Each gender is therefore equally dependant on the other to complete the tasks that they were not internally wired to do. Despite what feminists claim, God does not say that men cannot care for the children and women cannot have a successful career. Rather, He brings to light the idea that men and women were created differently in regards to their responsibilities and what they may excel at, yet are equally made in God's great image. This is what Christians need to teach to the feminist community in order that they learn the truth about gender differences and how males and females can peacefully coexist in society.

Sexist? Homophobic? Blog

I would completely disagree with this claim. From first glance, certain sections of the Bible may seem to preach sexism and homophobic tendencies, but in depth reading of Genesis and Romans, as well as sections in Psalms most certainly prove otherwise. The first few chapters of Genesis are vital to understanding God's word as they discuss creation, the fall of man, and finally, redemption. In regards to the claims of sexism, I would explain that everything in the Bible applies to both male and female. Men and women were both created to equally bear the image of God, yet each does it differently and uniquely. While men are to be the responsible, leaders of the household, women are called to be a warrior: a helper and completer of man, not to mention a life giver! God truly created men and women as equals as seen though Genesis and the fact that God calls both men and women to the same tasks, under one great, and fair God.

In regards to the claim of homophobia, I would agree that the church is often viewed as an institution that condemns homosexuality, however I do not believe that the church is "homophobic." The home is arguably the most important institution within Christianity and therefore family and marriage are sacred in God's eyes. From the first marriage of Adam and Eve through Psalms and Romans, marriage is seen as the union between a man and a woman rather than that of the same sex. Genesis 1:24 speaks of a man leaving his family to be united with his wife and it is truly a model of the beliefs of the church regarding marriage. Therefore, I believe that with a traditional view of marriage, Christians are not homophobic but simply choose to keep the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, sacred.

Sociology Blog Post

I very much believe that it is in the state's best interest to be more involved in parenting even to the point of controlling what is taught in the home. From a Christian perspective, this is especially important because the Christian worldview sees each, individual person as valuable and able to contribute in some way to socitey. Children learn, grow, and develop in their homes and familial life can either have a negative or positive impact on each child. God places much value on not only individuals but of the institution of the "traditional" family as well. Therefore, we are called to protect and guide this institution in order to keep it grounded in the word of God. If parents, whether experienced or not, are allowed to do or teach anything to their children that goes against the word of God without some intervention, we as Christians are not accurately carrying out our calling. Unfortunately, children are often times taught immoral and ungodly practives at school, and if these practices are also taught or encouraged in the home, then children will not know any differently and will continue to head down the path of sin.

From another stand point, state governments should truely want to become more involved in parenting. These children who are being raised in a family will someday become the next generation of adults, and leaders of the community. For society to continue running smoothly, it is vital to have in place solid, well educated leaders with ethically right values and morals. Therefore, state governments must take the initiative to step into familial situations where children are not learning or being raised as they ought to, and take action. Just as it is our responsibility as Christians to protect and direct the institution of family, so is it the government's responsibility to not only represent the people, but to guide them as well!