History 1

First of all, it really is completely impossible for history to be completely objective, and for someone to expect this of history is ignorant and …well, stupid. Just like with any accident when witnesses are asked what happened, although they all saw exactly what took place, each retelling is going to sound a little bit different depending on the person. Does this mean that that accident is pointless or it never occurred because no one seems to know what happened? Of course not, this is to be expected of human beings, perspectives are different and actually this confirms it took place because so many people witnessed it. As for the winners part of her objection and in keeping with my analogy, the retelling of the story will be different if one of the witnesses was a close relative of the victim, their story would be full of emotion and sympathy and so on. If another witnesses, however, was one of a stranger or even one of the vengeful criminal's sidekicks, their story is probably going to sound a lot different, probably bitter, maybe even sarcasm and such. This is the same with history, depending on who witnessed it and then retold it, of course the retellings of the events, people and wars in history are each going to sound a little different, but that’s only because of the natural bias that people place (just like in my analogy). You can't take the bias out of the person and you cant (really) take the bias out of history. These miniscule differences and biases don’t change, generally speaking, any of the important content of events, dates and occurrences, so with that history is vitally important to any nation's success and should not be disregarded because someone's naïve idea that it isn't objective, because it never will be. Yes, attempts can be made but the simple fact of the matter is that whether or not it objectivity is attempted, history is needed and is written by both the winners, the losers and the observers who weren't involved.

Economics 2

Simply put, socialism won't work because it is innately impossible to execute on this earth.  Man is inherently stained by sin and really is incapable to equally sharing anything for an extended period of time. Sooner or later, evil nature will kick in, and greed and perversion and abuse of power will take over. It’s a fantasy.

            But to address the things that Mark, Sarah and Mr. Moore all brought up: how would the State owning everything teach anyone to share anything equally? Does a parent tying their 12 year old child's every time teach their child how to tie their shoe? No, it teaches them how to wait for their parent whenever they need their shoe tied. Just like having the state own everything would NOT teach the public to share everything but to instead depend on the state to do every other menial task. Also, it would be physically impossible to share everything equally people of man's cheating, greedy and selfish nature, someone is bound to cheat the system! Human being can't comply! Additionally to reveal why socialism cant work is, if the state did own everything to "teach" the people to share equally, wouldn't that create an unequal society? For if the state owned everything, they would have power over everything and that would contradict socialism/communism's dream of a classless society.

            Furthermore, a redistribution of wealth and taking the wealth out from under the evil minority upper class  to share with the rest sounds nice, but how would that actually fix anything? How could that actually come into fruition? On a side note, this idea is based off the belief that the rich upper class did nothing to earn this wealth. It's assumed that as Michael Moore said, they're just "sitting on the money… with no interest in helping you… with your life". Why is it their responsibility to help everyone? Plus, if everyone were equal, you have to base that standard of equality on the lowest member. I don’t think socialism and communism would be as popular or politically correct as it is if it was made known that if we were to create a standard of equality, we would probably all be living in dirt huts with hardly any water or necessities. Also, the upper classes' wealth is NOT a national resource, each receives and calls their own what they bought or worked for. Lastly, if all wealth was distributed equally, the economy would die immediately for competition is what runs and makes an economy thrive. However, that would be lost in socialism.

            Overall, socialism is a childish approach to fixing national economic issues and it would never work.

Mr. Moore's Socialism "argument"

Throughout the duration of the almost 3 minutes that Mr. Moore spoke, he made so many overarching statements that it was hard to keep up, so in my response I'll do my best to straighten some of his more prominent generalities…

          Moore's opening statement that socialism is democracy, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism was quite interesting, considering there actual beliefs and worldviews. When he said this, one the first essays we read came to mind where it was the analogy of the 3 blind men exploring different parts of an elephant and each declaring what it was. If you take any idea or belief and dilute enough, he's right, it will match up with socialism or any other idea…but the key word here is diluting. There's a reason why they all can't seem to wholly agree or get along (in general), its because they don’t all advocate the same things. Furthermore, his statement (that wasn’t grammatically correct by the way J) that structuring an economy that "you and I run" by "we the people" are essentially the tenets of socialism blew me away. Firstly, he completely misquoted with what seems like no understanding of our constitution that supports society working independently and interdependently, to be self sufficient in order to achieve happiness, life and enjoying these liberties, not mooching off the hard work of another. That’s just laziness. Also, to use Moore's words, "you and I" can't fully structure anything because "you and I" will never fully agree or accomplish anything completely because "you and I" have different perspectives. That’s where independence  and work comes in.

          However, apart from all of this, I do have to give props to Moore for how he presented his point of view (I wont call it an argument because it wasn’t). He told his audience that socialism is about preventing the "rich man" from taking "9 slices of the pie and leaving the remains for the rest" and tying in all the trigger names: Christianity, founding fathers, islam, the common good and so on. Also, instead of pointing out the negative context of socialism or even mentioning in the slightest what would need to occur in order for socialism/communisim to take place, he literally says to not "box it up" and we "shouldn’t get caught up in the terms" which distracted the audience from the negative and focused them on the nice, happy- go- lucky things he was saying. He victimizes the "poor" and propagates that it’s the whole entire nation's goal to care solely for them and he in turn, criminalizes all the rest.

Clever, not original, but clever.

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be?

          Before I describe what the actual ramifications of a supposed "global secular government" would be, I must first address that there could never be such a thing. Any attempt at such a utopian ideal of a global government is going to end in failure because of and inherent problem with man's sinful, selfish, greedy, stubborn and evil nature. Although the ideas sound wonderful about everyone in every nation getting along, in order to do this, people would need to compromise, which would strain man's "niceness" and end in a convoluted mess. This relates to what we discussed earlier in the year about everyone accepting everyone else's truth or religion, the end result really amounts to nothing because by the time each society found something to agree on, that thing is worthless because it has been so watered down. Similarly, by the time each society agreed on every law and such, the "government" would either amount to nothing or end in anarchy because no one can be so magnanimous or able to agree on a global consensus. Also, the need for each nation to give up its religion, weapons, and cultural beliefs is simply, impossible.

          But now to address the possible ramifications of a global secular government, there would probably be two outcomes, with one being the most likely. First, the most likely, would be a global government under the tyrannical rule of one or few leaders who would control EVERYTHING.  This amount of control inevitably, again because of our sinful nature, would result in corruption and greed. Therefore, widespread corruption and selfishness, immorality and greed would be rampant as well. Other ramifications would be loss of every kind of freedom, oppressive regulations, compromises or watering down of religion (resulting in the persecution of Christians). Becoming almost an extreme "big brother" reality. *Secondly, it also could result in no government at all, where because so much compromise and "agreements" have been made, the reality of human nature has been ignored and nations still adhere to their own rules/beliefs/religions but pay lip service to the global government… so anarchy but secret anarchy. This to me is almost the scariest because unlike "big brother" where its requirements are definite and absolute, with this lip service scenario it's secretive and ambiguous.

*Please excuse this last scenario, I had an idea and was trying to think outside the box for you here but I believe all I posted was just a word-full mess.

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?

First off, in order to dissolve this “argument” we need to examine all the parts, the first being that “the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights”. How can personal control over your own body be associated with civil rights? Secondly, why does “forcing” a women to continue a pregnancy (or enforcing common sense or forethought) necessitate or result in “forcing a woman to use contraception” etc.? These things do not flow into a coherent argument! This “argument” totally ignores the real question and instead fills it up with illogical, absurd conclusions that distract you (at first it distracted me too!) from breaking it down logically. The focus is all on the “women’s right” her “reproductive choice” and how banning abortion would oppress and inhibit her “choice”. The argument completely ignores what is actually being addressed, aborting an unborn child. So they are in fact begging the question of what really is being aborted, or what is the unborn? They are assuming that there is only one body involved in the act of abortion! In turn, the debate is no longer about “choice” and who gets to decide. We need to identify what would actually be killed in a supposed women’s choice.

So to break down this argument, I am going to address what here, is being ignored, I am going to define what the unborn is:

Scientifically to begin, the law of biogenesis reveals that living things reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, humans reproduce humans, so if the abortion argument says that fetuses are not human, than what are they? The fetus can be nothing less than human, born or unborn. So back to the question, taking away a women’s supposed reproductive choice is not in fact taking it away but guarding the sanctity of human life that would be destroyed if she acted that out (which in this case really bottom-lines to aborting babies).

I would continue philosophically with the acronym Mr. Klusendorf gave to describe the only differences between the unborn fetus and a newborn:  S.L.E.D. In reference to Size, large people are no more human than small people, so a fetus, being smaller than a newborn, can be no less human than a dwarf/little person to a fully matured adult. Next, Level of development, in keeping with these laws and rules, a four year old is also no less a human being than a 14 year old which is the same case as a fetus being no less human than a newborn baby. Thirdly, as for Environment, where you are does not change your nature, or who you are. A child that is in grocery store in the U.S is no less human than a child that is a market in Switzerland! Therefore, a newborn in an incubator is no less human than a child outside the womb! Lastly, Dependency, those who are diabetics, have kidney failure and those with insulin issues who are dependent on machines, people and organizations to sustain their life but are still human. Dependent, but none the less still human. Just the same with unborn fetuses, they are dependent on other people and machines to sustain them but they are still humans; "because you have a human nature that was present from the moment you were conceived that allows us to say that we are the same person now that was conceived 19-20 years ago. The only difference is function- your abilities have changed but your essential nature is the same."

In conclusion, now that we have defined what the unborn is, the person's illogical argument for a woman's "choice" can provide no reason to kill an innocent unborn fetus.

What is the difference between how the word "equality" and "justice" are used? How should we as Christians "do justice"?

According to the CLS as presented in the article, "equality" and "justice" are defined by their social and individualized subjectivity, and that "legal reasoning" (the strong fortress of objective rationality as equality and justice should be) is instead "a fragile structure fraught with contradictory and arbitrary categorizations that are endlessly redefined and reworded". Under this thought, these terms are twisted and misconstrued to support the "satus quo" and to support the whims of feminist and left wing agendas. Also "equality" and "justice", as summarized as the "law" in this article, is seen and simply a collection of beliefs and prejudices that covers the injustices of society with a mask of legitimacy! It is viewed as "an instrument of oppression used by the wealthy and the powerful to maintain their place in the hierarchy"! These Marxist postmodern ideas have began to rot the foundation of absolute truth which is seen in the verses listed.

          Conversely, according to God and his word "equality" and "justice" are not mere social comfort meters but steadfast, absolute, authoritative foundations that guide and direct man on earth. As evidenced in Deut 10:12-19, the Lord asks of us that we "fear the LORD your God" that we "walk in obedience to him" and love, serve him with all our heart and soul. These commands can be based off the immoral opinions of the nations but off God's simple, yet difficult task of obeying, loving and serving him! With that command, all else can really fall into place! The reason why we obey him is not because we don’t want to offend the ideas of others but because our God is the "Lord of Lords" and he is great, "mighty and awesome who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes" (Deut. 10:17). He defines what is just, right, what is good and how to act justly! So in keeping with his word, that is how Christians should "do justice" by doing what he asks of us in Deut, Jeremiah, Micah and James! It all comes down to obeying, serving and loving with him with all our heart soul in mind. Equipped with that, we can not only act justly, but discern and sift out the lies that CLS screams at our society.

What are the differences between the Islamic view and approach to law and the Christian view and approach to law?

          The Islamic view and approach to the law is largely based off of their view of man and world view in general. Firstly, although Islam does recognize that God is the ultimate lawgiver, it holds that Allah has not revealed himself and his nature but rather his law, which lends itself perfectly to a cold, detached system of rules and regulations that Islamic, or Shari'ah law is. The Shari'ah law, which is a combination of four main works (Koran, hadith, ijma', and the qiyas) attempts to depend exclusively on the Koran and on the works/practices of Muhammad (the others) but it simply doesn't cover all the legal issues mankind creates. There is no solid basis for their legal standards or foundation; instead it’s a fusion between the telling and practices of another human being. In effect, Muslims are expected and oppressively forced to adhere to an uncountable number of rules in an attempt to please an unknowable God, yet it impossible because man, inherently, will fail. Yet also, the Islamist model for their legal/religious/ moral system "is predicated on the belief in government by morally impeccable individuals who can be counted on to resist temptation, it does not generate institutions capable of functioning autonomously by means of structural checks and balances" (295). This is where we see the Rex Lex idea come in because the leaders are not held completely accountable to their legal system for one because it's impossible.  All personal rights and liberties are denied and there is a complete lack of personal freedom. The idea is simply not par of the Muslim legal traditions.

          In contrast, Christianity is the only worldview that provids a basic for law that both respects human dignity (created in the image of God) and human depravity (our fall into sin). Mankind has the right to life and life more abundantly in this worldview. This can only happen here because the Christian view and approach to law is solidly founded on the divine and infinite nature of God where he gave us his divine laws and the means of discovering them. Instead of creating a choppy and contradictory set of rules, God gave us his word to follow and create our earthly legal systems after. He gave us a framework, there's no guess work involved (in general, of course mankind creates all sorts of issues). This "fixity", as Noebel calls it, produces a system that doesn’t fluctuate but it remains constant in its purpose and goal. His system is orderly and equitable and therefore each person has the right to be judged by the same standard of justice, this is where Lex Rex comes in (all are under the law).  However, what also sets Christianity apart is that it recognizes that morality and legality are not synonymous (as attempted to couple by muslims), that a specific law cannot enforce every moral action, the human race will fail but is redeemable. As for a legal system here on earth, the Christian law should stabilize society and promote justice while leading us to reinforce an understanding of our fallen nature and need for a Savior! J