History's Reliability

What Paige says is mostly true-History is often written by the winners. However, this does not even come close to being enough reason to complete discredit the entire study of history. Almost every written work carries a bit of bias (or a lot of bias, depending on what you're reading). However, with that knowledge, we simply begin to look at things with a discerning eye. AS intelligent humans capable of thought and criticism, we are not expected to believe everything that we are told like a baby being spoonfed mashed peas. Instead, if something sounds fishy, we go research it. Look up comparing accounts from the time the histor was recorded. Research archaelogoical evidence for the occurence of events. Look to other sources for their textbook accounts of what went down way back when. But surely, Paige, you would have done all this already. So, if you are still at a loss for why we study history, hear me out. History includes as many downfalls as it does victories. Look at David, in the Bible, for example. A triumphant king, why would he not ask for the account of his affair with Bathsheba to be stricken from the records? Not all winners leave out everything that makes them look bad. If you look at the accounts of the Civil War, for example, there are many battles that the North lost but that are still recorded. If the NOrth wrote history with the sole intent of making themselves look good, why would they not leave these embarassing defeats out of the accounts? History is NOT pointless, furthermore, because human beings learn from their mistakes. If an error in judgment was made way back when, we can try to avoid similar errors today. In addition, even if major events may be fudged a little (the victors army was really 15,000 men, not 5,000), the general outline of the tale stays the same, as does the cultural information. We look at not only the big happpenings of the day, but how people lived and what society was like, and there are no "victors" to fudge the numbers there.

Economics #2

No more Michael Moore!!! He is quite infuriating. Now, for the question: Why doesn't socialism work? The answer is simple: Human beings are corrupt. Yes, the idea of everybody living in harmony and sharing all the time and everyone having enough to eat and a warm bed and fulfilling their responsibilities to the community without monetary reward sounds perfect. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Human beings are greedy, lazy, selfish, and a slew of other unflattering adjectives. Within our society, there are plenty of people who are unwilling to work hard enough to sustain themselves, and rely on the government handouts to survive, or simply live in very poor conditions because they are too lazy to work themselves out of them. (This does not mean that all poor people are lazy, just a portion of them. There are plenty who are simply unfortunate.) These people would be unwilling to pull their weight in the socialist society, and would throw off the entire balance of taking and giving back that is necessary to maintain such a society. Furhtermore, a socialist society requires a government to delegate resources and ensure that everything runs smoothly and fairly. Now, when was the last time a government esixted completely without corruption? I don't believe that even happens in the movies. If the government was even the least bit poisoned by unethical and unfair attitudes, the entire system would be throw off. The government would become the new "corrupt, wealthy" class that Moore so despises. They would have complete control over the nation, including their food, clothing, money, everything. We would be completely reliant on the government's fairness for our livelihood. Now, if you trust your government that much, then I have no argument against socialism for you. But if you, like me, accept man's imperfection and weakness in the face of temptation, then please consider talking some sense into Michael Moore with me.

Economics #1

Michael Moore asserts in this speech that "Socialism is Democracy, Socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism, because all the great religions say essentially the same thing that Marx said...the rich man is not supposed to come into the room and take 9 slices of the pie and leave the last piece for everyone else to fight over." This quotation exhibits a great degree of oversimplification, an is obvious and tasteless bathos, attempting to bring an audience with a less than perfect understanding of these different worldviews to the belief that all these very diverse ideas are the same so as to acheive more followers for his own personal beliefs. This statement cannot possibly be correct because, first of all, Marxism is not simple the idea that rich people should share. Marxism denies the existence of personal property in and of itself, and essentially takes by force that which belongs to the rich to give to the poor. While in an ideal situation force would not be necessary, due to man's sinful nature, human beings cannot acheive this perfect sharing communit, and marxism, which manifests itself in Communism, turns to barbarous force in order to acheive their "utopia." This difference in ethical beliefs sets Marxism and Christianity apart, because Marxism includes pragmatism, the idea that any action done to acheive the right end, the "greater good," is ethically okay. This difference, in fact, sets Marxism apart from most world religions, including Judaism and Islam. Furthermore, this statement oversimplifies not only Marxism but other worldviews as well. These four listed worldviews may believe in the merits of sharing, but that level of development is also found in kindegarted classes and daycares--it is not a basis by which to say all grown, opinionated, adult human beings are on the same economical and religious plain. Michael Moore should check his facts before making any more speeches, because his fervor for his beliefs is admirable, but his information is sadly off-base and incredibly misleading to anyone who takes what he says for face value. Instead of simplifying the issue and saying that we should have a happy economic system where we all get what we need, Moore should provide a solution to the problem he is bringing up, rather than talking around all of the incredible complexities of such a debate.

The problems with a global secular government

There are countless possible problems with a global secular government. Firstly, the idea of a functioning global government, secular or non-secular, is a utopian idea, which presents multiple problems in and of itself. Utopia is unacheivable, because amn is innately sinful. AS selfish, immoral, greedy creatures, we cannot function in perfect harmony-our nature will not allow it. A global government would require that all humans work together in harmony, agreeing on everything and disagreements being settled through calm conversation. If anything did go haywire, there would be no checks on the governments' power-no USA to enter a tumultuous Iraq, no France to bomb a recalcitrant Libya. While war is never positive, it is necessary to maintain checks on rulers and leaders, and to keep one group (ethnic, religious, political, etcetera) from taking over entirely. Our world functions on tension, and without any political tension, there would be no politics. In fact, if we are going for utopia, we should just go completely communist and hope for a society without a government, because if we are perfect enough to live happily and peacefully and justly under one universal governmnent, why is there a need for that government in the first place? Not only is the idea of a global secular government idealistic and implausible, it presents a huge problem for us as Christians, or any religion for that matter. We would face persecution that could not be averted by the interference of another government or authority. We would face laws that legalized abortion, marijuana, incest, anything really, because there is no moral voice in the government. While it sounds dramamtic, the government would inevitably implode, destroying itself because it is unstable in its very nature. A global government assumes agreement and consensus among human beings, which is something most people can't even acheive in their homes. It assumes that human beings are mature and calm enough to solve problems without war, which goes against our violent and hotheaded nature. It assumes tha all current governments will reaadily relinquish their right to rule peacefully (for if it was won by war, the government wouldn't stand a chance of surviving without revolt). In short, this is an impossible and unattainable ideal.

Abortion

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?

Pro-choicers argue that "It's our choice, it's a woman's choice, you can't force me to have a baby." However, those claiming that the government has no right to "force" a woman to continue a pregnancy, and that illegalizing abortion will only lead to forcing women to use contraception or sterilization have a major flaw in their argument. The government is simply denying the right to abort, whereas the government forcing contraception or sterilization means the government is taking the initiative. The woman took the initiative already--getting pregnant, having unprotected sex. She isn't being forced into something, she got herself into it. The government would simply be denying her a "get out of jail free" card, not placing her in jail in the first place. NOw, what if a woman was raped? She didn't take any initiative, she was a victim. Less than 5% of abortions are of babies that are the products of rape, and beyond that, rape very rarely results in pregancy. However, in the instances that it does, that doesn't change my stance on abortion. Since when has being victimized by one person made it okay for that victim to subsequently victimize another? Never. Furthermore, there are other options for rape victims. For example, the "morning after pill," which does not abort a baby, but merely prevents the egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Back to the victimizing another human being argument--what if someone tells me that the unborn baby isn't a person, it is simply a tissue mass? I would respond with the fact that an unborn child is still a person, just as much a person as an infant, based on the "SLED" acronym. The only differences between an unborn child and an infant are 1. their size, 2. their level of development, 3. environment, and 4. dependency. None of these criteria are enough to separate a child from an adult, or a baby from a child, in the case of murder--murder is murder, no matter the age, size, level of development, environment, or dependency of the person. So, abortion is murder, and a result ofthe mother's initiative (except in the rare rape cases), meaning that if the government legalized it, it would not lead to forced sterilization or contraception, because the government is not taking initiative, only denying one person's alleged "right" to murder another.

What is the difference between the BIble's use of "equality" "justice" and critical legal studies' use?

Before I get into the hairy world of connotations and slight variations in definition, let's get an unbiased definition of "equality" and "justice." "Justice" has many definitions. Here are the relevant ones :
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice. Interestingly enough, the legal system is involved in 4 of these definitions. Justice and the legal system are completely intertwined. Now, the definitions of "equality" are as follows:
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.
These definitions come from dictionary.com, but now let's look at how the article about critical legal studies uses these terms. Essentially, CLS believes that the legal system is unjust, biased towards certain groups and demeaning and unfair to others. For example, CLS subscribes to the belief that the law is favored toward men, and that rape convictions (or lack thereof, or lack of punishment) demonstrate a misogynistic society. CLS's aim, therefore, is to demolish this prejudice within the legal system and achevie complete equality. So, how do they define equality? CLS believes that every human being should be considered exactly the same as any other human being, regardless of race, economic and social background, gender, religion, political affiliation, etcetera. However, the CLS groups believe that all these groups should be treated the same because they are the same, which is where they err. Yes, all people should be treated equally, a black man should not be convicted on less evidence than a white man, and yes, there are instances in which certain people and groups may not get fair trials and treatment by the justice system. It is irrefutable that inconsistencies exist, and that we should try to reconcile them. However, it is foolish to consider all people the same, because, put quite simply, we are not. One man may have a proponency toward violence because of his social background or his religion (or any other factor, really), and that influence should be taken into account while in court. So, CLS views equality as sameness in the person rather than just sameness in the treatment of the person. On a side note, the CLS ideal for the justice system, in which personal bias and prejudice play no part is completely impossible, unrealistic, and idealistic. Like communism, the idea sounds nice on paper, but when put into action, the implausibility of said idea quickly becomes clear. Human beings carry prejudices and opinions, and we are all genuinely different, and both of those facts cannot be separated from the legal system simply because the legal system in made up of humans, and those qualities are intrinsic. This article then views justice as complete impartiality on the part of the legal system and the human race in general, and involves treating every person the exact same way. However, this would require that trials are not evaluated on a case-to-case basis. One murder trial would be the same as another, because the crime must be evaluated objectively. However, it would be naive to expect that each murderer deserves equal punishment and poses an equal threat to society. The major tenet of CLS is the destruction of class divisions, and the creation of a community of sameness, with the claim that they will "liberate and empower every individual," when in actuality this system would strip individuality and celebration of cultural and life distinctions.
WE are not the same, but according to the Bible, we are to love and defend and care for all people, whether foreigners, children, widows, etcetera (see Deuteronomy 10:12-19). The Bible calls us to "do what is just and right," (Jeremiah 22:3), which essentially boils down to loving your neighbor as yourself, not doing wrong to others (this would be according to the Biblical definition of wrong). So, the Bible agrees with CLS that we should all be treated equally and we should all be kind and caring towards our fellow man. If we all followed the Bible in every aspect of our lives, we would live in a perfect world. However, where the Bible and CLS majorly differ is in the idea of sameness. The Bible has no pretensions that humans are all the same. Deuteronomy 10:12-19 says that "the Lord set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations--as it is today." Furhtermore, both this Deuteronomy passage and the aforementioned Jeremiah verse refer to "foreigners" "widows" "children" and "orphans." We have distinctions and dissimilarities, otherwise these denotative names would be unnecessary. There are natives and foreigners, there are God's chosed people and Gentiles, there are women and men. However, these distinctions by no means mean that we should be treated differently. After all, we will all be judged by the Lord on Judgment Day, and we will all be judged based on the same criteria. God simply doesn't buy into the idea that we are all uniform. He made us unique and individual intentionally, and each person is of equal worth to Him.

Shari'a Law and Christian Law: a Contrast

Islam and Christianity share a basic and important quality: they both believe in an all-powerful God. However, though their laws are both based on theism, the similarities just about stop there. The entire system of laws is entirely different. The chief difference in these laws are the motivations for following the law. Christians view God as a merciful, loving god, and we seek to please him and strive for a Christ-like righteousness in our own lives. This is the motivation for following the laws-pleasing God. We cannot earn our own salvation, and we don't do good deeds to reach a certain end. However, in Islam it is quite the opposite. Muslims work for their salvation, and their good deeds build them a ladder to heaven. This differnce in motivation makes perfect sense, in fact, based on the character of the two different "gods" that we are discussing. In Islam, Allah is a distant and unresponsive God. There is no personal relationship or feeling of obligatuion or desire to please him based off of a personal comnection, as there is in Christianity. It's almost like the difference between trying to obey your mother and your government. you want to obey your mother because you love her and you fear her dissapointment, although you know that she would never abandon you, no matter what you did. However, you also want to obey your government, but not for the same reasons. You obey your government because you fear punishment and retribution, but there is no personal obligation, no desire to please simply for the sake of pleasing. Finally, Shari'a law focuses on the idea that man is not innately, irrevocably sinful. It believes that we have the strength to overcome our own sinfulness. Christian law accepts our fallenness, but has much more hope than Shari'a law. Rather than placin us at the mercy of an impersonal scale weighing our good deeds and bad, we are at the mercy of a loving and personal God, who is known as a merciful God. we have nothing to fear, except dissapointing him. And we know he will always forgive, and always love. So, truly, what have we to fear?