History One Blog

The statement that history should not be viewed as objectively true solely because it was written by the winners is, to begin with, illogical in nature. The truth that Paige is trying to push on me is that the only reason history is not factually accurate is because those who were victorious wrote it. That statement, in and of itself, contradicts what Paige believes to be true as a Postmodernist, because she is putting forth an absolute truth, which (as a Postmodernist) she shouldn't support.

All circular reasoning aside, Paige's "truth" about history can be proven to be false, simply by using historical events to prove that history is in fact objectively true. Her own "truth" is an example of her opinion, which would be a subjective truth, rather than an accurate, objective example of what is true. To refute her claim, after pointing out that her statement contradicts what she should stand for as a Postmodernist (no absolute truths, no pushing "my truth" on others), it is necessary to describe a point in history which proves that the accounts historical events should be taken as accurate representations of what actually happened.

Take, for example, a war, specifically the Civil War, an event in history which shaped the America that we know today. While the North attributed engaging in war to the fact that the South wanted to continue abusing slaves for their agrarian society, the South thought that the National government was infringing upon their rights as a state to decide how to handle the concept of slavery. Keeping in mind that these two ideas of why the war was started are different, the conclusion that in seen in history textbooks attributes the war to a conflict focusing in on the fact that the South refused to yield ownership of their slaves, which is more in line with the North's idea of why the war was started. Even though there are these two ideas floating around that both support the Civil War happening, we can say with conviction that not only did the war happen, but history got it right in saying that the war was fought over the moral issue of slavery, which is completely true. Therefore, there is no reason to discredit a major historical event like this war as not being "factually accurate" because history points to the strong moral truth that was foundational in contributing to the starting of the war: slavery.

Significant events in history are leverage against the weak, opinionated argument that history is pointless, and can't be factual. The sole purpose of history is to record what happened, so that individuals who weren't able to experience what may have happened in the past can know what actually happened. History is objectively true, then, as it is now, because it has not been written by what Paige calls "the winners", but rather, by the eyewitnesses. It is absolutely absurd to question an eyewitness, because their recordings of history are the most factually accurate that we will ever have as representing what really happened. An eyewitness experienced history, and presents the events as they happened- which is, in fact, on objective truth that should be taken as accurate.

Even though people throughout history have had their own subjective ideas about what significance an event may have had in history, there is no doubt that the objective facts prove historical accounts as true. When a person like Paige has tried to redefine "history" as merely an opinion based story, she is only digging herself deeper into a hole of complete confusion. Rejecting the facts, and essentially creating your own, leads to an illogical argument of what actually is true. Comparing an eyewitness account to a subjective truth about history (as Paige has done) only reveals how off base history can become, if left to the interpretation of those who haven't even experienced historical events for themselves. Therefore, I conclude that history, as experienced by eyewitnesses and recorded for posterity, is the closest to "factually accurate" as we can get, even recognizing that we, as human beings, have a flawed human nature.

Economics #2 Response

Sarah, a Secular Humanist, and Mark, a Marxist, understandably propose the idea of a government controlled economy, and the redistribution of wealth to create "equality", as they both are proponents of interventionism, and thus applaud the economic system of Socialism. However, it is my opinion that the system of Socialism does not and will never be successful as an economic ideal, due to the major flaws that inhibit its success.

One key idea that refutes Socialism as a viable economic "solution" is the fact that a system controlled by corrupt human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human nature coming play, but the system of socialism will never lead to the perfect, equal, classless society that is the next step in our "natural evolution", as believed by proponents of government interventionism in the economy.

Additionally, the argument of Socialism, when broken down and analyzed, reveals WHY this system is faulty. When the government controls the means of production (as in a Socialist society), the people are therefore devoid of economic choices. Even if this may be intended for the best, if the population has no say, then equality is subsequently inhibited. Therefore, while promoting the promise of equality, which likely draws individuals to favor the system, Socialists are actually taking away liberty, which makes the definition of "equality" useless and devoid of meaning.

In a Socialist system, private property becomes obsolete, as everything is owned by everyone. This idea falls short of being an effective part of the system, because without privately owned property, there is no sense of self-worth in ownership. This idea also does nothing to promote true equality, because having a sense of personal pride is what drives fairness and liberty to be present, and ultimately drives an individual to have a strong work ethic.

One more key tenant of Socialism has to do with removing competition within business. The logic behind refuting this idea is similar to the idea of not having economic choice--if an individual is unable to have the choice of where to buy a product, or even what career to have in a Socialist society, then they do not experience equality, as they do not have a say in the matter.

Thus, these four ideas that are unique to Socialism prove, when analyzed against logical thinking, prove WHY Socialism falls short, in the scope of economic systems.

Michael Moore's opinion on this matter was very interesting to me, as he had some additional insight to provide, regarding Socialistic ideas. His main point throughout the video clip was that there is so much money in the hands of a small percentage of the wealthy population, and (essentially) spreading the wealth around would solve all of our problems. First of all, spreading the wealth around would not actually bring about equality, because so many people choose to "milk the system" anyway (like through welfare programs). The truth is, our money is not being managed well, and therefore trying to spread the wealth around will NEVER solve economic problems. Therefore, trying to create equality by "sharing the wealth" is illogical because it will never be a successful endeavour.

I have realized that Socialism oppresses the people that the system tries to protect from oppression, through a tainted definition of equality. The tenants of socialism promote "fairness", but actually inhibit liberty, which proves how ineffective the system really is. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that Socialism falls short of being a viable economic system.

Mr. Moore and Economic Systems Blog

When it comes to how a society functions, the type of economy that a certain nation integrates into the governmental system is what determines how everything else is run. From Capitalism to Socialism, each economic system brings a new set of problems and successes to the global table. In the video clip Mr. Moore, writer and star of the documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, seeks to define where our economy should be going , in the early twenty first century. While the information is clearly presented, Mr. Moore provided just his own opinion- therefore I have drawn different conclusions about the viability of what he says. One point of his that I resonate with, and that I now apply to my own understanding of economics, is the idea that in its structure, and economy should be morally and ethically good, not matter what term it is given. While Moore merely alluded to this truth, I believe that it is ideal in creating a lasting, fair economic system through which business is sustained. If the system of how business is run is regulated by ethical codes, such as making price-fixing illegal, then not only does the economy have a moral foundation, but consumers are more likely to stimulate the economy by buying products made under ethical laws, which leads to success in business on a national scale. As we live in an imperfect world, no business plan or economic system will ever be "perfect" or "the ideal". For instance, with socialism, communal property and jobs that are regulated by equal pay across the board take away (and effectively eliminate) the individualistic, competitive drive that sustains a positive work ethic, and thus, a better business. Therefore, in moving toward ethical practices, a nation can reform an economy into a more stable system. However, I do not mean to say that ALL of what Mr. Moore said is accurate, as I know evaluate my own opinion of what he presented. When he made the comment that all of the great religions have the same economy, I immediately disagreed. The primary differences that distinguish between each philosophy and theology prove that discrepancies do exist on a broad scale, from how different religions view politics, to how individual define their ideal economic system. Therefore, I refute Mr. Moore's statement with the simple idea that because these differences are clearly present, no worldview could ever agree on what an economic system should look like. How could a Secular Humanist or Marxist, who holds to the tenants of Socialism ever agree with a Christian or Muslim who holds to the idea of the Stewardship of Property? Additionally, while America functions under a Capitalistic system, many countries across the globe embrace Socialistic tendencies that are integrated into their economic systems. Therefore, it is important to realize that Mr. Moore's statement is erroneous, because he fails to distinguish between each worldview, and how there are many differing ideas of economic systems functioning today in our world. Mr. Moore had some very intriguing things to say, regarding our economy in the twenty first century. The state of and type of economy is what can drive our decisions, can control entire nations, and is what represents power in our world today. If we, as Christians, can help to integrate moral and ethical codes into the economy by reaching out and acting for our cause, we can surely make a difference. We live in a representative democracy, and as the people who make up this nation, we can't rely solely on the government to fully regulate the economic system-- and to solve all of our problems. It is important to understand how economies work, so that we can bring ethics into business, and can make a positive change in this system.

Secular World Government? No Way!

The new buzzword that was ushered in with the beginning of the twentyfirst century? Globalization. This trend toward global unity from uniting trade, to managing economies and changing the function of political systems has changed how we look at the purpose of government, and how law is enforced. The impact of globalization can now be seen in the desire of a predominently secular society to create a secular world government, where a non-religious political body would make, interpret and enforce a set of laws on an international scale. While the prospect of a unified government may seem like the perfect solution to the problems that plague our world today, trying to unite dissenting cultures will only result in disunity and chaos.

Although government has not yet reached a point where a global political system is the norm, most worldviews, in terms of politics, integrate unity into the basis of their "ideal" government. In the marxist worldview, the idea that communism will usher in a proletariat revolution that will create a classless society with no government is foundational in the united marxist utopia. Similarly, Muslims picture the perfect, unified world to consist of global Islamic states, where all people live under the rule of Shar'iah law. Even the Cosmic Humanist worldview proposes the new world order, when all people share a collective consciousness and realize their godhood. Therefore, it is clear to see that all major worldviews, from the secular unified government to the Islamic rule under Shar'iah law and the unified consciousness of the Cosmic Humanist worldview, are rooted in the same political desire to unify the law and create a world government.

While the idea of rule by a single set of laws is a solid idea, the reality is that man-made laws fall short of the perfection that a world government boasts. Man is a sinful being, and therefore, the laws made by man reflect the corruption and disunity that is present across all cultures. Therefore, it can be concluded that creating a unified set of laws enforced by a world government is no different than multiple sets of laws created by man; in both circumstances, the laws will be flawed, and either way, this unity will only create chaos. In the postmodern view, the idea of critical legal studies aims to deconstruct the laws and form new ones, which creates a cycle of constantly trying to alter laws that are in place. This instance gives credence to the point that even if there were a single set of laws, there would always be one culture or group that would make an effort to change the ordinances that they would deem "unfair". One other point that proves that a unified, world government would not be successful is the fact that different types of law work for different nations, with different beliefs. For instance, while a representative democracy works well for the United States, a cultural melting pot where the freedom of religion is upheld, and the free expression of ideas is encouraged. In contrast, a country like Iraq would never be able to be ruled under a democracy, as the freedoms guaranteed in our nation are not part of how Iraq is governed. Additionally, the fact that countries like Iraq are predominetly influenced by the Islamic religion is cohesive with the conclusion that new systems of government can never break the cultural and religious boundaries that are already in place. Conclusively, a secular world government will never be successful, as each country, rooted in diverse religious traditions and cultural expectations, has their own idea of what is the right form of government, politics and law.

A secular world government, while a ideal concept, would cease to function in such a diverse society, where every man seems to have a different idea of what is "right". The thing is, people will always rebel against the government, because they find some law that takes away equality, or somehow inhibits their quality of life. Therefore, the ramifications of a secular world government are nothing short of monumental--there would be chaos and uprising because a single set of laws would go against the religious diversity and idea of freedom that every man has defined for himself, and the term "law" would essentially be devoid of meaning. Although man can have the idea that a world government would create a utopia, the only perfect state will be when Christ comes back and establishes the idea utopia-- heaven on earth.

Abortion Blog: Teen Moms

Yes, teen moms do have grim prospects, when faced with the responsibility of carrying, giving birth to, and raising a healthy child. However, this blanket statement can not be applied in all situations, as some teen moms are able to be responsible parents, even at a young age. For the most part, teen pregnancies have large-scale ramifications, because to place such a responsibility for another human life on a teenager who has not yet completed school and who has not fully matured yet, is to put the baby's life at risk.

One point of responsibility that a teen mom likely drops, when she has to deal with raising a child is discontinuing her high school education. Although it is in the child's best interest for the mother to assume the role of a "stay at home mom", so as to provide the necessary nurturing for her child, a lack of sufficient education inhibits the mother from being able to secure employment. This domino effect will continue to have an impact on the mom; the lack of a job, and therefore income, will make it harder for the mother to adequately provide for her child and his/her needs as a dependent human being. To put even more responsibility on the mother just heightens her stress level, which can be detrimental to a child's gradual development.

Another point of interest as related to teen moms deals with the possibility of the mother not receiving adequate prenatal care. It is important to realize that every situation would vary, and therefore, not all teen moms should be generalized under the heading of "not receiving adequate prenatal care". A teen mom who lacks the support from family members, or who is now homeless because her family has kicked her out, will receive inadequate prenatal care, and will ultimately be putting the little human life inside of her in danger. A lack of appropriate care may cause health problems, or may compromise the development of the baby. However, a teen mom who has a financially supportive family who is on her side (even though she is now pregnant) will be willing to provide the teen with the necessary prenatal care, as they can afford it, and desire to fully support their daughter through the pregnancy.

Additionally, the idea arises that a teen mom would have to rely in public assistance to raise a child. Again, this depends on the situation, and whether or not the parents are fully supportive of their daughter having a baby. If a teen mom lacks support from her parents, and must take on this responsibility by herself, the mom will have to rely on public assistance to raise her child, which may also compromise the development of the child, as the mother does not have a solid foundation with which to learn about how to care for another human life. On the other hand, a supportive family removes the necessity for a teen mom to rely on public assistance, which lessens (if just a little) the responsibility a teen mom has, when raising a child. The most important thing a teen mom needs to learn is how to deal with this new set of responsibilities, and with the lack of positive, helpful role models that may come as a result of relying on public service, a mother is more likely to fall short of success when trying to raise her child.

Also, health problems may compromise the life of a teen mom or her child. A teen who is not responsible during pregnancy and drinks alcohol risks the child being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Additionally, if she is relying solely on public assistance, or does not receive the appropriate medical checkups and monitoring, the teen puts her own life, as well as her baby's life, at risk. However, with the support of family, a teen mom will be able to have the necessary checkups and will be a healthy mom giving birth to a healthy baby, even if she is very young, for a mother.

Additionally, the idea of relationships and divorce comes into play with teen moms. Usually with teen moms, the father, once he has hears of the pregnancy, will want nothing to do with the girl. A teen mom does, understandably, struggle with sustaining a lasting relationship, as she is faced with the important responsibility of raising her child. This idea may also have ramifications in later life for the teen; if a teen mom is married, the added responsibility of a child may strain the relationship to the point that a divorce will break up the family.

Teen moms have grim prospects, when it comes to accepting full responsibility of being a parent who can successfully nurture their child. At such an age, teens have not fully completed high school, which, when the prospect of a baby is added, puts an inordinate amount of stress on the mom. Many teens who have become pregnant are kicked out of their homes, and are left to their own devices, as to receiving the care necessary to having a successful pregnancy, and actually raising the child as a responsible nurturing parent. I fully agree that for pregnant teens, the idea of each being a successful mom, and handling the responsibility, is grim. However, it seems that the society is now trying to reach out to these teen moms, as teen pregnancy seems to be a growing entity of our secular culture. With online high schools, a mom can now receive her GED, while caring for her child at home. Also, non-profit organizations like the Atlantic Street Center reach out to teens, specifically through their Teens As Parents Program, where they provide care, counseling and support to pregnant teens and teen moms.

Teen pregnancy is a major topic to grapple with in our society today. As Christians, we need to remember that our bodies are temples of the holy spirit, and we must respect what God has created (us!). Therefore, we embrace these teen moms with God's love, and teach them that they do have an innate purpose given by God, and that He loves each and every one of us, because we are His creation.

Law Post 4

Equality and justice are two important concepts that many times, get lost in the trivial matters of man made laws that govern our representative democracy . One of such ideologies that has gained momentum in today's legal system is the idea of Critical Legal Studies, a approach to law that is spearheaded by the Postmodernist thinkers who desire to change the liberal legal system that is already in place. Critical Legal Studies has many subcategories that focus on different "oppressed" people, such as women or different ethnicities, but at its core, the branch of law maintains that the law is contradictory, and thus it is important to find who the current laws are oppressing, in order to overturn those laws that have once suppressed a group in society. This idea correlates with the Postmodernist idea of deconstruction, as in the Critical Legal Studies, lawyers try to find the inherent bias in laws, and change these laws to accomodate those who have once been held back. Those in Critical Legal Studies believe that in breaking down the previously oppressive laws, they guarantee that equality, or fairness in terms of quality, rank or degree, is achieved. An example of this movement saying that they have achieved equality through the breaking down of a law, is their push to legalize gay marriage. CLS thinkers believe that the previous laws that prohibited this kind of marriage were oppressive to the homosexual community, and therefore have worked to break down these laws to allow any kind of marriage. Through this example, it is clear to see that while those who live by CLS ideas think that they are doing the best thing, their opinions are not always the righteous thing to do. Additionally, those who work with Critical Legal Studies as their basis of interpreting law believe that in overturing accepted norms in favor of bringing equality, they bring justice to those who they deem are "oppressed". While this idea of overturing laws that actually hinder an indiviual or group is effective in the right circumstances, CLS desires to find the inherent bias in EVERY law, to change the liberal legal theory that they are so against. Clearly, this idea poses multiple problems as to bringing justice and upholding equality, which has convinced me that CLS is not the right way to turn, when looking at such an important topic as law.

On the other hand, God has provided His creation with specific laws that not only govern the people, but also provide a practical way to live life, while upholding equality and justice in a way that Critical Legal Studies will never be able to do. For instance, the book of Deuteronomy, it clearly says that to "do justice", we must fear the Lord, as God is the only one who can look at his creation and show no favoritism or partiality-- in other words, He alone is able to bring true equality, and is the ultimate judge. We must recognize this fact and alter how we view people, knowing that God does not look at anyone differently. Additionally, Jeremiah tells us that in order to do what is right, to uphold equality and justice, we must turn away from what is wrong, so that we can exemplify the law that God has created to uphold righteousness in a broken world. We need to rescue and help those who are oppressed, not trivialize the law and find what is wrong with it. James echoes this point, and reminds us as Christians to be aware of the fact that people need guidance; we need to reach out and actively help them, if they can not help themselves. If we become consumed with falling into sin, and being of the world, then we will be unable to rise to this task. Lastly, Micah adds that we need to be carriers and givers of mercy, and that God has told us how to act in a just manner; therefore we must glorify God by being merciful as He is merciful, and by bringing justice to those who are oppressed.

The act of bringing justice to a broken world, and equality to a judgemental, oppressive culture sometimes may seem like an impossible task. Instead of relying on Critical Legal Studies to break down the laws that are already set in place, we need to realize that God, the only righteous lawgiver, has provided us with foundational laws to abide by that do bring justice and uphold the idea of equality. It is through us that God can work to bring righteousness and order into a chaotic, messed-up world.

Law 3 Blog

Law is a very hard subject to clearly define, in a modern context, as man's desire to fulfill his own desires through a set of flawed standards created by the human population ultimately leads to the questions of "what is right?" and "what is moral?"

Although Christians and Muslims base their faith on a theistic worldview, their ideas of law are far from being alike. The Islamic view of law does name Allah as the ultimate lawgiver, and their ultimate goal is to understand and apply the laws (specifically Shari'ah law) to their muslim lifestyle. The Shari'ah law is derived from the Quran and Hadith, the holy books of the muslim faith, and governs the public and private lives of muslims who live in Islamic states. On the contrary, Christians hold by the fact that God reveals his will and himself through divine laws, and also through natural law, when physical and moral laws are revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe. One major difference that sets the Christian and Muslim ideas of law apart is how the law gives freedom to those who follow it. From the Christian perspective, human rights are defined from Biblical principles, and individuals are not retricted from certain freedoms that uphold the integrity of the law. In Islamic states, however, freedom is severely restricted by the law, especially for muslim women and those who are non-muslims.

In addition, Christians know that God has revealed His divine nature through giving us the laws we are to adhere to. By correctly following and upholding the laws he has revealed to us, we are able to know God more, as we can experience His character through what He commands. In contrast, muslims do not believe that an individual is able to know the nature of Allah through the laws (or anywhere else), becuase Allah is "unknowable". This idea is the antithesis of what Christians know to be true, because as God is the ultimate lawmaker, he has shown to us his true nature through the laws he has given, in divine and special revelation.

Also, the way in which law is comprehended varies between both worldviews. The Christian view of law is clear that God alone has specifically told us what is moral and immoral, while the Islamic view of law takes the approach that laws needs to be interpreted in different ways, as laws come from multiple sources. This only causes confusion, because if more than one source is involved, conflicts about the law, and of if something is ethical or not, will most surely arise.

While Christians and muslims do agree about theism, the existance of the supernatural, and moral absolutes, they couldn't differ more when it comes to law. Therefore, it is important to realize that God, the ultimate lawgiver, has established a clear set of laws that not only allow us to glorify His creation as image-bearers, but also to see and know His divine nature through what commandments He has set in place for us to live by.