Well, the obvious result would be the persecution and denigration of anything remotely "religious" (AKA Christian). This may include things from tearing down of churches to even the destruction of Bible-centered art. Technically, this would also call for other religions to set down their ways as well.
However, the main difficulty with a global secular government is that it will simply never work the way they want it. Mankind is innately sinful, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it. Thus, billions upon billions of sinful people are NEVER going to be able to all work together with as much perfection and coordination as a global government would require. This idea also doesn't take into account the stubbornness of people. When people really believe in something or agree/disagree with something, then they are not going to be easily dissuaded from that. However, a global secular government would require everyone to give up something so as to appease the "general consensus".
Another flaw in the process to create this form of government is that it would require all nations to get rid of all of their weapons. This is just not going to happen. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that no government is going to be the first to get rid of or admit that they have no more weapons. This would leave anyone open to destruction or take over, because we are all sinful people. Therefore, this step of the process alone would take hundreds upon hundreds of years.
Now, back to the actual ramifications of such a government. Besides the obvious outbursts against such a government, this government would have to focus a lot on their own leaders. Any leader who has power over the entire world is going to be very easily corrupted, especially when they have no moral absolutes to hold to (or to force anybody to hold to). This sort of government could very well result in a globally corrupted government, led by power-hungry people.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Abortion #1
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?
This whole argument, I must first point out, is extremely EXTREMELY selfish. Any woman who says that her civil rights hinge on being able to have an abortion is completely ignoring the growing human inside of her, who is utterly dependent on the mother's ability to take responsibility for her actions. And, as we have established extensively in class, a fetus is not less of a human just because it is dependent on the mother (or differs in size, level of development, and environment).
Now that I have established how selfish this is, I will move on. One part of this argument that for some reason, rarely gets discussed is that a woman has a right to choose. She has a very clear right to choose whether or not to have sex and get pregnant. For some odd reason (sarcasm intended) this is never addressed in conversation about being a part of the issue at all. A woman has the right to control her body and demonstrate some self-control in certain situations.
A woman's rights are not dependent on whether or not she has the right to choose to kill a growing child or not. A woman has civil rights and she has plenty of options available to her, other than death to the fetus. It is a woman's personal responsibility and wisdom that should (emphasis on should) lead her to make an educated decision, completely in her realm of rights. This argument need not go down the "slippery slope" if people simply acted with more self-control and understanding.
Finally, forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization is not even close to giving a woman the right to kill a fetus. They are on completely different planes and all come back to the SLED acronym that I discussed earlier. Thus, a woman's civil rights are not dependent on her right to choose.
This whole argument, I must first point out, is extremely EXTREMELY selfish. Any woman who says that her civil rights hinge on being able to have an abortion is completely ignoring the growing human inside of her, who is utterly dependent on the mother's ability to take responsibility for her actions. And, as we have established extensively in class, a fetus is not less of a human just because it is dependent on the mother (or differs in size, level of development, and environment).
Now that I have established how selfish this is, I will move on. One part of this argument that for some reason, rarely gets discussed is that a woman has a right to choose. She has a very clear right to choose whether or not to have sex and get pregnant. For some odd reason (sarcasm intended) this is never addressed in conversation about being a part of the issue at all. A woman has the right to control her body and demonstrate some self-control in certain situations.
A woman's rights are not dependent on whether or not she has the right to choose to kill a growing child or not. A woman has civil rights and she has plenty of options available to her, other than death to the fetus. It is a woman's personal responsibility and wisdom that should (emphasis on should) lead her to make an educated decision, completely in her realm of rights. This argument need not go down the "slippery slope" if people simply acted with more self-control and understanding.
Finally, forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization is not even close to giving a woman the right to kill a fetus. They are on completely different planes and all come back to the SLED acronym that I discussed earlier. Thus, a woman's civil rights are not dependent on her right to choose.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Law #3
A Christian sees God as the Supreme law-giver and the ultimate authority of law. Law originates from the character and nature of God. They believe that there is a natural law the is revealed through general revelation. The natural law is comprised of both physical and moral laws, both of which are known by all because they see it all over, everyday (general revelation). Christians believe in an absolute standard that all laws should adhere to and that absolute standard is God's will as revealed in the Bible. According to the Christian worldview, man's law is a necessary thing because of the innately sinful human nature. Thus, it keeps man from utter chaos and turmoil. However, man's law must included laws regarding basic human rights, for human's are of great importance in the Christian worldview. We are all made in God's image and therefore are important to God. Jesus becoming man caused human life to assume even greater importance than before. Finally, the ultimate result of Christian law is that God will judge the human race according to His standard.
On the other hand, Islam believes that the ultimate authority for law is Allah and his words in the Qur'an and the sayings in the Hadith. Law, however, does not stem from the nature or character of Allah. There are a few laws that are actually required or denied with eternal reprecussions but there are many laws that are purely recommended or disapproved. Islam does not believe that man is innately evil and therefore they do not considered the sinfulness and corruption of man in their law. They give their governments absolute power without any thought that that might corrupt their country.
There is plenty of differences between the Islamic approach to law and the Christian approach to law.
On the other hand, Islam believes that the ultimate authority for law is Allah and his words in the Qur'an and the sayings in the Hadith. Law, however, does not stem from the nature or character of Allah. There are a few laws that are actually required or denied with eternal reprecussions but there are many laws that are purely recommended or disapproved. Islam does not believe that man is innately evil and therefore they do not considered the sinfulness and corruption of man in their law. They give their governments absolute power without any thought that that might corrupt their country.
There is plenty of differences between the Islamic approach to law and the Christian approach to law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)