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.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Law #2
NO! As someone who wants to potentially go into Constitutional law this topic is one that intrigues and frustrates me to no end. If a law is up to individual interpretation then what is the point of having laws?! There is no need to hold an entire society accountable to something that they can each interpret differently. For example, someone could interpret not stealing as only not stealing candy bars, but robbing a bank is okay. It just doesn't work out.
This is especially counter-productive to the whole basic purpose of government - protecting and creating order. If every person is doing their own thing then chaos and danger are soon to follow.
With this all being said, their is always a little bit of interpreting that has to be done with every legal case or criminal act. Every situation is different and thus punishments that fit the crime must be decided through interpreting the repercussions of each crime. For instance, a child who steals a candy bar and a man who robs a bank should require different punishments, and therefore do not steal would be applied more harshly to the man than the child. This sort of interpretation is only logical, and even established in punishments in the Bible.
The difference is that the individual application of the law is not up to interpretation. A person can't decide, as stated before, that robbing a bank is fine but stealing a candy bar is not. The only interpretation that is involved is in deciding appropriate punishment for each individual crime (even though with that there is still some form of absolutes).
This is especially counter-productive to the whole basic purpose of government - protecting and creating order. If every person is doing their own thing then chaos and danger are soon to follow.
With this all being said, their is always a little bit of interpreting that has to be done with every legal case or criminal act. Every situation is different and thus punishments that fit the crime must be decided through interpreting the repercussions of each crime. For instance, a child who steals a candy bar and a man who robs a bank should require different punishments, and therefore do not steal would be applied more harshly to the man than the child. This sort of interpretation is only logical, and even established in punishments in the Bible.
The difference is that the individual application of the law is not up to interpretation. A person can't decide, as stated before, that robbing a bank is fine but stealing a candy bar is not. The only interpretation that is involved is in deciding appropriate punishment for each individual crime (even though with that there is still some form of absolutes).
Law with Sarah (#1)
Governments are not the ultimate authority for law for a few reasons. First and most important, God is the ultimate authority for law. He created law and order and it is a part of His perfect nature. Emphasis on PERFECT. The second reason is tied to this last point. Governments are made up of sinful men, and thus can easily fall into sin and error. However, God in His perfection cannot make an error. How much better is it then to obey a being who is not faulty and doesn't make mistakes than one who could potentially steer you a wrong direction.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Femininity
I think that feminism is not something that is one hundred percent evil and wrong. This is far from the truth. The issue that feminism has, as well as practically every other opinionated group, is that the radical side is incredibly, well, radical. The idea that I should never want to be a housewife because it is a waste of my brain and ability is pardon my French, a load of crap. I do want to be a wife and mother someday, and I want to be able to stay home with my children and raise them as they should grow. This also is not wasting my ability. Why is it that teachers are praised and commended for what they do and how they teach and mold the future for next to nothing, when mothers aren’t and they do it for free?! Being a housewife does in fact utilize your brain and abilities. This is one of many beliefs that radical feminism has forced upon me and my fellow females.
Furthermore, the whole concept of empowering women can get way out of hand, and can steer far away from the Bible. Empowering women through the power to choose whether their baby lives or not is completely immoral and is something Christians should reject. When women are to denounce the position of a man as head of the household, ultimately responsible for it, this goes directly against man’s God-given responsibility. Such ideas are definitely wrong and Christian’s should not follow in these trends.
On the other hand, the core beliefs of feminism are completely Biblical and thus feminism should not be completely looked down upon. The building block of feminism is that women are indeed equal to men and should be treated fairly, not subjugated. The Bible also teaches that both male and female bear God’s image, this means they are both equally a part of God. The Bible also teaches against any sort of subjugation, since the Lord is fair and just to everyone. Therefore, though there are indeed immoral and wrong beliefs in feminism, the basic desire for equality is completely backed up by Scripture.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Sexist? Homophobic?
Well I must first agree that there are some who would be accurately described as sexist and/or homophobic in the Christian community. This is a very sad truth. The problem, however, lies in a truth that seems to apply to all different schools of thought, for lack of a better word. The problem is that the radicals or extremists in any group are the people who represent that group to the rest of the world. It is complicated to state all the exceptions to a general outline and is much more exciting to paint everything with a broad brush, and because of this groups or beliefs are generalized. Generalization under certain contexts can be simply a more efficient and expedient way to explain things, however the problem is that the (in most cases) minority of radicals tend to dictate what the majority is viewed as. This has happened to everybody, but specifically, in this regard, to Christians. The idea that all Christians are sexists and homophobic is quite the generalization.
These ideas are in fact not Biblical at all, and therefore not a sound belief for Christians. Neither females or males are described as lesser in the Bible. Any references that people would pull to support that idea is taking the verse out of context. BOTH male and female were created in God's image and therefore holy and pleasing to God. They were created to compliment each other and therefore were given different qualities and strengths. The Bible does not say that one of these strengths is better than the other, for God has all of these qualities. In regards to being called homophobic, the key is in the definition. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic. They don't have to have an actual fear of homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches Christians to love their neighbors, and it sure doesn't specify what sexual preference your neighbor has to be. Christians must love homosexuals, but the Bible does not support homosexuality. We can love the people and hate what they do; it does not make us a homophobe. This idea is also not Biblically based.
In conclusion, while these generalizations may be put on all Christians, they are not Biblical ideas.
These ideas are in fact not Biblical at all, and therefore not a sound belief for Christians. Neither females or males are described as lesser in the Bible. Any references that people would pull to support that idea is taking the verse out of context. BOTH male and female were created in God's image and therefore holy and pleasing to God. They were created to compliment each other and therefore were given different qualities and strengths. The Bible does not say that one of these strengths is better than the other, for God has all of these qualities. In regards to being called homophobic, the key is in the definition. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic. They don't have to have an actual fear of homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches Christians to love their neighbors, and it sure doesn't specify what sexual preference your neighbor has to be. Christians must love homosexuals, but the Bible does not support homosexuality. We can love the people and hate what they do; it does not make us a homophobe. This idea is also not Biblically based.
In conclusion, while these generalizations may be put on all Christians, they are not Biblical ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)