History is reliable

Issue: As you are studying for your history final, Paige announced that this was pointless because history is not objectively true as it has been written by the winners.  How would you respond to Paige.


Response: The first thought that comes to my mind is the Holocaust. Indeed a terrible period of history but nonetheless recorded by both sides, German and Jew. There are eyewitness accounts from the soldiers as well as the tortured inmates. To say that these documents come from the same side, the supposed "winner's side" is inaccurate. These novels, and articles, and testimonies are indeed historical evidence are proof against the statement that history is written only by the winners.


That is the first though that comes to mind, but the second is much more concrete; Archeology. The proof in archeology is unbiased and can be used to explain major wars, culture, and even daily life. This evidence comes without the edits of modern culture thus without the political or social agenda that written history comes with.


The notion that history being written by the winners and thus being automatically unreliable does not follow. There are many times when a man wins a contest and retells his story in vivid detail to explain the hardship he had to overcome to get there, or the greatness he exhibited while achieving success. The stereotypical 'fisherman's story' is not always the case when someone retells an event. Actually most people like to be as detailed and accurate as possible to preserve the significance of the event. They may have a bias but that does not mean they are out to tell a lie.


Lastly the fact that the retelling of history may include a bias should not disqualify it. In fact nearly everything that we learn is taught from a certain perspective. Are our teachers all unreliable? Every instruction we are given has a bias. Are our parents unreliable? And every spoken word will show the presence of a particular worldview. Are we ourselves unreliable? To exclude everything that may have a bias is to exclude learning as a whole and discredit even yourself.
Another point to is that a bias does not 

Question: Why do you think socialism doesn't work?


Response: Well it has not worked in the past. Done, that is why I think it does not work. However what leads me to believe such is much deeper than that.


Socialism's fundamentals are at odds with the nature of the human race, whether you believe that is human's at current or has been and always shall be. Human's by nature are selfish. And will follow actions that benefit them immediately, whether their pleasure be in money, possessions, power, fame, or even the satisfaction of sustaining one's family. Selfishness is not necessarily bad, but Since the bulk of it is done in excess, greed is the resultant. This greed overpowers human desire to share and renders Socialism an unreachable ideal. It would be nice to have everything be fair and for people to all be equal, but the reality is that so long as there is the human race, ingenuity will be there to find loopholes and take advantage of the system. In a system that expects everyone to be honest, it takes only one to ruin it, and in today's time there are many who would leap at the chance.


I say Socialism will not work because of the failed attempts in the past. The ideals of Marx have spread across the world and men like Lenin, Stalin, Castro and other powerful men have oppressed their people rather than uplifting them to utopia.The power is too tempting that once the government has reach the might needed to enforce laws that lend themselves to socialist ideals, the government will then to want to release the power. To argue that the government is not needed for a transition to socialism is out of the question, since it has been established that people themselves will not voluntarily convert to the system. And then once the government has the power to solve the need, the government becomes the problem.


On paper Socialism is great, and there is no doubt in my mind that a form of it may be possible when the kingdom of God is set up in full, but aside from an act of God I do not see humans capable of functioning that way.

Economics

“Socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism, because all the great religions say essentially the same thing that Marx said. Which is that the wealthy are not supposed to have, the rich man is not supposed to come into the room, take nine slices of the pie and leave the remaining slice for everybody else to fight over.”

Well Mr. Moore in listening to what you had to say on the issue of socialism I would like to respond in kind with a few points of my own. The first being your comment tying Marx to your argument. While it is true that Marx founded the communist regime and that socialism was his ultimate goal, making him the icon of the movement offers no benefit or support. Placing aman who's ideas shook the foundations of his country and led to countless violent revolutions sweeping the land is not what promotes a good message but rather one of fear as the history does not lend to a bright path forward.

The next issue is on the true content of your message, focusing on the quote displayed above. To say that all the main religions have essentially the same view on the topic is a sign that the message is not detailed nor well researched. Essentially is not exactly, and for a message that must prove itself since capitalism had shown much more success than socialism in the course of history, a finer message must be given. 

Buddhism preaches a message of Karma and this greatly conflict with the other religions in that if a man is poor it is his fault for being poor and that Karma will be unbalanced if people attempt to relieve him of his punishment. There is an obvious contradiction for socialism where the moment is to make everyone "equal" if the religion prohibits social welfare for the most part. 

Also Islam has no vision of aiding the non-Muslim and ushering an "equal" utopia. Allah's will, is utterly unknowable, as is his character. To saw that Allah wishes Socialism is impossible, and if Allah does not wish it it is not for the Muslim to attempt to attain. While there are instances in the Koran  where tithes are mentioned and greed is disapproved of, the message of Islam cannot be used to support a socialist regime because this would be a great shift in the governing of the people. The Islamic people have not changed a great deal over a thousand years, within the worldview there is no reason for it. And when western ideals seek to bring democracy, as you have said Socialism is, wars have been fought. If Capitalism which has made the oil sheiks rich and proved successful over the years is meat with such hostility, how much more will the ideals that have laid wast to the land once known as the Soviet Union.  

Christianity and Judaism do not support socialism either. Throughout the Scriptures there are several instances recording personal possessions and private property as good things, unlike Marxist mentality. There are places were sharing and socialist ideas are mentioned, such as the young Church and the believers pooling resources giving to each what he need, but this was not forced, and not dictated by the government, it was done by the Church. Throughout the scriptures the idea that work is rewarded and that those who can work but do not will be without, is continual, there is no room for a man who seeks to ride the backs of his fellowman while his legs are perfectly healthy enough to carry himself and his family.

The last and great issue with your statements are that you are trying to tie Marx with with the great religions. This time however not because of Marx's character but because of his philosophy and perpetual decrying of religion. It is impossible to proclaim that the religions support a man who sought to eliminate them out right. True socialism has no religion and thus the great religions do not say 'essentially' what Marx was advocating.

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

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

Response: If there was a global secular government there would be many consequences and benefits differing from the world we have currently. To start there would be one currency. This would be great for the average citizen since he does not wish to pay exchange rates or be bothered by the issues arising from having a different currency than what he is used to. However for those who make a portion of their living by trading and exchanging currencies, they will lose this portion of their income, not to mention the loss cultures have when their form of currency symbolic of leaders and heroes of their past  is replaced by a foreign system that means little to them.

Another issue that arises is language, as it stands Chinese is the number one spoken language in the world, since China at current has more people than any other nation, soon however to be surpassed by India whose teenage population is nearly half again as large as China's. But at its current Chinese would be the dominate language and the global language would be Chinese one could argue. Then again English is very prominent as a secondary language to most countries and may be hailed as the official global language. Either way the point is obvious that there will be conflict on deciding which language to title as the official earth language, and the lass that other cultures will face over time when their languages become less used and die out will be a hardship.

This gives birth to a root problem with global government and the issue of meshing cultures together. Certain cultures such as middle eastern cultures have no separation of state and will clash with western cultures who believe the two should be separate. The clash of cultures will be cause for war as we have already seen, however they will no longer be country verses country since the world is one nation, each war will be a civil war, and the global government will be tasked with sorting the manner out draining its resources and taking its attention to the utmost so that nothing productive can be done. It would be as if one government were taxed with all the wars of the world.

A positive benefit would be that the government would have no jurisdiction lines, everything could be addressed whether it be hunger, over population or lack or resources. An issue with that however is that the government will have to be exceedingly massive (creating more opportunity for corruption) to even address the concerns for the would populous. Taxes could not be equal because distribution will not be equal, the developing areas would be priority and unfair distribution would arise. On the flip side if the first world areas are priority than injustice occures because the majority of the world is left in poverty by comparison.

In the end a world government sounds nice but has many inherent flaws, not even counting those stemming from personal corruption but problems that arise from bureaucracy and simple cause and effect. It looks good on paper but in reality it is not yet possible, and may never be.

Abortion Post

Question: 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?

Response: This issue has several factors within it that ought to be addressed if the question is to be responded to. The first factor is the issue’s correlation with abortion. There are few if any Anti-abortion activists who hope to limit the rights of women or even withhold rights from women that they ought to have. Rather instead, the argument is over the unborn and what is the being in question. The issue of abortion is whether it is right to eliminate an unborn human fetus. If the unborn are human, then abortion is as right as murdering a two year old toddler, and if the unborn are not human then abortion is no different than getting ones tonsils removed. The issue rests with the lone question of what is the unborn rather than women’s rights. No one would argue if a woman has the right to murder her two-year old, thus the issue is not rights but the personhood of the unborn.

Next is the more direct answer to the issue. It is indeed true that an unborn baby is part of his or her mother’s person, the two are connected. However a common error in the arguments of those who press this issue is that they discount the baby. Yes the mother ought to have full control over her own body, but should not there be limits on her actions regarding her child? The question boils back to the center of the first question as to the nature of the unborn, if the unborn is human, then a mother must respect the little human inside of her, but if the unborn are not human then she is free to do with the abnormal growth within her as she pleases.

Pregnancy itself is most times a choice, the cases of pregnancy from rape being the exception (which can be excluded for this example since few pro-abortion advocates would be satisfied to out-law abortion in all cases but rape, they are claiming it is a right for all women regardless of rape cases or not.) And as pregnancy is most times a choice, the woman having the option to abstain or engage in activities that lead to pregnancy, the issue of choice comes under fire. To say that banning abortion is taking away a woman’s reproductive choice is half wrong. A woman has the prior choice, to get pregnant or not, and thus banning abortion would be taking half of her choices away, her number of choices going from two to one. Also the nature of the choice; if that choice is wrong, as yet to be determined whether abortion is right or wrong, then the taking away of that choice IS the right thing to do. A woman has the choice to kill her five year old, but that is illegal, thus if a choice is wrong they are taken away, if abortion is wrong then it is not a right but a crime and a choice that should be banned.

Lastly is the progression of taking away choices. The government forcing the use of contraceptives or forced sterilization are fundamentally different than preventing abortion. The biggest factors are that they are preventing a child rather than permitting one. Also these other issues do not include a pregnant woman or an unborn child but the prospects of the two. Also in order to force these two issues they would have to be proved right just as abortion has to be proved wrong (by determining the personhood of the unborn). If Forced Sterilization can be proved right and not a violation of an individual’s rights than it will be passed; this being quite impossible since it and forced use of contraceptives are against the rights of the single involved party.

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


Response: The main difference between the views on equality and justice in Critical Legal studies and in the Bible are that in CLS one attempts to uphold justice by righting the wrongs of the past, and the Bible focuses on moving forward and doing no wrongs in the future.


To a point there is nothing wrong with CLS which acknowledges that wrongs have been dealt to masses and multitudes, accurately understanding that human's being fallen and subject to sinful depravity have committed atrocities upon each other and have subjugated and oppressed each other. However CLS falls short when it attributes blame to the majority in oppressing the minority or when there are hopes of a man-made law that will right all wrongs and grant equality and fairness to all. When CLS attempts to envision a utopia society it fails to take into consideration the full depravity of man blaming man's bad actions rather than the depraved nature that is cause of said actions.


Scripture is clear on its definition of justice, expecting individuals to carry themselves in righteous manner by avoiding violence and wrong-doing and caring for all of those in need. Justice is continually living justly and accepting that mistakes and failures will always come but making amends and returning to a path of righteousness when they do.


CLS talks about equality in lieu of people being oppressed. This is true, people throughout history have been oppressed and are still being oppressed daily.  However CLS expects human law to right wrongs and pave a path to equality for all individuals. While this is a wonderful goal it is not feasible with the nature of mankind and how prone we are to sin, and slight others. If human selfishness cannot be solved then people will always seek to have more than others, either in rank or possessions and by consequence will push down others in order to find satisfaction in their own place. Thus CLS is a repetitive cycle of addressing issues that crop up without addressing the cause of said issues.


Equality in scripture is that one takes his righteous way of living and provides that same care to all he meets. He is unbiased in who he aids. Equality should not be about focusing on the raising of individual communities and groups to reach the levels of the groups that once oppressed them. Rather equality is treating all groups equally from the moment the notion is instituted. History is not to be forgotten, but to cling to the past and drag up old wrongs will not help make a brighter future.

Question: Are legal standards limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual? Why or why not?


Response: No, the answer is no. But to explain one must understand morality, or at least that human's are not inherently right in everything they do. To say that the Law is dependent on individual interpretation is to render it useless. For nothing man makes is perfect and can always be improved, thus there are flaws in the Law that can be used with interesting interpretation to make anything seem legal. To protect the integrity of the Law and make sure that it is able to accomplish that which it is in place to do which is to govern and protect the citizens It rules 
over.


Legal standards supersede the interpretation of mankind in what are called rights. For instance human rights are not subjective. Though there are many violations still the laws protecting the rights of people are not to be followed only by those who agree with them or wish to overlook them.


The idea of an absolute Law must be present for Law to function as subjective law allows the input of every individual eventually legalizing everything. An absolute and unvarying Law makes for consistency that citizens can rely on rather than a fluid code of Law that may protect one day then destroy another.


Without absolute Law there might as well be no law, this issue is near black and white. Not to say that the issues within the law, as in what a speed limit should be is a set in stone and black and white topic, but the greater argument over an absolute law is. The absence of an strong form of law obviously leaves a weak one, which is the same as none at all. When there is no law there is Anarchy or rather chaos, that will perpetuate itself through out the community plaging each individual. The Law will become that of the 51% and anyone who disagrees with popular oppinion will face hardship or worse.


Thus in the end Law needs to be absolute in order to secure a future for a state. It must abide with the Laws that are inherent such as rights as strife will follow within generations when rights are withheld. And Lastly it must be efficient in governing and protecting for these are its tasks, and a law that does not meet its tasks by being subjective or weak is not worth the paper it is written on.