Hostile Toward History

UTT Blog Post #16 - History's Authorial Bias

The idea that history is written primarily by the “winners” is an interesting argument. Surprisingly, many use this stance to rob history of its validity. While it may be true in some cases that historical accounts have been told primarily through the lenses of the world’s more dominant/advanced civilizations, the objectivity of history has not been ruined as a result. It is true that each person cannot help but view the world with a bias particular to his upbringing or background. This simply means that the facts of history may be conveyed with preference or more attention to specific people groups. In turn, it does not mean that facts have been distorted or eliminated – simply expressed sometimes with an authorial bias.

With that being said, facts are facts. Simply because a text is not perfect or account is not perfect, that does not mean that we should disregard its validity completely. Rather, we should be encouraged to investigate multiple sources and accounts of history so as to discover the truth of our world’s past. In a way, this ensures that the facts we study are in fact accurate by forcing us to make conclusions and pull details from a variety of sources. In addition, we should stray from the idea that historical accounts are invalid simply because of the value that history brings us as citizens of the globe. After all, history is not simply an account of events, but rather an explanation of the way the world works today, a guidebook to its cultures, and a warning for the present generation to prevent it from repeating the past. Therefore, simply by nature, history plays an important role in not only reminding society where it has come from, but in shaping the future as well. Because of the gravity of this resource it would be both pitiful and imprudent to disregard the facts of history based on the suspicion of authorial bias.

We Need Surgery, not a Band-Aid

UTT Blog Post #15 - Economics, Socialism 2

The first problem with Mark, Sarah, and Michael’s belief is that they assume our country’s debt and “poverty” has occurred as a result of wealthy individuals who have “stolen” the money. This claim assumes that money held by each person does not belong to them. Rather, it is money bestowed upon them by the government. In making this statement, supporters of socialism fail to recognize the idea that the money each person has is money that they have worked for and earned. In exchanging their time, labor, and energy for a paycheck, they now own this money. Therefore, it is no longer owned by the government and the statement that the rich have stolen, rather than earned, it a faulty one.

Mark and Sarah need to realize that poverty is not a result of the rich. It is a result of low-income earners or irresponsible spending. The same is true for our government. The debt that the United States has accrued is not because big businessmen are sneaking into the national treasury and stuffing their pockets. It is because the American government has done more spending and borrowing than its budget has allowed. Just like the “poor” citizens that socialist America would like to support, the American government is bringing in less money than it feels justified in spending.

Lastly, socialism is an impractical solution to the issue of debt and poverty in America because it does not actually provide the government with more financial resources or stability. Rather, it attempts to put a band-aid on the financial paralysis of the United States by spreading the wealth. Instead of allowing the country to successfully stand on its own, socialism is sure to further financially debilitate the country.

Socialism and Christianity: A Not-So-Love Story

UTT Blog Post #14 - Economics, Socialism

In Michael Moore’s argument for socialism he makes the statement that this system of government would best serve the American people because it is one which embodies the values of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and a whole host of other religions that exist in this country’s “melting pot” society.  Sure, I will give him credit for recognizing potential similarities between socialism and religion. To start, it is implied that financial equality would come as a result of socialism. Doesn’t this mirror the Christian belief that all humans have been made by Christ equal in value? Beyond this, how could Christians, society’s humanitarians and walking charities, refuse the idea of giving to the poor? After all, this is exactly what Jesus asks of his followers, right?...Wrong.

Although socialism and Christianity seem to bear parallel ideas, as argued by Michael Moore, they actually contradict one another more than they complement each other. For example, the Bible DOES teach that we are supposed to give to and help those less fortunate than us. However, it does not say that this “giving” should be government imposed. Rather, it should be out of the good of each person’s heart. In addition, the Bible does not seek to reward people for work that they have not done. Rather, the Bible teaches that a man should work hard in order to provide for his family and be a contributor to society. If people know that everyone will essentially receive the same amount of money no matter what field they enter or how hard they work, there is no motivation to receive an education or work hard. Instead of teaching accountability and responsibility, as does the Bible, this system of government encourages passive behavior and laziness. Therefore, “giving” to the poor would essentially foster a culture lacking productivity.

Moreover, while Moore argues that socialism is the most “fair” option of government, to me it seems just the opposite. Rather than allowing those who have worked to earn money (which corresponds fairly to the amount and quality of their work) to put that money toward what they would like, a socialist government robs from this demographic in order to freely award money to those who haven’t put forth the same amount or quality of work.

Lastly, Moore’s argument not only concluded that socialism coincided with Christianity, but that multiple religions could coexist beneath the umbrella of socialism. However, because many of these religions exist and function based off of truth-claims applying solely to each, it is impossible for all of them to be perfectly represented by a singular form of government.

Therefore, it only takes one glimpse at the Bible to refute Michael Moore’s assumption that socialism is an all-encompassing form of government.

Global Government

UTT Post #13 – Global World Government

In theory, a global world government sounds like a perfect idea. For me, this phrase conjures images of a serene utopian society characterized by world peace and harmonious interactions. To those who promote the idea of a global world government, this theory represents a world without war, peaceful coexistence amongst races, dissolved prejudices, and a globally connected society. In an idealistic world, this theory would thrive. However, because we live in a sin-ridden world, a global world government would prove much more harmful than beneficial.

Sinful nature, after all, is the root of pride, greed, anger and discord. In addition, it is this sinful nature which has allowed Satan to draw people away from the truth of Christ to other false religions. Therefore, because many of these religions present their own truth claims, hold a unique set of values, and are often intolerant of other religions, it would be difficult for them to successfully cohabitate under the same form of government and rules.

In addition, a global world government would simplify success for the greedy and power-hungry. With only one government, controlling the entire world, humanity would be in risk of a dictator’s world domination, excessive government control, and a decreased ability for citizens to be involved in government on a minor scale like they are in the U.S.

Furthermore, the creation of a global world government essentially gives control and ownership of the earth to a single ruler or oligarchy. In doing so, humanity limits the power and responsibility of God to control and watch over the entire earth. No longer would they feel the need to seek God for safety and comfort. Rather, the global society would have a greater propensity to turn to its all-powerful government.

Overall, while its benefits are appealing, the repercussions of a global world government are too risky to make it worth pursuing.

Aborting Abortion

UTT Blog Post #12 - Abortion

Many argue that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy and forcing her to use sterilization are essentially the same because they both involve legal infringement on a woman’s “rights” to her body. However, I would argue that these two seemingly similar ordeals are in fact quite different from one another and, as such, should be treated accordingly.

The main difference between forcing sterilization and “forcing” pregnancy is that one is preventative while the other is, well, abortive. This refers to the idea that sterilization exists to prevent unwanted pregnancy from occurring. Abortion, however, does not stop the conception of a baby. Rather, it prevents the birth and life of a human being. Simply by nature of what each accomplishes, it is evident that these two circumstances are quite different from one another.

A woman’s use of sterilization affects her body and her body alone. That being said, it is a rational argument that women should be allowed to determine sterilization for themselves without being told what to decide. In the case of abortion, however, two lives are now at stake. This, then, transfers the decision away from the woman, to the law. While she may be in control of her own body, she does not have the right to take the life and body of another.

Justice and Jesus

UTT Blog Post #11 - Law 4

According to the Critical Legal Studies movement, which “seeks to overturn accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice,” law and politics are one in the same. This revolutionary ideology proscribes to the idea that any law existing in today’s society exists not for the greater good of the government’s people, but for the greater good of government leaders. With this approach to law, come many bitter individuals who passionately claim that all laws are established with the intent of causing their downfall or oppressing society. From feminists to postmodernists, these “legal realists” have set out to debase the current government and national leaders so as to prevent further progress of their alternative agendas. This group’s lack of faith in national government to soundly create and carry out laws indicates their equally passionate support of a utopian, equalized society where the powerful and wealthy can’t/won’t use law as a means to maintain their status. Therefore, in the eyes of those advancing the Critical Legal Studies movement, justice is created through social, economic, and legal equality.

According to Christianity, justice is served/obtained a different way. True justice is receiving what is deserved. For us, as humans and sinners, we deserve death. However, Christ atoned for our sins through his sacrificial death on the cross. The way we are to respond to this act of mercy is by extending mercy and compassion to others. As Christians, we can show justice by loving others – even those different from us – the way that Christ loves us, rescuing and defending those treated unjustly, serving others in humility, and looking after the less fortunate. Christ has called us to extend the mercy he has given us to others in need in the form of selfless and devoted service.

Sharia Law vs. Christian Law

UTT Blog Post #10 - Law 3

Despite its large role in the Islamic culture and lifestyle, Sharia law is widely debated within the Islamic community and, as such, employed in a variety of forms. Essentially, to Muslims, the Sharia law is considered “God’s law” and the standards by which they are to guide their life. This law is composed of rules and instructions from the Quran as well as the example set by the prophet Mohammed, as recorded in the Hadith. While, these two sources may seem like straight-forward ones, many in the Islamic community argue over the role that Sharia law should play within life and society. While some believe that these rules are applicable on an individual basis, they believe that it does not have a place in governmental rule due to discord over the subjective stance on punishment. On the other hand, there are some who find it quite easy to incorporate the Sharia law into a social setting. Overall, this inconsistent approach to the law creates for conflicting approaches within Islamic communities.

Christian law is both similar and different than the Islamic Sharia law. For example, Christian law is based on God’s Word, the Bible, just like Sharia law is based mainly on the Quran. Both of these forms of law use humans as an example from which to base their law – Christianity using Jesus, and Islam using Mohammed. They also differ here in that the Christian example, Jesus, is deity and, therefore, is a reflection of the law. However, the Muslim example, Mohammed, was a mere human prophet, and thus an extension of the law. Also, in both cases, interpretation of the law is necessary. Differing interpretations of Christian law are reflected by the numerous denominations that represent the same Bible. However, while there may be slight disagreements on doctrinal interpretation the Christian approach to following the law remains consistent within the church. Because Christianity exists within most countries that proscribe to the separation of church and state, Christianity does not approach religious law from a governmental perspective. In fact, the Bible states that Christians are supposed to obey their authorities and thus the government. With this command, Christians know that Biblical law usurps all. Thus, Christians must follow governmentally established law unless it requires them to do something the Bible forbids or prevents them from doing something that the Bible requires. Therefore, the Christian approach to law is that this law exists for all, should be pursued by followers of Christ, and is to be upheld within the Christian community. Christians also understand that, while they must keep one another accountable and strive to develop a morally sound society, God is the ultimate judge of humanity.

Therefore, Islamic law and Christian law differ the most in their opposing approach to following religious law within a secular world.