Is History Objective?

No. History is NOT objective. History will always be written with a bias. But the REAL question is, does the bias of the historian distort and discount the FACTS that the historian presents, or does that bias affect merely the emotional quality of the history?
The truth is, some historians are more reliable than others. Some historians' facts cannot be trusted. But our scrutiny of history has discounted most of those histories as unreliable documents.
The history that we DO trust today is history that has proven itself reliable in comparison with other texts whose biases oppose one another, yet whose facts parallel one another. For example, German accounts of World War II prove the same facts of the American account of World War II, even though they have different winner-loser biases. However, their biases obviously differ because of the different historical perspectives.
Our homework, therefore, is to read various historical accounts of events in order to distinguish bias from fact. Because both are present in every reliable historical account.

Moore on Socialism (Pun Intended) :)

Micheal Moore says, "There's a ton of cash in this country... but it's a finite amount." He says we've "allowed" that "finite amount" of "cash" to be "in the hands of just a few people," who he says use it for themselves. They are not "helping you" with it, he points out.
Well, just to humor Micheal Moore... Let's imagine an America where people cannot use their money for themselves-- rather, the government will decide what is done with all of that excess money. Bad idea. Why? Because, when people no longer have the freedom to decide what they do with their money that they earn, the people no longer have rights-- which is completely contradictory to the essential purpose of Moore's socialism. He wants this money to be evenly distributed so that the lower and middle classes' rights are preserved through an increase in economic opportunity; but, in doing that, he actually abolishes all economic freedom and strips all classes (lower, middle, and upper) of their right to choose what they do with their money.
But that is the basis for socialism. The government evenly redistributes the wealth of the people to equalize the financial situations of the nation's citizens. The above irony that I pointed out (that, in trying to maximize the people's rights by redistributing wealth, the government actually destroys people's financial freedom and economic rights), is reason #1 why socialism would not work in our democratic society.
But why doesn't it work, in general?
Well, let me start out with an example of what Moore's suggestion of taxing the rich to give to the poor might look like. Let's say I am a single parent with no GED who works 50 hours a week for minimum wage to support my children, and the government gives me sufficient money from a tax imposed on the wealthy, ...I no longer will work 50 hours a week for minimum wage! Not if I can get by on money the government gives me! ...That is the main problem with socialism. If hard work is the only means by which a person can survive, that person will work hard. However, if someone is guaranteed a living regardless of the hours they put in, or their quality of work, both the time and quality of their work will decrease. Why work if it is unnecessary? It is in the natural character of man to think and act this way, which is why socialism would fail. The government can maintain control over what is done with the nation's wealth, but the government cannot maintain control over how hard people are working; and if people are not working hard, soon there is no wealth to redistribute, and your nation finds itself a pickle, impoverished and unable to escape poverty.

A Response to Moore's Socialism

In this video, Moore asserts that "the tenets of socialism" insure that "we the people have a say in how this thing [the economy, I presume...] is run" ...which is kind of funny to me, since the basis of socialism as an economic theory is that the government owns all property and has the absolute authority to distribute it amongst the people. This seems completely contradictory to Moore's assertion that the public would have a say in how the economy is run. It is actually the government who controls the economy in a socialist society. The people have virtually no say. The economy in which the people have their say would be an economy where they can choose where to send their business, where they have power as a consumer because companies are dependent on their business, where every man has an equal opportunity to sustain himself. Huh... You know... it sounds like I just described consumerist Capitalism, doesn't it? Now, don't get me wrong. Like Socialism, Capitalism can be corrupted. When people neglect the human responsibilities of charity, stewardship, and responsible, educated consumerism, the system can grow very corrupt. But it is much easier for socialism to be corrupted, simply because of the innate nature of mankind. But I'll get to that later. First, let me point out another contradiction I noticed. In describing criteria for a good economic system he posed the question-- "Is this for the common good? ...And [does it have] a moral and ethical core to it?" Well, the first question is compatible with socialist beliefs. Socialism works for the common good, but not for the good of everyone. Outliers and weak links are not helped in this economic system. Take for example the Socialist system of health care. A teenage girl with a torn ACL will recieve treatment before a grandmother dying of cancer because the government is willing to invest in a younger human with greater chances at survival. An elderly woman who will die anyways, however, is not seen as a benefit to society any longer, and the government chooses not to invest national health care money on her short-lived survival. Anyway, the point is, Socialism does indeed emphasize the common good. Ok, Micheal Moore, good job. You didn't contradict yourself! ...but... oh no... oh wait. Then he says, "is it moral and ethical?!" Oh boy... ...The very essence of Socialism is secular, which means there is no objective sense of morality or ethics. They become relative to the individual. So how can he determine that socialism is "good for the people," "ethical" or "moral" if such words have no objective meaning? ...But his contradictions are essentially beside the point. Which brings me back to my earlier assertion-- Socialism is much more easily corrupted than other economic theories simply because of human nature. In other words, Socialism won't work. Why? Because humans have a tendency towards greed, not selfless generosity. Yes, Jesus commands it of us, but when the government forces it upon people, it does not work. Moore referenced his distaste for excessive wealth, though I am confident he makes a reasonable salary as a film producer. And that is the essential root problem of Socialism. Everyone hates wealth for other people, but mostly never for themselves! People want equality. ...That is, for everyone else. The human tendency towards pride and greed motivates the individual to pursue his common interests in rising above the equal majority, not to pursue the common good (which, as we've covered is the main tenet of Socialism). That is the root of why Socialism would not work. Overall, my response to this speech by Micheal Moore was that I found it interesting how he tried to reconcile his very American sense of individualism with the communalist view of Socialism, and his philosophy's moral relativism with his personal view of what is moral and ethical. But even if he didn't contradict himself, Socialism still doesn't work, for the reasons I listed above.

Implications of a Global Secular Government

Secular Humanist politics follow that, since the world is one single ecosystem of which humans are merely one part, we should form government as a single unit as well. Thus, Secular Humanists tend to favor the idea of global secular government, which would essentially make the world like one "country." The implications that a secular world government would aim to have would be to eliminate religion and war, and establish "peace." Secular Humanists believe peace is attainable as the process of evolution continues due to a.) the progressive nature of evolution and b.) the innately good nature of mankind. However, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this world is in a constant state of entropy. Things are getting progressively worse, not better. Therefore, if peace was not attainable in the past, why would it be more likely in the future (that is, if we apply the digression of the natural world to the affairs of man, as a Naturalist worldview does)? Secondly, geographic differences/separation and different histories/cultural backgrounds would make a world unification, and thus, a single-nation world, impossible. As a result, the elimination of warfare would be unachievable. As long as mankind is not totally in agreement with one another, there will be argument-- there will be something to fight over, and therefore there will be war.
Ironically, therefore, a secular world government would (by the very nature of humanity and the world) be unable to achieve its very purpose or goal. In contrast to this Secular Humanist view, Christianity suggests that government is instituted by God to maintain justice, freedom, and order in a chaotic world filled with people who, by their very nature, are predisposed to mess it up! In the Christian worldview, the purpose of government is clearly defined in the Bible as such, which contrasts it from the Secular Humanist philosophy, which is based on the thoughts of modern-day Secular Humanists, rather than (as Christians accept) divine inspiration. Because God has this authority over the government, Christians often claimthat a government's power should remain quite limited, an idea contradictory to the "global power" concept of Secular Humanism.

Assertion or Argument?

#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?

The above is an assertion-- not an argument. If presented with this assertion as a persuasion for the pro-life view, I would simply respond by asking, "Why should I believe that illegalizing abortion provides a woman of a fundamental right, or her reproductive choice? Isn't her natural 'reproductive choice' the decision to have sexual intercourse or not? Isn't her natural 'reproductive choice' the decision to have protected sex if she does not remain abstenant, yet isn't in a place where she can raise a child? Give me some evidence as to why a woman has the right to brutally remove a living human fetus from her body." The assumption made in this "argument" (which is really an assertion) is that every woman has a natural right to an abortion, but it never provides evidence as to why that is true. Here is some evidence, however, as to why that is not true.
Pro-lifers will argue that the reason why abortion is a woman's right to her choose what she does with her own body is because the unborn fetus is not human. First, according to the law of biogenesis, an organism can only reproduce after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and humans produce humans. Well, there are only four differences between an unborn human and a born human-- size, level of development, environment, and dependency. (We can use the term "human" for both the born and the unborn because of the law of biogenesis. If someone responds, "well, the unborn is not human." We can simply ask, "Well then, what is it?" The law of biogenesis explains that "human" is the only acceptable answer to that question). Anyway, is human, born or unborn, less human because of a smaller size, lesser level of development, different environment, or greater level of dependency? If the answer were yes, that would mean diabetics who are dependent on regulated doses of insulin are less human than non-diabetics, a person in one city is less human than a person in another, a four-year old is less human than a forty-year old because of the adult's more advanced level of cognitive development, or a 5'4" man is less human than a 6'9" man! I would say that most people deny the truth of those four assertions, so why is it that they illogically assume that those four differences make the unborn less human than the born?
The lack of proof for the assertion that the unborn are not human, and that a woman therefore has a fundamental right to an abortion, is what distinguishes the illegalization of abortion, or "the government [forcing] a woman to continue her pregnancy" from "forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization."

Restoring Objectivity to "Justice"

The Biblical view of justice as seen through Deutoronomy 10:12-19, Jeremiah 22:3, Micah 6:8, and James 1:27 is that Christians are morally obligated to defend the poor, oppressed, and suffering. These verses repeatedly discuss the poor and the widowed, and reinforce that justice is an obedience to God which shows love to the suffering. Also, justice is objective to the moral standards and commandments of God. God requires that we establish justice through obedience to this objective standard He has established.
Critical Legal Studies (CLS), on the other hand, not only practices a subjective view of "justice" and "equality," but also flat-out denies the possibility of objectivity in the interpretation of law. It unites the concept of law (which is usually thought objective and factual) and politics (usually thought subjective and opinion-based). Critical Legal Studies is influenced ultimately by the relativism of Postmodernism, from it's deconstructionist view of language, to its relativist views on law. However, CLS also takes much of its concept of justice and equality from mild forms of Marxism, conceptualizing the political realm as a struggle against "dominant political ideology," which is viewed as essentially bad. CLS catagorizes the world in "dualities: subjective-objective, male-female, public-private..." etc. (legal-dictionary 3). By catagorizing the world in opposites, CLS sets itself up for the idea of thesis and antithesis clashing and forming a synthesis-- essentially the Marxist dialectic. Also, "CLS theorists" generally "object to capitalism as an economic system" (3). In conclusion, we see that Critical Legal Studies is influenced largely by the Postmodern and Marxist worldviews.

Shari'a and Christian Law

Christianity and Shari'a law share one similarity-- the philosophy behind each view of law acknowledges the existence of one God, and absolute morality, which stems from His will. However, in Islam, this God, and his absolute morality is ultimately unknowable, which is where the various differences between these two faiths' view of law stem from. Because Christians believe God has revealed Himself to man through merely the existence/nature of the universe and the Bible, God is in fact knowable, and the Christian view of law therefore stems from His knowable nature and moral code.
In Christian law, the absolute morality laid out both in the Bible and within the conscience of every human being provides the foundation for law. In Shari'a law, however, because the nature and morality of Allah are ultimately unknowable, the law (which is viewed as a means for keeping people on track with complete and total submission to Allah) prohibits any kind of indulgent behavior, and also limits what the rest of the world (and the Christian worldview) view as human rights. It is hyper-conservative because it, so to speak, doesn't know what is and isn't allowed-- what Allah does or doesn't want from man.
With the special revelation from God, the Bible, Christianity however has a much more clearly defined law. Christians believe that God's word lays out the principles of morality clearly so that they can be applied to law in consistent ways that don't rely on the interpretation of man, but rather on God's absolute truth.