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.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
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."
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."
Monday, March 14, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)