UTT - Blog Post 23

Your professor in class today said that the New Testament was historically untrustworthy.  That evening at your study group, Sarah, Mark,Nathan and Paige all agreed and asked you why you would believe such an untrustworthy book?  Respond.  Due May 21st by Midnight. 50 points

        Well, honestly, I’d take issue with the statement that it was historically untrustworthy. I would need some good hard evidence before believing a claim like that—innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff, right?

        Besides, the Old Testament is archaeologically accurate and matches up with all known records. It provides a nice factual basis from which one can assume the validity of the New Testament, because the two are so interconnected.

        But if that weren’t enough, the New Testament can stand on its own worth. Everyone from Roman historians (Josephus, etc.) to Jewish scribes and leaders, to all accepted history will admit that Jesus both existed and did wondrous things. The other actions that are usually called into question, such as the deaths of the apostles, their miracles, and the historicity of the actions recorded in the Bible are documented through outside sources as well as within the Bible.

        Most of the controversy is centered in the Synoptic Gospels, though, and these can be dated to before A.D. 70, within thirty-five years of the original events, and have been copied with a ninety-nine percent accuracy rate which is unheard of in ancient historical documents; not to mention the thousands of copies, which are the most of any document from that or earlier time periods.

        Overall, in both archeology and history, the New Testament is without flaw—although many will claim it to be full of myths and legends in an attempt to discredit it without being able to prove their statements. It’s way easier that way, because they can’t back up what they say.

UTT - Blog Post 22

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?  50 points, due Monday, May 14th by Midnight.

        Is history pointless? Because honestly, if we didn’t have history, the present would be something completely different. What we’ve learned in the past influences both the present and the future—without the prior knowledge of experience and being able to see what has happened throughout history, we would be doomed to repeat many of the same mistakes as before. So, while you may claim it is not objectively true, it does play a huge role in everything, so it is definitely not pointless.

        To continue, though, you’ve begged the question over whether “history being written by the winners” is accurate or not. For one thing, that isn’t always the case: Take the Jewish people, for example, after the Holocaust. They definitely weren’t winners, but their histories are the most accurate representations of what went on in those camps, because they want it to be remembered correctly. So history isn’t always written by only the winners.

        Now, of course, it is true that the winners do, in their own areas, publish their versions of history, but even those “not objective” versions still contain enough factual evidence to be valuable both as lessons in human nature and events that trespassed—reported in opinion or cold, clear logic. Either way, it is worth enough that history should be given some importance, not simply ignored.

        So, in conclusion, history can be written by the victors, but even then, it is still worth something and is never pointless. It is valuable as a teaching tool, as a source of knowledge, and as a way to understand both the present and the future.

UTT - Blog Post 21

Mark and Sarah agree that the government should do more to redistribute wealth evenly and Mark went on to say that the State should own everything so people could learn to share everything equally.  
Why do you think socialism doesn't work?  Due Wednesday, May 2nd by midnight.
Bonus 5 points for the best video link you send me on this topic.

            You know, this may not be the answer that you’re looking for, but, technically speaking, Socialism is a perfect system. It would create a perfect system on earth if it could be implemented like it has been created in concept. Of course, that is assuming one completely fatal flaw: Humanity is basically good. We aren’t.

        Because we, as Christians, know that all of humanity has fallen and has been contaminated by sin, we can never truly make the decisions that are necessary to ensure the success of socialism. Humanity is far too self-focused and personally oriented to ever be able to make a community system work. That’s why capitalism is so successful—it allows us to fuel our own selfish desires with competition to become the best and the most successful, and it works. Socialism can’t match that because it appeals too much to basic human virtue rather than our greed and want for more.

        So, to sum it up, socialism would be the perfect system in a perfect world. We aren’t in a perfect world and we aren’t perfect people, so a perfect system would be essentially flawed, as any attempt at socialism today surely is. That’s why I believe socialism can never work, plain and simple.

UTT - Blog Post 20

You get in a huge argument with Nathan and Sara about how to properly celebrate Earth Day on April 22nd.  Go to this web address and write out a Christian approach to environmentalism.
http://celdf.org/downloads/FINAL%20UNIVERSAL%20DECLARATION%20OF%20THE%20RIGHTS%20OF%20MOTHER%20EARTH%20APRIL%2022%202010.pdf

        Our Christian approach to Environmentalism is quite simple and can be broken down into two or three simple areas. Firstly, man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it. With that in mind, we are to be good stewards, treating everything with respect, while still filling the Earth and subduing it. That’s Christian “environmentalism” in a nutshell.

        But let’s break it down a little bit here and look at that first sentence: “Man was created to have dominion over the Earth and all that is within it.” In Genesis chapter one, it says that man is to “fill the Earth and subdue it,” so therefore man is to be seen as above the rest of creation. That means, to a Christian, a human has more value than, say, a tree or an animal, which is definitely different than some of the radical environmentalists would claim. We are to subdue the Earth, or said another way, to control it and use it for our purposes.

        Yet, at the same time, one must remember that the Earth is as much a part of God’s creation as we are and we should, as Christians, always respect that which God has made. Unnecessary waste, destruction, and purposeless desolation of the ground and living material are really shames and shouldn’t happen. Is it worth threatening the lives of human beings over? I don’t believe so. Yet, the environment is a gift from God and should be respected and taken care of, because of what it is. Does that mean radicalism is okay? No, radicalism is never truly okay. Moderate conservatism is where it’s at, but that is all my opinion. =)

        So there we have a little bit of my take on Christian “environmentalism.”

UTT - Blog Post 19

Response to Michael Moore’s statement: “I’m kind of tired…and bored of debating a sixteenth century economic philosophy versus a nineteenth century economic philosophy. It’s the twenty-first century. Can’t we come up with something new?”

        Well, this is actually a pretty easy statement to respond to, because it’s so basically nonsensical. To begin, though, I’ll put a little background up on this: Michael Moore is saying that he is sick of hearing a “sixteenth-century economic philosophy” (Capitalism) being debated with a “nineteenth century economic philosophy” (Socialism and, eventually, Communism). So, that’s where he’s coming from when he makes that statement.

        To respond to it is simple, though: Why ignore things that are still relevant today just because they were created several hundred years ago? We use concepts born since the beginning of time and never have any issues with them—an idea is an idea wherever it comes from, and if a better option isn’t out there, then we use what we have. Just because it was created in a past century doesn’t make it any less valid if it is still applicable in today’s markets, which both ideas have proven to be.

        I guess, from my viewpoint, his statement is simply nonsensical in nature. It’s not an applicable argument towards why something should or shouldn’t be applied to economics; “I’m tired of hearing about this” doesn’t make it any less true. If those are the two reigning economic models in the world today, then they are what we have to work with. The “new” ones that he seems to want to badly really haven’t panned out at all. In fact, they don’t even appear on a decent-sized scale because they simply aren’t plausible. Simply because something was created at a later date doesn’t always make it better.

        So, in conclusion, then, I would say that his statement isn’t a valid one. It implies a lot that isn’t the case and tries to ignore a debate due to irrelevant factors. If he wants to push an agenda, it would be nice if he could at least use an argument that works with facts rather than just opinion.

UTT - Blog Post 18

Choose one of these to respond to.  You will be graded on the strength of your argument.  Due Monday March 26th at midnight.
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?

          Well, I’d like to make two real points here, so let’s look at them one at a time:

       First of all, I’d like to say that once a woman makes the decision to have unprotected relations with a man, she must be ready to accept the consequences. It’s akin to eating ice cream—sure it’s great, but you may gain some weight as a result; that risk is always there, so the consumer has accepted that and is ready to live with the consequences. In the case of the woman, she is accepting that she might get pregnant and must be ready and willing to deal with the consequences (in this case, a child). After all, doesn’t each and every human have the right to life, as well as those of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? So when a woman makes the decision to engage in a situation where she becomes pregnant, the net result is introducing another human being into the world—one with full right to live. And the woman’s “civil rights” do not extend to murder, that will hopefully never be the case. “Reproductive choice” is whether or not to abstain from certain actions—what happens after is not a choice, because that decision was already made.

       At the same time, I would say that the government is not forcing women to have abortions or not have abortions. I believe that the government should not be financing and promoting abortion as a viable “solution” to pregnancies for ethical and moral reasons, not the least of which include that the government is broadcasting its stance on the matter rather than remaining impersonal and impartial like it ought to be. So, I don’t believe it forces women one way or the other, I believe it encourages the “desired solution” that it has decided is the best way to solve the “issues” presented to it; but on the whole, it would be better for the government to be impartial and detached from the issues that it even now fully immerses itself into. So, the issues presented in the question aren’t relevant any more than the “forcing” of a pregnancy is—if the government operates as it ought, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

       So there’s my long-winded answer to the question. The government takes sides right now, which motivates people to claim that it will force the vote to one side or another in an issue. Those problems blossom and becomes flowering trees of discontent and discord which raise questions such as the above—questions that, if the government were working correctly, would never even be brought up.

UTT - Blog Post 17

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be? Due Monday, March 19th by midnight.

          There are quite a few ramifications that one can look at in regards to a one-world, secular government.

        First of all, one can obviously assume that secular implies an atheistic system of government, so religion would be removed from any part of it, and most likely be persecuted, so as to better turn more people to the secular beliefs of the governmental authorities. This would bring a lot of suffering on every kind of belief, but most definitely Christians because of how widespread the Christian lifestyle is worldwide. Yet, we as Christians are led to believe that this is part of what is to come, so it would be expected.

        Another big problem is that it definitely wouldn’t be equal or, honestly, sustainable. Being humans, we hold biases towards our hometowns, our friends, and what we believe are the right things to do. That honestly wouldn’t change with a new, bigger government—it’d just become magnified. Plus, with humans being as flawed as they are, the government would echo those failings; any human-created government is doomed to failure because it is created with perfect people in mind, and nobody can be perfect. As we hold flaws and fail, so would this new government.

        But realistically, a one-world government probably wouldn’t be able to function effectively because of the differing cultures that we experience today. Middle Eastern would never coexist with Western, Eastern contrasts with all others, and some countries just wouldn’t release their sovereignty for anything. Unless some viewpoints change drastically, a global government isn’t even feasible.

        It’s an interesting quandary, but it’s not something that will be happening without some divine (or not-so-divine) intervention.

UTT - Blog Post 16

Read the essay, The Creative Arts, in your student manual.  Watch the following 6 videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhVaLbBglQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZDiKJIroU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfEOtcH3Lk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRfuyOM_jYg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLk6DrHktc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqiHEmejxNA&feature=related

Write your interactions down.  Where did you agree with them and where did you disagree with them and why?  Where were they similar, where were they different?  What conclusions did they draw?  Did you agree with the conclusions?  Why or why not?  Due March 12th by midnight.

        I would say, first of all, that I paid a lot more attention to the movie than the reading just because I found the reading so dry—it’s not in my style of thinking and really isn’t something that I believe I will deal with on a regular basis in my future. The movie, though, raised some interesting points, and I’d like to talk about some of those.

        There were obviously some things that the movie dealt with that I truly did agree with—like the change in art styles and the death of beauty. When we think of beautiful art, we think of things that, today, are no longer created—most of the truly wonderful art to see was made a couple hundred years before now, because of how “art” has been defined since the imposition of evolution over creation. Honestly, I think the movie creator said the right thing when he said that today’s art isn’t beautiful—I wouldn’t even call it art because it doesn’t make me care about it. A crucifix in a jar filled with urine? Not exactly beautiful or something I would want to be around, and definitely forget about calling it art.

        But that raises another question which the movie-maker dealt with, at least in passing. Does art have to be beautiful? I would say no, it doesn’t, but it does have to be acceptable in society and serve a purpose. Does defaming a person or history serve a purpose? Nothing worthwhile, so it shouldn’t be, in my opinion, art. Now, at the same time, beauty does lend itself to art because beauty can make art serve a purpose, and is more appealing to a general crowd. So, there’s another place where the movie and I agree.

        A third point that we agree on is that the “traditional” view of beauty is one to be admired and that it is worthwhile. Even though it may seem old and quaint and outdated, I’d personally much rather see skill in drawing and a beautiful expression of nature or an object than something offensive and disgusting that claims to serve the same purpose. Honestly, if it’s not appealing to my eyes, than I’m going to go somewhere else and look for “art” that truly is worthy of the name.

        Now, one point that I obviously will disagree with from the movie is that the pursuit and appreciation of beauty can replace religion. Now, I can see where he is coming from, because he sets up the whole movie up to this point as a proof that beauty is our means of finding fulfillment—enjoying and creating beautiful things should be enough to satisfy us spiritually. And since beauty is universal and transcends cultural boundaries, why shouldn’t it serve the purpose of religion? It doesn’t create the same conflicts and battles that religion does, and more people can agree on things that are beautiful. Now, I would say that is a truly seductive line of reasoning. But, it’s not accurate. Beauty can be destroyed, maligned, perverted, and offers no hope of salvation—it’s an enjoyment of the moment rather than an acknowledgement of what is to come. Religion offers so much more. But, let’s be honest: True Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a lifestyle. How we live is true Christianity, not what we claim to follow.

        The book, from the little that I was able to take away from it, says that true beauty comes from a Christian worldview, and that there is a distinctive lack of Christian artistry in the world today. While I found it dry, long, overblown, and honestly I couldn’t pay much attention to it, I’ll bet that it does deal with some important issues. Now, I don’t believe that true beauty can only come from Christians, because the world is so much larger and presents a talent pool that dwarfs our own—but that’s how it’s supposed to be. The difference is in our promise of a lifestyle change, rather than living however we want.

        I guess, overall, that both the video and the book have good points and deal with some very real issues in the world today, but both don’t quite hit all the points right in the middle of the target. If you were to combine the two, I think you could come up with a very real opinion of art that mirrors my own (as much of one as I have formed—I much prefer the logical, analytical sciences because they make so much more sense). Mine is more based off of scripture and what I have developed in my own personal variation of the Christian worldview—beauty is the representation of skill and the appreciation of the “something more” that we all know is there, in my opinion. But the world has run far from that, and nobody really knows where it’s headed next. It’s kind of scary, really.

UTT - Blog Post 15

Muhammad thinks that Shariah law would make America a better place.  Check out the following links and write a respone to Muhammad.
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf    Don't read the whole thing, but you might read pages 14-16
Then read one journalists account of a recent incidenthttp://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11490/pub_detail.asp\

       Well, to that I would have to start by saying one thing: No, it definitely would not make America a better place. It would change just about everything from its current state and America would no longer be the country that it is today.

       First of all, it would eliminate the liberties that we as Americans so freely enjoy today. Under the Koran, freedom of religion is no more tolerated than true freedom of speech, both of which are forbidden because they could contradict the Koran’s edicts that the only true religion is Islam (any who follow other religions are to be converted or killed), and that anything that goes against or defames the Koran is to be punished with death. Further, the liberties that women hold—freedom to vote, freedom to own property and businesses, equality with men—would be muted at best or, more likely, completely revoked in favor of a solidly male-dominated society. And if that weren’t enough, justice itself would be subject to Shariah Law and if it is the case of a non-Muslim versus a Muslim, the case would be decided instantly in favor of the Muslim as Shariah Law is designed to protect the Muslim believer over a non-Muslim. Thus, those liberties that Americans value would be eliminated under Shariah law.

       Secondly, we can already see the effects of Shariah Law in many Arabic countries today—and it doesn’t inspire much. There is an overwhelming amount of bloodshed, murder, military dictatorships and takeovers, rebellions, excessive and cruel punishments, biased judgments, and infighting to the point that the governmental system of Shariah Law is far worse in many cases than that of any other country. It destroys liberty, leaves the government open to murder its people, gives power to supremely biased religious leaders, and just overall doesn’t provide a strong backbone for running a country.

       Therefore, I would have to conclude that Shariah Law wouldn’t, in fact, provide anything near an improvement for America. It would hurt a lot more than it helped, really.

UTT - Blog Post 14

Sarah thinks that laws are created only by societies. Read this article
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-different-sources-of-law.htm
 as well as referring to your textbook pages 285 and 286.  

 Are governments the ultimate authority for creating laws?
Due 2/27 by midnight.

       The straightforward and simple answer is “no,” according to the article, the UTT textbook, and even Sarah herself.

       I’d like to point out that societies—as Sarah attests—can include custom-regulated laws, which do not involve the government because a custom is an unwritten rule formed by popular consent, not a governmental authority. So, therefore, the answer is “no” from Sarah’s perspective, because the government is not the ultimate source for law—it stems from popular opinion.

       As well, according to the UTT textbook, the ultimate source of law is a higher power than any earthly government—it comes from our Lord and Christ. If the government creates a law that is in contrast to that which is expressed in the Bible, then it must be broken to keep in code with the Scripture that is our moral basis. Therefore, from the textbook’s perspective (to compound with Sarah’s), the government doesn’t ultimately create laws—Scripture, the Bible as generated by a God-Over-All, does that.

       Furthermore, even the article itself says that government isn’t the ultimate authority for creating laws. It states that law stems from popular culture, then goes through a process of maturation (cultural traditions to cultural norms to leaders expressed to governmental enforcement) to become endorsed by the government. So, therefore here too the government doesn’t make the laws—culture does.

       Overall, all three sources point to the fact that the government isn’t the ultimate source of law. Now, what that really is, they can’t agree on, but that is beside the point—they all show that the government isn’t the final authority for creating laws. 

UTT - Blog Post 13

For a brief history of the Equal Rights Amendment, you could check out this link  http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html or you could just google it your self. 

The ERA is quite simple, with three short sections:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As a Christian and with what you know about feminism, what do you perceive are the problems with this and how do you think a Christian should respond to feminism?  Due Monday, February 20th at midnight.

This is another interesting one—but, since we already did one on sexism, this’ll probably sound a lot like that one. And again, I’d just like to point out that I, as one of the male gender, am technically “unqualified” to talk about sexism because of my gender (which, of course, isn’t sexist at all. But, what do I know? xD).

But, anyways. There really are a few problems with the ERA, and all of them relate to section one: That total equality shall not be denied. Now, my reasonings for this are multiple, and I’ll break it down a little bit in a list:

1.     There are certain areas that men are more likely to succeed than women. To use the example that my teacher related to me in class, I, being the size that I am, would be far more likely to be saved by a firefighter who is 6’1” and muscular (which, generally, applies more commonly to the male physique) than someone who is 5’2” and lithe (which is more commonly a female physique). Now, of course, the reverse is also true—women generally are skilled in different areas than men, and in those areas, they are, for the most part, above and beyond what men could be. It’s not a matter of gender discrimination, but rather of plausibility and applicable talents, which leads into my next point.

2.   Men and women are skilled in different areas. Men do tend to excel in physical jobs or other careers that call for their specific skillsets. On the flipside, women also have skillsets that are different than men which definitely allow them to excel in certain types of jobs that men struggle at. It all depends on the natural inclinations and skills of the specific person, and gender hardwires some of those deeply into every male and female person.

3.   Now, knowing this, it stands to reason that there are some things men should be doing that women should not, and, of course, vice-versa. By passing the ERA, it would allow—force, rather—women to serve on the front lines of combat, to use one example. In this case, it is both proven to be psychologically damaging to men to see women be wounded or killed, and it exacerbates protective instincts that would overcome basic training and destroy the cohesion necessary to perform a military maneuver. And this is only an isolated situation. There are other places where this is common as well, of course. On the other side, women share an affinity for nursing that men are hard-pressed, if at all able, to copy, because of how they are genetically wired. This is an area that women excel and most men do not—which shows that one side is good at some things while the other is not.

4.   Therefore, by looking at how the ERA would destroy the common “gender boundaries” that operate within society and were built by the genetic skillsets programmed into us all, it cannot be a good thing. It would remove the value of these skills—that are, in many cases, vitally needed to keep society alive and functioning—and break down the fabric of what we know is male and female. It can’t end well.

As Christians, we are supposed to look at feminism as any other idea floating around in the world today. It isn’t “wrong” except when taken to the extreme, but we know that it denies basic Biblically-formed roles that have existed for tens of thousands of years. We cannot accept it, but we can prove where it follows the right path—and it has, providing the right to vote and fighting for equal pay for equal work, which are admirable ideals—and where it steps over the line. The ERA, in this case, definitely slides the toe of feminism over the line of normalcy and into the realm of the ridiculous.

UTT - Blog Post 12

 I was talking with someone the other day and the topic of same sex marriage came up as our state senate was getting ready to vote on same sex marriage.  I mentioned that I was opposed to this  and they asked me why?  I explained my position and they responed  by saying to me that "you Christians are all homophobic and sexist."   While there are some who this may be true off, how would you respond to the charge that the Bible teaches this?  Due Monday Feb 13th by midnight. 

        Another blog entry. Oh, boy, here we go on this one—another hot-button topic. Actually, looking at it, there are two different topics here that really need discussing, so I’ll split them up and go one-at-a-time:

        First of all, I’d like to look at how Christians are “homophobic” and what the Bible says about that. Honestly, I know a handful of people who profess to being gay or lesbian and can speak to them on a very personal level due to the amount of time that I’ve known them for—and it’s yielded some very interesting observations, for sure. A lot of homosexuals are afraid of the church and thus Christians in general because of how they are treated—with anger, hatred, disgust, rejection, denial, all of that and so much worse. In a lot of ways, they aren’t even seen as really human by some people who claim to be living in Christ, and this has been the basis for how Christians have gained the reputation for being “homophobic.”

        But that isn’t the case at all. Homophobic implies that you are afraid of or revile homosexuals. Now, admittedly, in Leviticus the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin and must be punished—but then again, so is adultery, so is lying, so is murder, so is hatred, and so is lust, to name a few. What we, as Christians, are called to do is love those who suffer from any sinful habit (since we all are the same—Romans 8:28) and bring them to Christ through our care and expressions of Christ’s love. Does that mean we agree with and endorse an action that is Biblically wrong? No more than we can honestly say that we agree with murder or adultery. But to hate and attack someone because of that is both non-biblical and non-Christian, which goes against the very things that we, as Christians, should stand for. So no, we are not homophobic—just not supporters of homosexuality. It doesn’t make a person more or less human and in need of salvation (just like we all are), it’s just a different style of sin than many people are used to seeing. One friend of mine put it the best way possible, I think: “The church is just starting to look at homosexuality in a more real sense and it is, as a corporate body, freaking out about this new level of sin. It’s like an infant who has run up against a new challenge that it doesn’t yet know how to master. Given time and level heads and scriptural backing, it will rise to the challenge and we will see a mature, organized, Christian response to the issue of homosexuality.”  This isn't to say that homosexuality is a new issue, but the levels to which popular culture has taken it are far beyond anything people would even have imagined fifty years ago. Yet, even now, that rings true by the shift in attitude I, and others, have witnessed sweeping through the church: Treat those who suffer from sin with Christ’s love, not man’s hatred, because we are all human in need of Someone greater for our redemption.

        Now, on the issue of sexism, I would say that I am far less able to talk strongly on the subject because, in most people’s minds, my gender inhibits me from making any definitive statements on the matter. But, I’ll try my best.

        It’s true that the Bible does, at first glance, seem to teach gender-specific roles that may seem “sexist.”  But, honestly, on deeper inspection it becomes clear that both men and women take on different roles based on our genetic predispositions and proclivities. For men, that may involve ruling/decision-making, as well as breadwinning, educating and disciplining the next generation, those types of things. For women, that may involve childbearing, nurturing, that element of care that comes so naturally to the feminine gender. So, I really don’t have that much to say on the matter of sexism in the Bible except for this—although it may seem that the Bible is biased towards men, it truthfully is one of the strongest examples of a religion that upholds women by making them equal to men in their different areas of expertise. Islam, basic atheism, Mormonism, they all can’t say anything like that. But in Biblical Christianity, it is seen that men and women share different responsibilities, and that only together can they become the most effective, because each gender has pieces that the other lacks but needs to be fulfilled.

UTT - Blog Post 11

Read the following articles and then respond to the question.
http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/40453137.html
http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70325/
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/children-parents-and-obesity
Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?  This is due Feb 10th at Midnight. 

       Yeah, this is probably a pretty touchy subject, but I’m going to give it my best shot, aiming really for how the government has acted in the past in different areas like nutrition, discipline, and the basics of child-rearing in a solid, stable family. These can be telling signs for the future that can predict how the government would respond if given more involvement, and thus control, in the categories of parenting and the family.

       First, let’s look at nutrition. One of the articles (the third one) has demonstrated that the government really botched up the nutrition that they provide in their lunch meals in public. While it has reached out to schools in attempts to control the obesity that its lunches have encouraged, the government still doesn’t put any backing into its programs and announcements, which makes them useless. So, in the area of how children and overall the family eat, I’d have to say that the government should stay out, because they really don’t have the organization to enforce the necessary habits that families can provide on their own.

       Another area that the government should be limited in is the area of discipline. By setting standards that apply to every family in every way, as the government has discussed with alarming frequency, it completely disregards the character and personality of the child which is being disciplined. As we well know, some kids may only need a word spoken to reform their behavior, while others need more powerful reinforcement. The government, though, would not have the time or resources to invest in how to correctly each and every child, so it would be far more of a hindrance than a help—and the family is a far more effective institution to maintain to deal with the issues of discipline.

       Moreover, how a government reacts to a solid, stable family environment is very telling in how it would control the future development of children. The government of the United States is, rather decidedly, lacking in those areas—it focuses on keeping children in special “common education” groups rather than giving them the love and care that only a true mother can provide. I would therefore state that the government should not extend its efforts to impose its views of the family on the American public because it would do more damage than help, and harm the next generations.

       Overall, then, it’s pretty obvious that the government should keep itself out of the family and how it conducts itself because past efforts have shown to be less than profitable for all parties. My opinion echoes this, obviously, because of my own Christian views, but it also stands to reason for the evidence presented above.