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.