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.