Secular Government

In today’s society, there is one word that has been stirred up quite a bit in the world, and that is globalization. The idea that the world has one unified government in which there are one set of rules. Globalization is especially important to a secular group because it is a way to institute a rule that there is no religion.

Secular law would be one unified law that creates a life without any role of religion. There are a couple issues with this, the first being as Christians, we do not want people to take our right to say that God created us. In the secular law, there is no God and thus religion is unneeded. A quote from the book says that a secular law would be, “A non-religious political body that would make, interpret, and enforce a set of international laws” (Noebel 333).

Not only do Secular Humanists want a unified government, but also Marxists and Islam as well want a unified government. The key in this is that there are so many religions in our world an I see complications because of the differing views. There will never be a true unified government until the return of Christ because of the sinful nature. Humans will always have rule breakers, people who won’t follow the rules.

Along with differing views, everyone will have differing morals. What is stopping parents to teach their kids their moral ethics? They will see how their parents act and be just as they act. We see this today in a non-unified world. There will always be people with differing morals and convictions, which make it impossible for a unified government.

I believe that if we had a unified government we would see the same kinds of things we are seeing today in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. They were under a “unified” leader which is exactly what we would be under with a unified government. What is going to stop people from doing exactly what they are doing now? The would will turn into chaos even though people think it won’t.

Abortion # 2

I would agree with portions of this argument, the problem is that people who are for pro-choice miss some of the bigger pictures. The first is that although a mother has the kid and does not abort it, does not mean that the mother must keep it. A very viable option that is overlooked a great percentage of the time is adoption. A kid can be adopted and thus solves the problem of the mom having to take on the extra responsibility that a child comes with. Another one going along with that is family. The teen still has a family who, for the most part, could contribute to the health and welfare of the child. I personally know of a family whom daughter got pregnant while still in high school. She wanted to still have the opportunity to go to college and so the mom and dad took on the responsibility of watching and taking care of the kid while she finished up school.

The second part of this question that I will tackle next is divorce. The problem is that most teen mothers don’t get pregnant with a husband in the first place. It usually is with a boyfriend, who in the case of this situation has an obligation to help the mother, whether they get married in the end or not. The boyfriend will have to pay child support but that is no reason to kill a baby in an abortion. The boyfriend got the teen girl into the situation and so should take responsibility for his actions.

I would say that yes there are health risks with having a baby, but the risk of having an abortion is just as great. What if that teen later in life wants to have a baby with her husband, and she can’t because of the health problems that can arise from having an abortion. The problem in today’s society is that we focus on one side of the coin. There are health issues with both choice, but I would say the choice to have an abortion is greater. Not only can an abortion have dramatic effects on the reproductive system, but it can also have dramatic effects on the teen mother psychologically as well. The thought of killing a baby is very traumatizing. On average most women who have an abortion suffer from some kind of posttraumatic stress disorder because of the abortion.

I would have to say that the statement about parental care would vary. It all depends on the family support that the mother has. If her parents are willing to help support her and to help her take care of the baby, not only can she still live some kind of life but also does not have to hold the entire burden of a kid. On the opposite side, if parents don’t want to have anything to do with the kid this puts the girl into a very sticky situation especially when the boyfriend also doesn’t want to help in any way also. I would say if the mother has good parents they will be willing to help her and that she will not have to many problems but on the same side she could have problems. It all comes down to communication.

LAW 4

Equality and justice are words that are thrown around quite a bit in the area of law, especially in the view of Critical Legal Studies. CLS is looking to create justice and equality by not following the normal social ways. They believe that non-conventional approaches to law work better than how we are set up in today’s society and believe that how we are running law today is not right. They believe that we are oppressing the people and want to get rid of those who are over them. As for a definition of equality, today we say equality is those who have more give to the poor so that they can have the same amount of money as the rich. This means that equality is looking to equal out how society is today. To do this CLS lawyers are trying unconventional ways of overturning the law and trying to get rid of laws that we have today. They believe that equality not only should be found in class but also in rights, as in homosexuality and other rights that are not to this day acknowledged. Christians know that these things are wrong and they should not try and get involved in the changing of marital laws, but CLS lawyers believe that because the people feel like society looks down on them they should change the laws to give them something to feel good about.

When Christians think of justice and having justice they usually think of a murderer getting what he disserves by giving him the death penalty, or being rude and mean to homosexuals. The opposite is actually the case. God calls us to help the orphans and the widows. He wants us to help those who truly need our help. To get justice we are to love people and show them God’s love. We are called to do what we know is right. The Holy Spirit resides in us and through this, God gives us a conscience that tells us what is right and wrong. God calls us to not change our government to drastically change the way we live, but to help those who feel oppressed and to give them God’s love so that they no longer feel such a way. Not only are we called to love others, but God also tells us to not be of the world and be polluted by it. We are told to be good examples to others so that maybe one day we can have a society that is better than we have today

Law 3

It is true. There has been much debate about Shari’a law, and there are many differences to the way it is approached and viewed. As Christians, we hold that our law is from God. He set up rules that are needed. By, God setting up rules to follow he has ultimately shown us how we are to live to be like Him. We will never be perfect as Christ and God are but we must strive to be as close as possible. As Christians we view God’s laws as his way for us to live better lives. God didn’t just set up laws to be oppressive, but to help make life better, whether that is sanitation or for other reasons. God’s law is perfect, the problem with the world is that we aren’t, and never will be. Humans are sinful, depraved souls. Ultimately, Christians use the law that God set up to get to know God better. We can see how God ultimately is and how he wishes we would live.

On the contrary, Shari’a law is totally different. Muslim’s believe that their law was given by their God, Allah, but the issue is that they don’t believe that it can help them get closer to him. They believe that Allah is unknowable and so ultimately there is no true reference to how they must be followed. These rules are more strictly oppressive laws that force people to do what they say without a chance of getting to know or “see” their god. One of the other major problems with Shari’a law is that IT IS oppressive. There is no sense of freedom, whether that is speech, assembly, petition or religion. They MUST follow what the rules say and that is final. Even for a Muslim woman, there is oppression. They are seen as less valuable that a cow. That is contradictory to Christianity. Christianity holds that man and women are created equal and have roles that each are called to perform. There is no value to a woman. That is how Christianity and Islam are different.