|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
[ Friends ]
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 6:35pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
Perhaps the most controversial of events in history is the very creation of life. Because no human was around to witness it, much speculation about the event is debated in scientific circles everywhere. While the majority of scientists believe life evolved from several generations, about 10,000 scientists (including 2,000 biologists) believe life exists from an outside creator. Incidentally, 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists in some form and agree with certain aspects of it, such as the consideration of the age of the earth.
Even with the number of Americans considering creationist science valuable, only 20% of public teachers teach both theories in biology classrooms. The reasoning behind this low number is the curriculum being presented to students. Almost all textbooks assume evolution is the basis of life, without mentioning the intelligent design theory at all. With the sheer number and bulk price of biology books and material only written in evolutionary terminology, it is simply easier to accept it as the only adequate theory to teach. Most biology teachers consider evolution true in every sense; for many it feels blasphemous to allow students to consider anything else. Several school districts across the nation also discourage any mention of intelligent design in public classrooms. Communities consisting of people who were taught evolution frown upon the teaching of anything which is not believed to be real science. It seems as though the Scopes vs. the State of Tennessee trial, the pivotal decision which allowed evolution to be taught in public schools, has reversed in today’s society to block anything else.
In response to this swelling debate, it is important to consider that science is composed entirely of theories; the theories themselves are fallible considerations which always retain the possibility of being disproved later. It is unfortunate that since creationism is affiliated very closely with religious belief, it is rejected entirely in public schools. Creationism can be considered science apart from religion; however, it is never treated as such. The theory that a generic intelligent designer created life on earth, while believed to be fact by many people, is still a theory in science.
Teaching all theories accepted by scientists is the fairest way to approach science when teaching children. Biology should, in no way, be excluded or excused from presenting material that many legitimate scientists find true. Both theories should be presented in some form during biology education. Any other approach would be unreasonable considering the amount of Americans who take creationism seriously. It is up for the student to decide what scientific theories coincide most closely with their own beliefs; making the decision for them is tantamount to teaching one religion in a public school. Science is continually being reexamined and reformulated. As different ideas are replaced with preexisting theories over time, it is ludicrous in respect to scientific honesty to ignore any community in science. Children in schools are trained to examine the world objectively, and the way to foster this approach most effectively is to teach both evolution and intelligent design in the classroom.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 9:36pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
[How are we to approach the balance of individuals' rights and societal needs in government? We were asked to wrestle with this question in English class, and it is interesting to note the diverse remarks made by other students. Above all, as much as everyone wants to be left alone and not judged, many people consistently vote based on the desire for more government control. I believe democracy is the best option for government, and there should be more governmental control: on itself.]
Newborn America was in crisis. As Britain retaliated against a nation struggling towards self-government, philosopher Thomas Jefferson began to pen the Declaration of Independence. He believed very strongly in a government as a necessary tool for the preservation of human life without unnecessary and frivolous taxation. In the midst of death threats from British officials, Jefferson said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thousands of countries, including the United States, have made a great effort within history to juggle both the personal rights of the individual and the state’s right to govern. For some nations, the answer lies in unbalanced power either for leaders or the citizens. However, too much government power or mob power by anarchy have proven their tyranny and failure over time. After the original Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a more inclusive constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights, America’s democracy was fast becoming the strongest brand of government in the world. Not only are representatives of the people elected within government, the arm of the government reaches only so far as to protect the people. The systems within a democracy are sound enough to balance the liberties of both powers; however, in order to correct problems of injustice, the policies already enacted within it must be more strongly enforced.
In the world of today, the United States of America remains the greatest powerhouse. No other nation has stronger military, weaponry, intelligence, or technology. The protection of the citizen is not only strong outside the country, but inside as well. The rights to speak openly, become educated, practice or not practice religion, have a day in court, and own property are uplifted, celebrated, and encouraged. Man owns himself; no one is put above the other in fundamental status as all are created equal. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher, considered slavery against nature itself. “Force made the first slaves,” he once wrote. In a democracy, essentially, nobody is forced to do anything. There are punishments allotted for not abiding by law; yet even so, no hand of a master forces a citizen to follow or break rules. Rousseau believed strongly in a social contract, however, which can set approved boundaries. Even within our natural state, a social agreement could be met to protect everyone involved in a country. In a sense, it would be stronger than simply “pooling their strength.” America has maintained a social contract: a constitution signed by men centuries ago and constantly revised throughout time in order to preserve liberty. Representatives of the people are chosen by a voting system; it is assumed the people in government are chosen based on the changes and action the citizens wish to see. This form of indirect power is much different from a dynasty, monarchy, or dictatorship, where leaders are formed seemingly from random or survival of the fittest regimen. Democracy is truly an optimistic perception of human nature and their desire of good for all. However, this perception is not to the point of naivety. People are prone to error and degrading behavior must be controlled; therefore, we have a justice system. Even so, leaders in justice are still appointed by majority rule and expected to uphold the freedoms of every person. This careful give-and-take of democratic government has thus far allowed America to be the most prosperous of nations, and will continue to do so as long as it remains on a leash held by the human rights of every person.
In order to survive most effectively, the government must tighten the reins on itself first. It holds a very important societal need to govern and direct; however, this need cannot be exercised to its fullest capacity unless the laws and government leaders themselves aren’t held to the highest of standards. Once good ethics and control are reached, the example will funnel down to the citizens. This is much like the military; if the decisions and composure of the highest in rank falters, the entire regime suffers. A lack of unity within government allowed for a civil uprising in the late 1980’s. States, especially in the South, were becoming increasingly concerned over federal powers and the compromise of state rights. The northern representatives, however, blocked many legislative opportunities for state freedom, including the legalization of slavery. The stark division of two parties in government created a domino effect to the average citizen. The disarray of organization made way to a very tragic civil war.
Two philosophers in history, residing in nations much different from America, would disagree firmly on the most appropriate way for government to handle a civil war. Niccolὀ Machiavelli, an Italian thinker, was adamant in a letter to a prince about maintaining absolute power for the sake of absolute control. Shortly after Machiavelli’s death, Italy underwent shifts in centralized power from the Holy Roman emperor Charles V to the Napoleonic invasion. Machiavelli most likely would have praised the individual men for taking over so strongly and forcefully; however, Italy never remained unified and stable until a republic was proclaimed shortly after World War II. In dealing with a civil war, Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu would probably have entrusted the citizens to eventually come to a balance of their own as long as government did not intrude. “If you overesteem great men/ people become powerless,” wrote Lao-Tzu. Ironically, masses of people who overpower great men can be very powerful. Unfortunately, the lack of harmony in government can lead to a dangerous lack of protection for the weakest citizens.
Divisions in leadership occur most strongly when the balance is tipped too much in the favor of either leadership or the citizens. Even in a two-party system, America continues to have a division. This does prevent extremes from both sides, and is meant to provide useful dialogue for the solutions to national problems. However, the division of attitudes is greatly unnecessary, and there are even divisions within political parties. As seen most clearly by the upcoming presidential election, character mudslinging appears to be more aggressive than the opportunity to take a stand with the issues of reality. When generic calls for change or unity are cried, they are only answered with empty insults to another presidential candidate.
The disarray of alliances can only lead to a weakening of the system. The judicial system, especially, is established for safety and well-being. Even so, some laws can be considered unjust to minority groups. If the men supposedly representing them are enacting laws to benefit the majority, everyone else falls through the cracks of the system. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed he was one of the fallen. He had watched his African-American race repeatedly persecuted in a 20th century nation that honored freedom and equality. Negotiation seemed to be the more appropriate option; however, he claimed it was tried many times, and necessary change did not occur. In protest, King organized sit-ins, marches, speeches and letters. King was arrested and criticized by his clergymen peers. In a letter to these fellow ministers, King described the need for tension as a necessary tool for negotiation. This method of skirting the law, often called civil disobedience, can be perceived as the only way to jumpstart change for a particular situation. The methods of civil disobedience can often be directly against the law, however. It is difficult to differentiate between injustice for the sake of justice and deliberate acts of disobedience for the sake of one person. Rousseau would have probably disagreed with King’s actions simply for the preservation of the social contract. A violation of it could be viewed no more than a conscious act of ruin for a nation.
Nevertheless, a democracy’s mission is to protect its people. Would persecution or even violence regardless of the system’s efforts be proof of a failure? Cindy Bischof may have agreed before she was brutally shot by her ex-boyfriend and stalker, Michael Giroux. Bischof filed as many protective court orders as her hometown of Chicago would allow after Giroux wrote detailed plans to destroy her house and systematically began to follow through. After he violated the restraining orders on two accounts, Giroux was sentenced to jail and home confinement. Hours after he was released from home confinement, Giroux sought Bischof in her workplace and brutally shot her. Tragically, Bischof had been taking every preventative measure. Even so, the law ended and Giroux took over. This vulnerability can allow for killers to fulfill any psychotic desires. Those wishing to create positive change end up in jail, while mentally unstable felons run free.
Strengthening a democracy is the best solution for governmental problems. While a government could never be perfect, democracy allows strength through balance and respect. However, the balance itself can create deep divisions between two schools of free thought. A stronger democracy is one that holds its government leaders accountable. No slip in power should be tolerated without negative reinforcement. In order to solve problems, government officials must work together as a pool of intelligent thought instead of lashing out at each other. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird of the Nixon Administration noticed the change in government today, and, in a recent interview, reflected on his team efforts with Democrats in order to initiate greater advances in medical research. The problem in how Washington operates currently, according to his opinion, is the lack of progressive unity with the best of both parties. “Cut out the shouting,” Laird said. “Start working together."
Current democracy already accepts all faiths, backgrounds, and cultures. The trick, however, is maintaining protection of so many conflicting ideas while remaining civil. Police officers, judges, and other judicial representatives are responsible for recognizing a threat and following through with removing it. Many judges dismiss cases that eventually lead to disorder and pain. There must be no tolerance for criminals or those who have a history of being unstable. In a democracy, the belief is freedom at any cost. However, no one can be free and alive if those who repeatedly cause destruction aren’t held in some type of bondage. If continued supervision is necessary, the call to protect and serve must not be compromised. It is possible to be a convicted felon and remain a beneficial member of society. However, if the felon is contributing nothing to society and shows no psychological signs of remorse, it is only a matter of time until someone else’s civil liberties are attacked. This more militaristic idea can greatly reverse injustice without resorting to working against preset laws. It is possible to continue obedience and change the course of persecution while working within fair boundaries.
The United States of America is still the land of the free. The government, ideally, is set in place to work for its people and their uplifted health and happiness. The corresponding systems allow for citizens to fight for the justice and civil liberties they believe in, from elections of government leaders to petitions within courts. This brainchild of Thomas Jefferson, along with many other revolutionaries, was treasured simply for a desire to be free and work towards what Rousseau viewed as complementary to the very nature of mankind. The holes within government can be blamed to the gradual shift of attention from working together to create improvements to attacking character; consequently, the citizen is no longer valued and protection is compromised. America’s concept may have been viewed by past philosophers as being foolish. However, the consistent victories of freedom portrayed by democracy have proven that even amidst the horrors of the world, a person can live with a lot less fear inside the boundaries of their homeland.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 8:37pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
As a popular comedian, Dane Cook has caused a considerable stir among college crowds. His often vulgar jokes and references can be a representation of how this particular age group views the world. He makes several references to his Catholic faith; one joke he tells on stage surrounds the idea of the Eucharist, describing how the priest “makes snacks” during service. He then mentioned how he would like to package this snack:”Start each day out the holy way, with Christ Chex, it's a miracle in a bowl. Just open the box and you hear ‘AHHHHH’....and then a little angel flies out and says, 'Good morning, life is beautiful!’”
Of course, Dane Cook’s joke on the “snacks” during communion is a poor and somewhat insulting depiction of a very sacred sacrament, although this disrespect for the elements is by all means on the extreme end. We would hope that through instruction within the Lutheran church, all members would fully respect the sacrament. However, is there a trend within the Lutheran church to allow more laxity within the distribution? As a result, does increased disrespect naturally follow?
There was a discussion in Bible class last Sunday over Article XXII in the Augsburg Confession: “Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.” The article refutes an ancient tradition of laity receiving one kind, the bread, during communion while only priests were able to partake of the blood. Of course, this doctrinal issue is clearly against scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes specifically about congregations receiving both kinds. The disciples during the Last Supper also received both Jesus’ body and blood.
While this is clearly a doctrinal issue, it is interesting to note how some congregations are divided over non-doctrinal issues regarding the Lord’s Supper, i.e. the use of individual cups, or red wine vs. white wine. Since Christ instituted the sacrament in a certain fashion, Lutherans have followed suit. The use of the literal “is” in the words of institution are the basis surrounding the mystery of the bread and wine being body and blood without attached rituals or symbolism. The use of wine in the traditional meal is used instead of grape juice. The body is distributed before the blood. These are only a handful of examples exercised directly since the first meal. We can distinguish very simply what is correct and what is not by what the Bible tells us; beyond this, it is unnecessary and probably even foolish to speculate further.
The right and wrong of the sacrament of the altar are very different from respect, however. Respect for the supper as it is and as close to how Christ instituted it can be difficult to uphold and maintain within laity circles who forgot most of their instruction. To a common layperson, it is a logical no-brainer to use disposable individual cups for the sake of convenience. They are told that no matter what vessel the elements are in, they remain unchanged. If this is the case, why not use disposable individual cups? Some pastors are up in arms about this. It’s a matter of respect, not doctrine.
If respect for the sacrament is most critical, by all means, the greater spectrum of disrespect within Lutheran denominations should be considered. What about the very fellowship we have with the sacrament? Even within the LCMS, many people cannot feel comfortable communing in some parishes affiliated with their denomination because they exercise open communion, or the practice allowing any believer in Jesus Christ to come to the table. If the fundamental issue of a person’s confession with their synod at the altar is at stake, the fact that the blood of Christ is being distributed in a chalice or individual cups becomes a null debate.
As congregations, we need to recognize and act on this disconcerting movement. The very basic of beliefs and practices need to be reviewed. The sacrament is not a mere church dinner; there are no committees to be formed or sign-up sheets to be passed around. The examination of the Lord’s Supper is a critical aspect to even our salvation. Are we to make a confession at the table that we accept heresy or blatant sin? Continuing on 1 Corinthians 11, we are warned not to eat or drink of the sacrament in a non-worthy manner, without first examining ourselves. This is not a sacrament to be taken lightly, and neither should our faith.
Respect flows from discernment. When the proper learning takes place, we can wrestle with practices unrelated to doctrine. However, Lutheran churches within every synod are becoming increasingly more lax in their communion practices. Within any synod, a division is increasingly evident as many members cannot be in fellowship with certain parishes at the table. The unity and identity of individual synods is cracking. The damage will continue until it becomes almost impossible to determine any difference between Lutherans and more evangelical denominations. If any parish has conviction left, have the backbone to draw the line for the preservation of the doctrine we hold precious for a reason.
Edited on: March 05th, 2008 10:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 10:04am by Rachel Engebretson
|
[As an assignment for my English class, the professor asked us to write a paper based on our opinion of the moral state of America today. Here are my thoughts on the subject apart from theological considerations. Because of the effects of sin, we know the world continually becomes more corrupt. However, questions still remain: Will America fail based on a trend of moral dissent? Will the suppression of religious, specifically, Christian ideals be the end of our country, or will it somehow prevail?]
----
Children are naturally trusting and naïve. Concerned parents try to protect their children’s safety by instructing them to trust only certain people, including teachers and police officers. While both vocations are certainly expected to have the capacity to uphold good moral conduct, they often fall considerably short in today’s society. In recent news, a South Carolina middle-school teacher was arrested and sent to prison to serve a nominal six year term for having sex with five minors over the course of several years. In turn, a police officer was fired after severely beating a woman to unconsciousness. These two examples are only a handful of the constant barrage of similar situations happening daily in the United States of America. If America is to remain a moral society, upholding the healthy lives of its citizens, it seems to have failed. Over the course of history, however, there has been no example of a perfect moral society withstanding the test of time. Therefore, according to history, America will follow in natural moral dissent. America has not become a more moral society; instead, it becomes increasingly worse every year as should be expected.
Morals in basic form are the duty and justification of the preservation of human life. Consequently, the moral system within a government often determines its success. The responsibility of maintaining morality in a country rests largely on the shoulders of the government (Aristotle 650). The government today is often perceived as corrupt, unable, or unwilling to help uphold moral standards within America. As a result of this thought process, people turn to their personal convictions as a moral compass.
Marya Mannes further explains, in her essay, “The Thin Gray Line,” the evaluation of moral standing as a line with varying degrees of darkness and thickness (220). If America’s moral line is gray and thinning, as she claims, examples of moral failure would be obvious along with the no concept of personal responsibility. In many ways, her predictions become stronger as the line continues to gray and thin. Many American citizens no longer feel the need to uphold the law or help others at their own expense.
Ancient Rome faced a parallel situation in 9th century B.C. Rome’s seemingly infallible defense system of frequently lost lives enabled them to strategically dominate other countries while simultaneously defending themselves. Sexual and murderous escapades were exploited and rarely enforced. The gladiator system of entertainment was the symbolic atmosphere of a failing Rome, allowing precious human lives to be violently annihilated in staged combat. The eventual downfall of Rome was the lack of personal support for basic humanity, even while they were the strongest nation in the world. Additionally, the Soviet Union, the former government in Russia and led by Mikhail Gorbachev, was primarily structured on a communistic atheistic principle which devalued life and suppressed religious suggestion. Without moral checks and balances, Gorbachev’s own people crippled him with rebellions through economic means, causing the mighty Soviet Union to also eventually fail.
After considering historical examples of nations with similar strengths and weaknesses, it is helpful to examine the results of moral conduct in our generation. Many people do not necessarily want to be the “hero,” as defined by Mannes. John M. Darley and Bibb Latane explained citizens’ actions of failure to help those in need as being driven by fear for themselves rather than fear for others (140-45). A striking example of this fact is detailed by reporter Martin Gansberg. While a woman was being beaten and killed in full view of her apartment complex, not one resident called the police until after she was killed. Thirty-eight people witnessed the event yet had several excuses as to why they did not report the incident. Excuses ranged from witnesses who were too tired to witnesses who did not want to interfere (87). While blatant death without aid is not necessarily a common occurrence, the incident illustrated how the average American may not step out of his or her comfort of safety to help someone else. Witnesses are often privy to a crime, either doing nothing in the situation or keeping it secret entirely. There was widespread outrage against a college student, David Cash, after he watched his friend rape a girl in a bathroom stall, yet did not report the crime or discourage his friend from the act. The mother of the girl worked for a “Good Samaritan” law. The law’s purpose would make silent witness illegal. However, there is no such legislation applied to our nation today. It would be near impossible to punish every person according to their personal moral decisions. However, the unfortunate reality remains as simple as the consequence. Individualistic morality cannot allow for more than one person to benefit.
Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th century philosopher, believed the conventional discipline of morality was against nature itself. Fundamental human passions were to be embraced, not refused. As long as passions were “spiritualized,” or made to be good,
morality would result (697-710). While this revolutionary concept is interesting, it is not at all plausible. Nietzsche continually failed to mention specifics of his moral definitions in writing, almost as if they would materialize as magically as the process of spiritualizing passions. While his philosophy is difficult to understand, many aspects of it are becoming reality in our culture. People do continually embrace their passions, dismissing the moral responsibility as something to happen seemingly out of nowhere. If an act feels good to an individual, how can anyone contradict his or her happiness? It may feel very pleasing for a teacher to molest a child, feeling the love between them is a spiritualized sin. Thankfully, we do have laws enacted in our country to halt many destructive passions. American justice must continually recognize crimes and act accordingly if the country is to prosper.
The American justice system does have a distinct responsibility to identify; however, the government has shifted considerably in favor of more broadly defined rules of morality. Many people argue that their passions are justified and should be protected under law. As a result, many states have allowed gay marriage to become legal. Some individuals also think aborting a child would be beneficial for themselves and, therefore, moral. The government in recent years has acted accordingly more in favor of the individual than anyone else affected by a certain situation. As the thin gray line of morality continues to become more blurred and indefinable, human lives will become causalities in the process, much like Ancient Rome’s lack of support for humanity and the Soviet Union’s moral suppression.
The downfall of America has increased considerably as the result of its own citizens deciding to work solely for themselves rather than for the good of the nation. Once such a trend is initiated, it is difficult to reverse until the current state of moral conduct dies and rises revamped in a different form. History has proven the power of individualistic thinking as dangerous to the good of the human species as a whole. As countless examples of this moral degradation flash across our television screens, or even in front of us in real time, it should be evident to us how close America is coming to an eventual moral downfall.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 2:31pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
Rarely does theology enter into very secular classes at a very secular university, and when it does, it usually ends up a train wreck. I was a little surprised, then, when my English professor starting making valid points about Mark 1:40-42, the healing of the leper.
First of all I wondered, how did he get away with even mentioning the Bible at school, let alone quoting it, putting it up on a projector, and then discussing it extensively?
It left me intrigued.
I suppose background information is in order: we are right now analyzing the “deep thinkers” in history: Aristotle, the Dalai Lama. Right now the topic is compassion. It makes sense that he would choose this passage to illustrate compassion. It even says it right in the story; Jesus had compassion on the leper and healed him.
My professor’s point was that Jesus did not so much heal the man as he did alleviate the alienation he had from the rest of his community. This is true. Lepers in Jesus’ time were unable to be near “normal” people without loud bells and hand gloves.
I started taking it a step further. Does it not make sense that the righteousness we receive from God is a compassion, the Father sending his only Son to the cross and heaping our sinful pain onto him as a response to the awareness of imminent death for his beloved sinful creatures? We are then reconciled with a God that could be rightly angry with us. Christ’s death removed the alienation from our Lord.
In this way, we too could be seen as the leper. What sorry creatures we are, fundamentally. Thankfully, Christ opened himself up to our suffering, the very definition and personification of compassion, and relieved it in a way no one else could.
|
|
