|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
[ Friends ]
|
In the World
|
|
|
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: 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: 6:31pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
It’s very difficult right now to avoid political discussion. Well, let’s face it - we live in the most powerful nation in the world, and while it’s impossible to ever live under a perfect governmental system, our democracy has done well over the centuries. Of course, now this democracy is kicking into full gear as primary elections and caucuses take place in various states, and we get to exercise our full rights as citizens by voting in them.
Exciting, yes? Sometimes I wonder if people would much rather enjoy a government such as monarchy - simply so they wouldn’t have to choose or debate over a political candidate. Plus, if you’re like France, you can just start little revolutions when you’re upset, then they’ll fail, and you can go on with your life.
Sometimes I also wonder if I endorse a particular candidate. Talk about waffling; just when I think I’ve made a reasonably intelligent decision, I see a Chuck Norris ad campaign, or curious wins in Michigan, and then I’m back to scrolling through the various campaign websites, as if they’ll give me any indication at all as to what I even want for this country.
The media, above all, likes to label their perception of the Christian powerhouse as “The Evangelicals.” Apparently, candidates like Mike Huckabee wouldn’t be anywhere in this life if it weren’t for The Evangelicals, and it’s important for Republican politicians to cater to their vote by promising to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the infamous legalized abortion decision, or to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Now, of course, it’s more difficult for candidates such as Mitt Romney to gain any prayer from The Evangelicals, as he is - gasp - a Mormon!
Should this concern us? I guess I should be more specific. Should a politician’s faith concern us? I’m going to say no, and this is why.
It’s so easy for us, while formulating our political opinions, to let our religion be our guide. For example, many pro-life Christians, at least, write off a candidate immediately if they have a history of supporting abortion. Today, I think, Mitt Romney claims to be against abortion (This could change tomorrow, though. It doesn’t take much to realize his spastic change of mind on many issues over time). Another reason one might wish for a Christian president is their Christian mind in making decisions, assuming they make their decisions in faith, which is hard to tell.
However, we’re not choosing a church worker. We’re choosing a secular president. It’s important to remember the distinction between the two kingdoms, left and right, and know where the Unites States of America lands: the left, apart from the church. God will, however, work every governmental decision for good. He’s not going to ignore us simply because our president skipped church last Sunday or is even a pagan. Over the course of history, many evil leaders have made very good advancements for the world. God does command us, however, to respect the government and submit to it (Romans 13).
Heaven forbid we should ever live in a nation where we are forced to rebel against our government for the sake of obeying our Lord. Thankfully, I don’t see this happening. The beauty of America is to come and go to whatever church we want, be whatever faith we want, and be free to ask Americans for their vote despite it all.
May God bless us as we make our voting decisions, and whoever the president may be, may God bless him too.
Or her.
But I hope not.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 5:24pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." - Albert Einstein
Have you ever read Nancy Drew? I haven’t. In that magical period of time called “grade school,” I wasn’t interested in reading mysteries. I wanted cold, hard facts. Why are the leaves green? How does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? How did we get dogs from wolves?
Maybe it was laziness that drove me to science. I didn’t want to mess around figuring out the end of the story when I could look it up in a book. However, as I quickly learned, science is surrounded by an aura of mystery, and you can’t be lazy in order to think it through. Sure, we can say a green pigment called “chlorophyll” makes leaves green, hormones cause a caterpillar’s body to change shape, and genetics over time make the golden retriever, but why? Why does this happen? “It just does” is not an intelligent answer.
We don’t know the “why” in science. We know the “how.” It’s hard enough to learn and remember all of the “how’s” in science: the processes, formulas, terms, and patterns. If you try to think even farther than this, it’s mind-boggling. There is no point of reference because science can’t explain why science exists at all.
Sometimes I wonder if this bothers people who study science. There must be some student out there who scratches their head and says, “Why must it be this way?” and “Why can’t it be some other way?” Is science all that random?
Science is so delicate, one change in the variables and the earth ceases to exist as we know it. Take, for example, the air we breathe. It is made up of an exhaustive list of elements and compounds including Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon. Nitrogen alone exists as 78.084% of the air. What if this percentage was altered? We would either be very sick or dead. This is how our air must be if we are to live. However, no one can explain why the air exists to be so perfect for us. The odds of this being random are too large.
Consider this: while all science is theoretical, most people accept it as fact. Even more disconcerting, many people accept science as all truth, despite its status open to be proven wrong. However, this is a “why” explanation for science. Q: Why is the leaf green? A: Chlorophyll. Q: Why does a leaf have chlorophyll to make it green? A: God created it that way.
It’s at this point where atheists, agnostics, etc. will begin to make accusations against Christians. A common rebuttal is, “There’s no proof for that.” Christianity, however, does not need scientific proof, because science is the visual result of an intelligent creation. Every bit of science has its roots in the first few days of its life, when God said, “Let there be…and it was good.”
Atheists believe in science, a mystery which cannot be explained. Christians believe in Christ, who created science, a mystery which can be explained.
It’s quite a simple difference, actually. Whether or not you believe in the doctrine of Christianity is beside the point. Christians have an explanation for the universe, the course of their lives, and the life afterward. Atheists don’t.
It’s also impossible to make this stuff up. You can’t automatically say, “Well, then, I believe the Giant Pink Hamster made the world.” The Giant Pink Hamster has no Bible and years of historical background to relate to every single aspect of human life with no loose ends left over. The Giant Pink Hamster also didn’t get killed for the sake of my soul’s eternal salvation, but, if you want to believe in the Giant Pink Hamster, that’s your concern and not mine.
The fact that there are mysteries even in Christianity does not make it untrue. We can’t tell you why the bread and wine in the Sacrament are truly Christ’s body and blood. We certainly can’t use science to determine this. It’s okay to have mysteries in Christianity, because even if we lived a million years, we would never know all knowledge there is to learn. We simply trust in a God who takes care of us, and who created this world we explore. Trust is an okay thing. It’s not a copout, and it’s not grounded in nothing. All assurance is there, it’s just a matter of faith.
As you ask serious questions about this life, consider the “why,” and continue to remember that you weren’t placed on this earth because no “why” existed.
Edited on: October 06th, 2007 5:26 pm
|
|
