History

All history is written from a biased perspective. The winners generally record the past and tend to take into account only most of the positive things they did as opposed to the bad things that they don't really want other people to know. It's important to keep this in mind when learning about history. If you start to question the validity or truth behind something, then research it instead of just accepting it at face value. But even at that, negative things are kept in the records. For instance, the US had Japanese internment camps, which would be something to be ashamed of and that they would want to just disappear, yet it's still taught and is meant to be public knowledge.
History is not pointless. If we didn't know our past, we couldn't learn from our mistakes. Plus, history isn't just about numbers and records of right and wrong, it's also about the culture and lifestyle of the time period and the people. There is so much to history than just the accuracy of who won according to the 'winners'.

Socialism Doesn't Work

There is one simple reason for why socialism will never work. Human beings are innately evil. No matter how hard the government or other people try to make everything equal it will be impossible. People have a tendancy to be selfish and lazy, so it would be impossible to make all equal when not all people are willing to contribute the same amount. Within socialism, everyone would receive equal pay no matter what. Yet some people just do the easier job possible for the most amount of money so that they don't have to put forth effort since they are lazy. These are the people that would take advantage of having a socialistic government because if they are guaranteed the same reward no matter what then what's he point in putting forth more effort. This would cause unbalance within the system because they would not be equally giving to the government than they would take. The government would have complete control over your whole life because they would control what you got, when you got it, and how much of it you get, while also making sure you work according to your talent. But then it brings up the initial issue that there are some people that aren't willing to put forth effort.

Economics #1

He starts off by saying socialism is democracy and continues that all religions believe that the rich man is not supposed to come in and take the "9 slices of pie" and only leave a few for the rest. But that argument is completely irrelevant to socialism. Ignoring that fact though, he says that socialism is when we the people would run it and it would be what we want it to be, yet people want to earn money according to the work that they do, so socialism would be the exact opposite of it.
The idea the Marx presents of all being equal is being compared to the fact that Jesus tells us to show grace and mercy to the poor. These two idea are contradictory and therefore shouldn't be compared. God commands that those who do not work shall not eat, whereas socialism says everybody will receive equally. His logic is flawed in the sense that all religions and worldviews do not say the same thing and mean the same thing when it comes to government.

Global Secular Government

There are several issues with having one world government. First of all, ultimately it would be a utopia and the only way to rule it would be by forced submission. Rulers don't want to relinquish their power of their country in order to be controlled by another person. Also, the only way to achieve it is by having one government defeat all of the others because logically rulers don't want to give up their power. But let's say that it was possible to achieve a singular world government, then what? How would the rulers be able to properly rule that many people at once? Would there be a system of checking the power of others? Or would it be an anarchy? There are so many complications with how the actual government system would function. Furthermore, how would they be able to keep the power that they achieved? If they initially just conquered the countries by war, then the people would rebel and it would turn into a situation like Egypt where the government was overthrown. A world government would have to be totalitarian in the fact that they would have to rule every aspect of their lives to keep them in check, like in the novel 1984 by George Orwell.
I also must address the fact that it would be a secular world government. This poses a major issues for Christians, because we wouldn't be able to freely express our religious beliefs. We would also be forced to agree with laws such as abortions, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. all the while undergoing persecution for our beliefs.
Overall, the inability to gain and keep power is next ton impossible and as Christians, it would limit our freedoms that we have now and make it even harder for us to live on this earth.

Abortion Argument 3

It is true that taxpayers allow poor and rich women to have the same access to medical care. But as it is right now, health insurance does not cover abortion. It is a possibility that it could be covered under the new Obama health care plan but right now, abortion isn't and is totally different than "funding a war in the Mideast". Granted, we should still oppose abortion in the voting booths. But that isn't the question whatsoever. It shouldn't be who gets the choice or who gets to decide but the question is if abortion is morally right. We currently have laws against murder. So if it is true that the unborn is human, than that goes against the law and hopefully your own moral conscience. The law of biogenesis proves that living things only produce after their own kind, therefore it is impossible to produce something non-living that later becomes living. There is also philosophical evidence that the unborn are human. No matter what size the unborn are, they are still human. No matter what level of development they are, they are still human. No matter the environment they are in, they are still human. No matter the level of dependency, they are still human. The unborn have been scientifically and philosophically proven to be human, so abortion is killing another human being who has no choice in the matter.
People do need to express their outrage in the voting booth, but that's not the only thing that they need to do. If we allow abortion, then we should also allow murder. If you are okay with people murdering others, then I suppose abortion would be fine with you. But, most people will agree that it is defnitely not okay to murder and that we can't just sit back and watch and silently vote against it. If people aren't aware of what abortion really is, then there is no way for those who do to actually change it by voting.
If you see a man kidnap a young child and murder her, and don't do anything. Wouldn't you conscience convict you? Abortion is the same idea. We can't just sit still and not do anything and watch defenseless babies be killed everyday.

Equality and Justice

Equality implies that everyone is equal in terms of race, sex, or any other distinguishing factor. While justice brings forth judgment and result in punishment or reward and implies a  specific set of morals to be followed. CLS replaces the word equality for justice. They aim to break down justice and abolish all laws so that there may be a Utopian society, but this would fail because the restricting laws would still not allow us to grow. But these ideas are much different from the Biblical view of justice.

God has called each of us "to do what is just and right" according to the law that God has given us (Jeremiah 22:3). We are not to create our own version of law and to change it, but to "observe the Lord's commands" (Deuteronomy 10:12-19). God is our example of justice because he has shown us already what to do, and all of his commands are just and equal and doesn't want to force us into submission, but rather have us live in peace "for our own good" (Deuteronomy 10:12-19). He gave us a set of guidelines that we are to follow. Also, God shows "no partiality" and makes everything completely equal. Since there is no such thing as universal justice within CLS, then it logically follows that Christianity and CLS are in stark contrast because God calls everyone to the same standard of justness. As Christians, we are to carry our God's perfect and unchanging law so that God can protect us. Christians should aim to seek justice for everyone, while those who practice CLS only aim to seek equality.

Shari'a Law

There are so major differences between Islamic Law and Christian Law. Even though both have the same foundational truths of obeying God, the still contrast in all other areas.
For instance, in Deuteronomy 7:12 it says that "if you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors." God requires his children to obey His laws because he loves them and knows what is best for them. On the other hand, Shari'a Law has no meaning behind it because Allah is ultimately unknowable and therefore, they do not do it to receive something because their salvation is never guaranteed. Islamic Law tries to impress a selfish and cruel god because there is no real purpose to them.
Also, Shari'a Law is extremely cruel and unreal to follow because it serves as more of a punishment. All that matters are the amount of good and bad deeds that you do, nothing else. Whereas, Christian Law focuses on redemption and grace.
Shari'a Law is drastically harsh when in comparison to Christian Law because Islamic law has no form of redemption and Allah is ultimately unknowable.