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.

Law #2

Of course legal standards are NOT up to the interpretation of the individual. From a Christian perspective, we are sinful beings, so if we were to determine the law, it would be flawed since we ourselves are flawed. Also, there would be no need to have laws since each person could interpret them differently to benefit themselves. Obviously since people instinctively don't desire to be in trouble with the law, whenever somebody would break it, they would claim they interpreted it differently and would not be accused. I think the interpretation comes in when determining a punishment for breaking the law, but not what the law actually is.
Then there is also the complication of God's law versus man's law. God's laws are never up to our own interpretation because he clearly tells us what to do through scripture.On the other hand, as a Christian we do need to interpret man's law in order to see if it lines up with God's law. Without this step, we would just obey what society tells us even though it is wrong.
Depending on your worldview and for what purpose you interpret laws, it varies on if it is the right things to do. In our world today, generally it is not okay for for man to interpret and determine laws since they would be doing it for their own selfish purposes.

Law

Sarah's worldview influences her view of society's rules. Rules can be created by the individual, the culture or government, or by a divine authority. Since I am a Christian, I believe that God has the ultimate authority over anything and therefore creates all laws. Of course, the government enforces the laws of human nature, but Christians are held to a higher standard of laws that God creates. From the beginning, God created rules for Adam and Eve in order for them to do what was best, and that's idea is still evident today. He also created consequences for sin so that our world wouldn't fall into complete disorder.
But it is important to remember that God tells us to obey other authority over us, so in effect we must obey the government, but we must test what the government says to what Scripture says because God has ultimate authority over everything. So when the government's laws or society's laws collide with God's laws, we no longer have to abide by the laws that contradict with God's. Laws for society should coincide with God's laws and are meant to be good.

Feminism

 In our society today, there are so many preconceived notions of what roles males and females should adhere to, but according to God they have different roles. In Genesis, Eve is describes as Adam's "helper" or "completer" or "warrior". This is evident in the sense that women are generally more compassionate, caring, and loving not just towards everyone, but specifically their children and husband. Which varies from men who display strength and courage. Specifically in Genesis 3:16 is says a woman's desire will be for her husband, yet her husband will rule over her. This desire makes women more vulnerable to men and relationships with them because women are innately so caring.
Other worldviews deem the idea that a husband is to rule over his wife as ridiculous and unacceptable. This is why today, there are so many feminists that believe men and women should be equal in everything they do. For instance, in the workplace they should have equal opportunities and pay, yet in a woman's nature is not for her to go to the workplace, but instead use the loving nature God blessed her with to be with her children and nurture and help them grow; that is where a woman is more likely to excel. Feminists place too much value in being equal to men, rather than using their innate abilities and gifts to bless others around them.

Love...Status...Money...Marriage?

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife” (Austen 1). This is the first sentence within Pride and Prejudice, which was spoken by Mrs. Bennett, the supposed loving mother who wanted what was ‘best’ for her daughters. She constantly was auctioning them off to be married to the richest and most handsome man. During the 1800’s, women were expected to marry as rich as they could in order to elevate their social status. Status meant everything to most women, so therefore marriage was just another way of achieving their goal. But Elizabeth Bennett defied these standards set forth for women; she only desired to marry for love. After having a quick romance with Wickham and after rejecting Mr. Collins proposal, Elizabeth finally found true love with Mr. Darcy. She ignored the high social status and money of Mr. Collins because she did not love him. She also didn’t even consider how poor Wickham was while she was courting him. Mrs. Bennett did not approve of any of these things that Elizabeth did though. She warned Elizabeth that if she did not accept Mr. Collin’s proposal that she would never see her again; that is how strongly she felt about marrying into a higher class. She even admitted that “the marriage of a daughter” was “the first object of her wishes” (Austen 198). Since Mrs. Bennett married for lust over anything else, she regrets her decision and only desires for her daughters to have the status and money that she never did have. Yet being a part of the gentry does not mean you will be happy. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth serve as an example of what Jane Austen thought marriage should be like. They both married for love as opposed to lust or status. Even though at first they were both prejudice, but once they began to be acquainted with each other they discovered the real personality of the other and eventually fell in love. Elizabeth even denied Mr. Darcy when he first proposed to her because she did not feel the love for him. She then admitted that “she began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her” (Austen 199). She doesn’t even consider his wealth or social status as what attracts her to him. Furthermore, Jane and Bingley are also adequate examples of a real marriage and relationship. Even though at first Mrs. Bennett set them up because he was of the gentry, Jane fell in love and when he broke her heart she was devastated. After all the adversity, they ended up together because their love endured through everything. Elizabeth even admits that they had “a general similarity of feeling and taste between [each other]” (Austen 223). Their marriage wasn’t fake or based on false pretenses how most relationships were because women only desired to be of a higher social status.

Jane Austen’s presentation of the various types of marriages reveal that the ideal marriage is one founded on love instead of wealth or lust. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth and Jane and Mr. Bingley completely contrast with Mr. and Mrs. Bingley, Lydia and Wickham, and Charlotte and Mr. Collins. Darcy and Bingley both have happy and caring marriages based on love. But the other three marriages are based on lust or social status and wealth and none of them appear genuinely happy. Through these couples, Austen clearly portrays her vision of what marriage should be.

I agree with everything that Austen was portraying about marriage in Pride and Prejudice. Love and a common understanding of one another is what a marriage should be more focused on. Austen does not include anything about God throughout the whole entire novel, yet that is also another important aspect for me in my relationships. The point of a relationship shouldn’t be to only please yourself or others, it should be to please God. Since God made us to be with a partner, we should glorify him through our relationships. I don’t disagree with any idea that Jane Austen presents within her novel, but I do think there is more to a marriage than just love.

Sexist and Homophobic??

Many Christians can tend to seem homophobic and/or sexist sometimes. This is contradictory to what the Bible teaches us to do. God has called us be their friends and help them from their position in life, not to break them down and criticize them.
Marriage is meant to be between a man and woman. Throughout Genesis, God makes this abundantly clear. Also, in Song of Solomon, the Bible describes the relationship  between a male and a female, which clarifies the point even further. Even though as a Christian, I do believe in marriage only between male and female, that does not grant me the authority to criticize others. Since we are meant to be a light unto the world, then we shouldn't be homophobic even if we don't agree.
Furthermore, Christians can sometimes be sexist, but not as often as they can be homophobic. Within my Christian community, I haven't sensed sexism ever. God gave each gender specific roles and abilities when he created them. Men and women were created equally in order to bear the image of God. Men are meant to be the responsible leader of the household, while women are meant to give life and be a warrior (completer and helper of man). Both have different roles, yet they are vital to one another in order to function. The church is not sexist, it just recognized the equally different roles given to men and women.

Sociology

I don't think the government should have the power to say what it taught in a home. In America, the idea of this country that it is a free country and we can choose to believe whatever we wish and be a part of any religion. As much as I would like the government to enforce Christian morals and values, it wouldn't be right to do that here in America.
The state is somewhat involved in parenting as it is now. For instance, if you sexually or physically abuse your kid, they're taken away. The government makes sure that children are safe and not in danger. This is completely right to do and I think it would be better if the state became even more involved in that. But when it comes to saying how much candy a kid can have or what they're curfew is, I think that is better left to the parent's discretion because it is their own child. If the government became that involved in parenting, it would turn into more of a communist country, and if you want to be a communist then that's fine. But for me personally, I think parenting should be left for the parents to do, not for the state. It's even evident in the word itself....parenting!

Symbols,

I have so many different things that affect how i view a text.
My cell phone. It has all of my friends and family on there, and if I need/want to talk to them, it takes less than a minute. The people around me have definitely shaped who I am and how I act. Also, this coincides with the idea of technology. I've grown up in the era when technology is rapidly advancing so I know nothing too different from what I have now, which makes it harder for me to relate to a text from a time when there was no such thing as even electricity, it seems weird to comprehend and put myself in that situation since I've never have been in real life.
My calendar. I have my life organized and everything I do is put onto my calendar. When a text isn't neat or precise, it bothers me because I like organization. But I have to remember to not hate a text just because it is not my style of writing.
My black flats. Even though I'm decently short, I'm not a big fan of heels so instead I just stick to my flats. My flats symbolize not only the fact that I am a girl and do bring a feminist perspective to a text, but also that I am simple. Anything too out of the ordinary or crazy, I probably won't like because I like to have things simple and somewhat predictable, just like my ordinary black flats.
The CPM sitting on my floor. This is a machine that is used to bend and straighten my knee slowly as it heals, increasing the degrees each day. As I go through my life I encounter things that aren't expected that may hurt me somehow, yet this machine symbolizes how I heal and learn from everything that I have been through in my life.
I know that where I have come from affects how I view literature, so I always have to keep in mind my own lenses of criticism in order to look at a text objectively.

Death of a Salesman

Each character brings forth a different version of their American Dream. During the 1940's and 1950's the business world was becoming more and more popular so most people thought that is the key to success. The more wealthy and the more popular you were, the happier you would be; that's what America showed to be the ideal dream. Willy fell into the category and was overcome by this idea of the American Dream. He enveloped every part of his life with this goal, and in effect it ruined him.

Willy's business life was a complete mess because of his lack of humility and inability to admit he needed assistance. He thought that "the man who makes an appearance in the business world...is the man who gets ahead" (33). That was his only goal in life, so when his job doesn't provide for his family he keeps the persona that he is successful and won't admit his failure. Charley even has to give Willy fifty dollars each week in order for him to pay for his family expenses. He refuses to ask his boss for a job in town so he wouldn't always be traveling, when he finally does ask, he is fired. This is the ultimate low for Willy, so in his sadness he continues lying to himself about his job and even refuses a job from Charley. In the end, he killed himself for the money from the life insurance policy. Willy's idea of the American Dream was not to spectacular as he thought it would be.

Furthermore, since Willy never achieved his American Dream, he forced it onto his sons. Willy was so desperate to succeed according to his dream, that he would stop at nothing until the dream was accomplished. His failure resulted in him losing his insanity. He began hallucinating that his sons were successful and going to achieve the dream he never did. 

The societal pressures to be successful resulted in Willy ultimately taking his own life. The American Dream was supposed to be a dream instead of an expectation, yet Willy took it the opposite way. Due to the idolization of the dream, Willy desired to achieve it to an extreme that it ended in destruction.

My Walkkkkk.

I can't really walk too well, so it was more so a "sit on a bench and think" as opposed to a walk. As I gazed out at the ocean, it made me think of all of the experiences I have yet to have. I've only gone through 17 years of my life, but I have so many more left. I often tend to forget that inconveniences to me now, aren't the end of the world. I tore my ACL and meniscus at the beginning of break, and I spent most of my time just sitting on the couch being depressed in my own misery that I will never be a part of a basketball team and that just when I finally get the opportunity to start and be the player I can be, it's over. I felt like it just wasn't fair. Now I get to sit on the bench and watch my team struggle. Then I remember that there is so much more to life than that.
When I was little I used to think that the world consisted of the US, like I literally thought that's all there was. But as I grew up I learned that there's way more to the world than the US and that there's so many places I haven't been. Thinking back to this reminded me of now. I have so much more left in my life that these things I see as detrimental now, will be nothing in the future. I have so much to be thankful for in my life, that I should focus on that rather than on what has gone wrong.
Starting a new stage in my life of college and being responsible for myself seems scary. I'm afraid of all of the mistakes I'll make or the problems I'll have to face. I focus too much on the negative that I forget the positive. These next few years will be the time that I remember and I'm ready to make new friends and start a new adventure in my life, yet I don't want to give up the part of my life I'm in now, I guess the new year just made me realize that it's almost time for this chapter in my life to be over. But I'm ready. I'm ready to face antyhing God puts in front of me as long as I have the people I love near me.
P.S. There aren't any pictures because I couldn't find my camera :(