Politics #2 Abortion

2.
Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. 


I think that the pregnant teenagers shouldn't have abortions. It is still murder. The teenager should have known that her life would change when she had sex. The problems that ensue should be the punishment for the rest of her life. I mean, that's how life is. She should be punished for the rest of her life for her one mistake she made when she was a young and clueless adolescent. The Bible could back this up in fact, because all of humanity was punished forever because of one mistake that was made by one person. It comes down to the fact that abortion is murder. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with murder, ever. Well except for war, but that's definitely different.  Also, just because a teenager has a baby, doesn't mean her future is hopeless. There is always God. God has the potential to turn around any say story and give life meaning and inspiration. Obviously all of these problems that the teenage mother would face can be overcome. If it's a problem about money, then all she needs is a job. Those are easy to get these days too.All of these problems are presented by statistics. But statistics aren't guidelines. They do not make the decisions for the teenage mother. It is easy not to be another statistic. There really is no good excuse for murder. Except for like, war, or killing animals. But other than that, murder is bad. 

Politics #1

What do you think the ramifications of a global secular government would be? 
It would be dumb. People wouldn't get along because people don't get along right now. All wars would be called civil wars. That is bad. We can't have wars. That's why we don't have a global centralized government, so we can avoid civil war and disagreements. Obviously a global centralized government wouldn't work because people have different views, and diversity and peaceful coexistent tolerance can not exist under a global centralized government. The efforts to maintain a global government would be worthless because there would be turmoil and religious views that are way too different for the government to handle. The government would not work. That is why governments work so great today, because everyone gets along. Alright, all sarcasm aside, the problems in a global  government, are the exact same problems that every government has already. After reading all of the other arguments, I could take their same points and argue for the eradication of all centralized government. But anyways, a global government is bad because people are ignorant. That is basically the whole argument. Government should not exist because the world is multi-cultured.

ARTS blog

In the beginning of the video he states that beauty is a value, like truth and goodness. I can agree with that, but I also agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So I guess if i were to fix it, I would say that beauty is a value set by God. I disagree with his statement that architecture has become soul-less ans sterile. Architecture has changed, but its beauty lies in its functionality. A buildings function is its beauty. I agree that we are loosing beauty, but only in the sense that beauty's definition is changing. Without God, new beauty is found in function and emotion. It is perceived by the viewer. I cannot be persuaded to think that beauty matters. Everything in God's creation was created beautiful. At the 4:41 mark of the first part, he says that art is a way of humans to show that human life is worth while. I agree with that. Art used to be a way to seize the moment, because of life's fleeting actions. Art was a way to capture and portray the beauty and emotion of everyday life. Paintings were a way to make something immortal. But however, with the faced paced world that we live in today, the immortality and timelessness is shadowed by the ongoing bombardment of  short lived entertainments and expressions. Art has become a quick photo, meant to commemorate one of those short lived moments. I agree with him in the second video where he says how our society puts usefulness first  and goes on to state that beauty is no better than a side effect. Modern architecture is not the greatest crime against beauty. At the 3 minute mark of the 4th part, he says that science of the Enlightenment basically killed off and replaced the worlds perspective of beauty. My views definitely agree with that. This sounds totally cliche right now, because I'm a teenager, but music is my favorite kind or art too. I can see art in any kind of music. A music artist tends to make art in order to give its listeners a view into the artists thoughts. His conclusion was that art is a substitute for religion because arts beauty helps us confront life's problems, just as art is equivalent to the beauty we get from religion because of religions teachings on how to handle life. He says that religion and art both lead to humanity's everyday experiences. I need to disagree because my religion leads to something more than everyday experiences, it leads to eternal experiences in God's everlasting glory and beauty.

Shariah Law

The proposition starts off by saying that the United States started off by rejecting foreign law, however, the author is mistaken. America did not reject foreign law, it only rejected foreign government. Much of the law we have today is taken from the foreign government. Sharian law is basically an old- school view of life. Similar to Mormanism, it values the man, putting him in charge, and makes women worth nothing. In other instances, the law of Shariah makes all outsiders or people who non-followers, outcast and outlaws. All homosexuals or non-muslims could arguably be murdered under Sharian law. This has no place in America because we as Americans have always believed in equality and freedom.