Good Essay About Five Issues

English

1. The majority of people answering this question seem to do so for the same few reasons. The first is that they claim there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of God. They claim that since we have not observed God through any scientific means of observation, then God must not exist. Most claim that notions of God and eternal life were created as a convenient escape from the harsh reality of death, having to face challenges alone without a higher power watching over, and to keep people behaving well and stay out of trouble. They claim that those who believe in God know deep down that God does not exist and that they are simply lying to themselves and others when they argue and question others about their beliefs. This is typically as far as the thought seems to go on the matter. Those who do think deeper about the issue tend to claim that a good God would not allow for bad things to happen and for innocent people to suffer.
If no scientific evidence for God exists at all and the belief in God rests entirely on faith, one still has to take a considerable leap of faith when considering the origin of the universe. Did the universe always simply exists and then suddenly produce life or did it begin? Most leading atheists of today belief the universe came into existence as opposed to always existing. Whether the universe came into being out of nothing, or if it always existing and life was suddenly spontaneously created out of nonlife, one still encounters the original problem. No scientific evidence exists that something can come from nothing or that life can be created out of nonlife. A foundational rejection of God, at the very least, presupposes a denial of the supernatural, a logical fallacy in itself. The second argument, regarding why a God would allow innocents to suffer, is not a question of God’s existence, but merely a judgment on the nature of that God.
2. Abraham sees stars. Isaac has sons. Jacob wrestles. Fast-forward a few hundred years; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s descendants live in Egypt. Egypt is a happy place of life and sustenance. Fast-forward another hundred years. Egypt is a sad place filled of slavery and death. Moses infiltrates Egypt and learns secrets, leaves, and returns with a literal vengeance. The Jews are freed and after many victories, losses, and lots of manna, settle in Israel. Fast-forward another few hundred years. Saul was the first king. He was just okay. David was the next king and he was a good king. He had an impressive history slaying lions and giants and bears and harp ballads. Solomon was a decent king. He earned many riches. Everyone was happy. Then, he died and the land was divided up into two kingdoms.
The Assyrians destroyed the north. The prophets prophesy and write books. The Babylonians destroy the temple and steal most people away to Babylon. More prophets prophesy and write books. King Cyrus beats up Babylon and sends Jews back home. They build brand new, state-of-the-art temple. Rome takes over. Jesus shows up. They kill him. He shakes it off. The Romans destroy the second temple and most of Jesus’ followers. The Jews occasionally revolt against the Romans, but the Romans are far too tough and the revolts always fail. Jewish people deal with a lot of persecution and land renaming. Fast-forward a few hundred years and the Jews spread out to places like Spain.
The Jews live happily until forced conversions to Islam. Christians “reconquer” Spain. The crusades commence and the Holy Land changes hands many times. The Jews are spread out throughout Europe, but are viewed outsiders and receive little love from these countries. Hitler murders millions of Jews. The state of Israel is finally reestablished as the home of the Jews. The Palestinians are not happy with the Jews’ presence and often make their unhappiness known to the world.
3. I read an article that concerns the recent bill that was passed in Arkansas that prevents places of business from having to cater to customers when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The bill itself actually prevents new regulations that would force businesses to serve customers. For instance, if a business that provided food and service for wedding encountered a homosexual couple’s application for catering, they would be forced to serve the couple under the new legislation. The new bill would fight the legislation that would effectively force businesses to serve any customer who applied for their services. The article describes the bill as being called anti-gay.
While at first glance the article appears to be a neutral representation of the bill and its components, the author does not actually describe what the bill actually does or what affect it would have. He only describes the effect that opponents of the bill say that it would have and he only gives the opinions of those who are against the bill. This ultimately serves to paint a negative picture of the bill and those passing it, without ever actually providing the means for the reader to understand the essence of what the bill is and what it would do. His descriptions of the bill are vague at best. He quotes the responses from two major businesses regarding the bill. These businesses are Apple Inc. and Wal-Mart. He concludes his piece by mentioning that the state has so far failed to pass the bill allowing homosexual marriage.
The article fails to do an accurate job describing the bill in a number of ways. The author’s decision about the bill is clear. He writes from the presupposition that religious tolerance is second in importance to other types of tolerance. He supports his argument by backing it with popular opinion and listing the many negative responses that the bill has received. He fails to mention the negatives of legislation that would take away businesses’ ability to serve those whom they would choose to serve. At the very least, this strips a right from private citizens with or without religious beliefs.
4. The article I observed is from the Huffington Post and is about a science teacher who was teaching creationism and using religious materials in his classroom. The man was fired for teaching such things and for refusal to remove the material from his room. He appealed the decision and his case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against his appeal and allowed his firing to stand. The justices ruled that he had violated school policy by refusing to remove religious books and a poster of a praying president from his classroom. The teacher’s attorney argued that his first amendment rights were violated and that he should be allowed to keep a personal Bible at his desk. The state court ruled that his firing was justified not for the Bible, but for other religious materials kept in his classroom. No further information was given.
The article’s title, “Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Teacher Fired For Promoting Creationism,” leads one to believe that the teacher was fired for promoting creationism. The comments section is thus filled with various members of the non-thinking masses who presumably read the title and then proceeded to comment without further investigation. The decision is now being hailed as a victory for “science” and “facts”. Apparently, “science” has already proved that evolutionism is factually observed. Unfortunately, “science” has so far failed to nail down a concrete theory of the origin of the universe, but don’t tell the commenters.
While the article itself is sufficiently informative, the title does lead one to believe that the content will involve a case about creationism and not insubordination. The man was ultimately fired for refusing to remove “religious materials” from his classroom, presumably material other than his personal Bible. While the discussion of whether or not he should be allowed to display religious materials is an important one, this situation does not seem to pertain to that debate. Regardless of the facts, the author seems perfectly content in chalking this one up as a victory for those against religion in schools. He must know his readers, because he was readily obliged.
5. The website lists many reasons why Christians should support Israel in the current conflict. The first is that they are called God’s chosen people in the book of Genesis and Christians should support them as such. The second is that Christians apparently owe the Jews for produces the Bible, the prophets, the Patriarchs, Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles. The third is that Jesus was a Jew and was undeniably connected to the Jews now and forever. The fourth is that Psalms commands its readers to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. The fifth is that Gentiles have been given salvation and the same blessings as Jews and this apparently has something to do with the Jews.
The sixth is that when Jesus chose Cornelius and his house to be the first Gentile house to receive the gospel, this was actually a way of helping the Jews. Since Cornelius was generous and generally gave out much alms to the Jews, this was a way of blessing the Jews. Apparently, Cornelius was chosen because of his unrelenting and unconditional love for the Jewish people. Accordingly, apparently all of the first Gentiles to be blessed with the “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” were the ones who were considerate of Jews and who gave Jews their money. The last reason given is that while all other nations were created by an act of men, God created the nation of Israel. Thus, the nation of Israel is the best nation and should prevail. “List reasons why some Christians take the side of” Israel is a good way to word this last prompt, because this website seems strange and John Hagee preaches about tithing and donations a lot.

Works Cited

Herskovitz, John. "Arkansas Senate Passes Religion Bill Called Anti-Gay." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 15. Web. 2 Apr. 2015.
Lachman, Samantha. "Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Teacher Fired For Promoting Creationism." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 Apr. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.