Exploration of the Mississippi Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Exploration of the Mississippi - Essay Example This made their population drop hugely after the Spaniards visit (Geoghegan 1). In 1564, the ruler of Spain got news that French colonists had started a settlement at Fort Caroline. Fort Caroline was part of Spains terrain in the New World. The Spaniards felt this as a direct threat to their land that they had claimed in North America. The Spanish ruler wasted no time, and he decided to send Pedro Menendez along with his private army to destroy the small French colony (Shea 23). The only defense the French had was a tiny fort which they had set up on the St. Johns River in Florida. The Spanish warriors, because of this, took only little time to wipe out the tiny colony (Shea 23). A few of the French people, however, managed to escape by sea. The tiny French colony of Fort Caroline lasted only a year. This was the beginning of the fight between Spain, Great Britain as well as France over the possession of the region that would form the Mississippi. Immediately after the destruction of Fort Caroline, the Spaniards set up Fort St. Augustine, in 1565 (Gilmary 56). A period of about 130 years from De Sotos trek went by with no further exploration of the Mississippi. In 1673, Louis Joliet and Jacques Marquette, who were French explorers, traveled down the Mississippi to the mouth of the Arkansas River. The same trail took place nine years later by a different French explorer, Robert Cavelier de La Salle. Salle claimed all the land close to the river for France. He named that vast area as Louisiane. This translated to English is Louisiana. He gave it the name Louisiane in honor of his ruler, King Louis IV. The Mississippi River played a vital role in the settlement of this wilderness region. After Salle, French settlers started to arrive and build forts along the Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast is presently the stretch from Louisiana to Florida. It also includes the Surgeres

Problems In Adulthood Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Problems In Adulthood - Essay Example From this discussion it is clear that the problem between generations is one which is immemorial. â€Å"No generation has a complete grip on the imagination and work of the next one, not mine and not your parents’, not if you refuse to let it be so.† Today’s seniors have a set of principles which was once considered to be the basis for human existence. However, these ideals are constantly changing, so that these principles are no longer fundamental. New ideas are constantly taking the place of old ones. This is sometimes seen as a detriment for seniors, as they cannot accept the new ideals of the younger generation.   In order for there to be a functioning society, there should be a balance between old and new principles. However, this balance has been elusive.This research highlights that  the problem between competing ideals of different generations is not new.   It has existed since time immemorial. It can be seen on the micro level in families, as the e lder wants to instruct the children on what is best. The children, for their part, want independence from their parents, and want to show that they can make it in life without the support of their parents.   This gap is widening, not narrowing, as the culture rapidly changes and the economy becomes more global and complex. The younger set changes because they are influenced by the world around them.  The generation gap is made worse by the fact that the parents are increasingly more into earning money than talking with their children.

Responses To Post Of Students Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Responses To Post Of Students - Essay Example Even if the questions are well formulated, where D&I fails in an organization, the people who should provide the most relevant information, those minority members most affected by discrimination, would not be expected to candidly divulge their true sentiments or reactions in the survey or interview. There is a compulsion to outwardly conform to the majority expectation in order to keep one's job, although what they feel and think is contrary to what they express. Only when D&I is effective and the underrepresented can feel free to express their honest opinions can such a survey be considered reliable. The situation, therefore, yields a reverse outcome that follows a convoluted logic – that is, where the results show negative comments on D&I effectiveness can it be said that D&I has actually been effective.The post does not say, however, what these baseline measures pertain to – whether it refers to increase in job satisfaction, added productivity, reduced operating cost , and so forth. The selection of appropriate measurements becomes more challenging when one considers that most of these attributes are normally and more significantly influenced by factors other than diversity and inclusion. For instance, increased manpower cost is typically related to rising salaries and wages. Much of the elements in diversity and inclusion efforts defy quantification, because of the difficulty of isolating the impact of specific measures, and the complete absence of a measurable component.

Reforms in the International Finance System Essay

Reforms in the International Finance System - Essay Example According to the research findings the global financial crisis did not occur over night; rather it was a series of occurrences that led to the progression of the crisis, which impacted the entire world. The US National Bureau of Economic Research asserts that the financial crisis began in early to mid 2007. The most notable start of the financial crisis was the marketing and sale of US mortgage-backed securities that had risks, which proved difficult to assess. This marketing took place on a global basis that saw risks being spread out to all areas of the globe. In addition, a comprehensive credit boom exemplified the international speculative bubble witnessed in industries such as the real estate and equities industries of the global economy. This further enhanced the risky practice in terms of financial institutions’ lending capacities. Drastic increases in global food and oil prices also served to enhance the precarious financial status of the world. However, the financial crisis actually began following the surfacing of sub-prime loan losses in 2007. This uncovered risky loans and the over-valued asset prices. As loan losses increased, as well as the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a global panic broke out in the inter-financial institution loans market. When share, as well as housing prices, eventually declined, a majority of financial and investment institutions in the US incurred massive losses, with some even facing bankruptcy. This ultimately led to major public, fiscal assistance to the tumbling institutions. The global financial crisis led to a sudden decline in international trade, massive unemployment and collapse of global prices of essential commodities. In summation, the situations that led up to the financial crisis include the boom in demand for financial instruments, excessive rise in asset prices, all of which were compounded by lack of sufficient regulation. The financial crisis subsided in late 2008, but the global economy has experien ced several aftershocks. Reason behind the Financial Crisis The reason behind the global financial crisis is a complex combination of liquidity and valuation issues in the global banking sector in the year 2008. In the US, in year 2007, the global economy experienced a boost following the emergence of a real estate bubble in residential markets. The real estate bubble refers to a scenario where real estate is sold at highly inflated values. The 2007 real estate bubble

Taking Control of Obesity Essay Example for Free

Taking Control of Obesity Essay What is being done about childhood obesity and how could parents improve good healthy habits? Parents should be mindful of the foods children eat and exercise routines. Childhood obesity is often a result of a lack of nutrition, exercise, and self control. Childhood obesity is a growing epidemic in the United States. Parents are role models and should demonstrate healthy eating habits, exercise routines, positive self-esteem and teach long-term weight control to help maintain a healthy weight and good habits that will prevent obesity. Developing good eating habits as a child can reduce the risk of one becoming obese. Parents have control of what children eat, beginning at birth. Children need to eat fresh fruit, vegetables, fat free and low fat dairy products, whole grains, and seafood. To maintain good health one has to maintain a healthy body weight and meet nutrition requirements. Preparing home cooked meals is the best way to demonstrate healthy eating habits and portion control. Eating together at the dinner table give parents a chance to discuss why it is important to eat healthy and what healthy foods are. That gives the children an opportunity to ask questions and get answers. At snack time, parents should offer children snacks that are not loaded with sugar and fat. Taking children to grocery shopping is a good way to explain what healthy foods are and healthy eating habits. Therefore, if parents teach children how to make good food choices that are a positive start too healthy eating. Exercising regularly is vital in a child’s life. Overweight children are at risk of heart disease, joint problems, sleep apnea, diabetes and possibly long-term health problems. Adding exercise in a child’s lifestyle is as important as adding healthy foods. Therefore, when a child get accustom to that lifestyle they can benefit from it. They can lose weight and live a healthier and long life. Parents have to incorporate exercise into the children lives. They must encourage the children to go outside and play, instead of watching television and playing video games. Parents have to encourage children to play sports in school and during the summer, so they can be physically active all year. However, parents have to provide the right nutrition that will provide growth and energy for physical activities. In addition, some basic planning that includes sports; outside activities and many calories, being burn is a good way to maintain a healthy weight. Self-esteem plays a big part in a child’s mental health. Peers tease children and it tends to lower that child’s self-esteem and make them feel like they have no worth. That can cause a child to develop an eating disorder and become withdrawn from others. Therefore, the parent has to figure out a way to promote positive self-esteem. Identify and redirect the child’s inaccurate beliefs is a start to promoting positive self-esteem. Be a positive role model, exercise and eat healthy with them. The most important thing to do is let the child know they are love, no matter what the situation. Obesity affects a child’s self-esteem, because of what they hear in society. Parents have to speak up on behalf of the children, that being overweight is unacceptable. Even though, being overweight is unhealthy, but tearing down a child’s self-esteem is also unhealthy. Parents need to build up the child’s self-esteem by showing them eating healthy and exercise can help maintain a healthy weight. When the children and parents do these things together, the children will feel better mentally and physically, knowing that a healthy lifestyle makes a happy child. Parents should also let the children know that everyone is different and being overweight do not make one any less of a person. In order for children to control, their weight long-term is to continue what the parents has taught them about good eating habits, exercise, and positive self-esteem into their adulthood. The children need to maintain a healthy lifestyle and focus on the right things to do. The children need to keep healthy foods in the pantry and refrigerator. Always start the day with a good breakfast, which increases the metabolism. Reduce unhealthy snacking, especially before lying down. Exercise at least thirty minutes to an hour a day. Always get a good night sleep at least six to eight hours a night. Always keep a positive attitude and do not punish or reward oneself with food. Therefore, if the parents instill these good healthy habits into a child, they will continue to do these healthy habits as adults. In conclusion, helping obese children lose the extra pounds requires a change in their lifestyles. Parents should work closely with the children to teach them about healthy food choices.

Free Speech in a Liberal Democratic Society

Free Speech in a Liberal Democratic Society People are rational beings with many desires but in a liberal democratic society these desires have to be regulated, reconciled and controlled so that they do not impinge on the rights of others. From a philosophical perspective, it is a dilemma whether the State should be the source of freedom that regulates citizen participation in society. On the other hand, it can be argued that the State is the natural enemy of free speech as it damages a free society on various grounds. From a legal point of view, it is apparent that both international treaties and domestic legislations restrict free speech based on intellectual property, crime, morality, discrimination, media, information and security laws. At the same time, however, freedom of speech has been backed up by a number of domestic, regional and international laws to ensure it is not undermined or abused. This leads to the question of where should the line be drawn and the extent of freedom of speech. This essay will analyse the current status of free speech in a liberal democratic society. The discussion will include both a legal, theoretical comparison between the different legislations and an analysis about how they interfere with the right to free speech. It is evident that in a liberal democratic society freedom of expression is highly valued based on various legislations.[1] In fact, it has been described as the core value of a democratic society as it enhances its powers and builds a sustainable future.[2] It is the view of Fuller, an American legal theorist, that free speech is crucially important to human survival.[3] In addition, he views free expression as an inherent aspect of natural law as it maintains, opens up and safeguards the integrity of the channels of connection through which people communicate what they desire, perceive and feel.[4] This is bolstered by Dworkin who believes that policies and laws are only legitimate if they are implemented democratically. As such, freedom of expression is a condition of legitimate government.[5] Moreover, Mill viewed free speech as a necessity for a flourishing society and individual happiness and he defended extensive freedom of expression.[6] Dworkin also criticised what he calls individuals being ‘passive victims of collective action’ because imposing a collective decision on an opposing individual is illegitimate as free speech is the lifeblood of democracy.[7] Furthermore, regulating freedom of expression is not the best way to combat intolerance as such a quick fix solution might leave the issue unresolved.[8] Quite the opposite, history shows that censorship is likely to make undesirable speech more attractive.[9] This is why Heinze even criticised the regulation of hate speech as inherently discriminatory due to its selective nature.[10] In addition to the legal theory, free speech is protected by a number of international and regional laws. Based on Article 19 of the General Assembly Resolution (GAR) in 1948, some sort of customary international law imposes legal force which might not necessarily be binding on states, yet many of its provisions are binding.[11] This is also strengthened by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states that: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to see, receive and import information.’[12] Furthermore, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasises the right to communicate ideas through any kind of media ‘regardless of frontiers’.[13] It also ensures the freedom to receive and seek information, which embeds a number of the rights within the UDHR.[14] Hence, Article 19 of the ICCPR imposes its framework and provisions that states parties to the ICCPR should implement at a national level.[15] Alongside the ICCPR,[16] the right of free speech is granted in regional treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) (Article 13),[17] the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 10)[18] and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) (Article 9).[19] Even free speech advocates recognise the importance of limiting and framing free expression which is also enhanced by statutory instruments.[20] For instance, it is the view of Judge Oliver Holmes that shouting fire in a packed theatre should not be seen as a form of freedom.[21] He added: ‘The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent as it is a question of proximity and degree.’[22] Similarly, Meiklejohn argued that demanding free expression by self-governed men does not mean every person has an unalienable right to express themselves wherever, however and whenever they want.[23] Hence, people should only do so through the appropriate channels.[24] Promoting equality is perhaps more important than maintaining an absolute free expression policy in a liberal democratic society. This should be the case as some forms of speech are harmful which imposes an obligation on the State to maintain the protection of free society.[25] This contradicts Mill who conditioned freedom of expression upon progressive society as the main priority.[26] Yet, Mill’s view has been criticised by civil rights theorists as it supports individualism, while equality should be the priority for a democratic society.[27] Besides the harm principle proposed by Mill, Fienberg proposed what is called the offence principle as a way of drawing a line between what should and should not be acceptable in free speech.[28] Moreover, Waldron criticised Dworkin’s proposal which supported absolute free speech as he believes in regulating speech because it will promote equality and include minorities in the democratic process.[29] According to Lord Devlin, the public good should prevail over the rights of the individual; thus, the morals of society have to be enforced by law. This prevents the disintegration of society which is an advantage of having a shared morality policy.[30] Based on this argument, regulating free speech does not violate the liberal democratic society norms as it ensures equality and morality. In addition, it would probably be better if undesirable free speech did not occur in the first place. Aside from the theoretical aspect of the dilemma, freedom of speech is limited by human rights instruments as it is not absolute.[31] Based on the three stage test in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, restricting speech is a legitimate action if the required criteria are followed.[32] First, the intervention should be in compliance with the law and should be ‘formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct’.[33] Second, the legally enforced intervention should pursue a legitimate aim such as protection of national security, public morals, health or order or protecting the reputation and rights of others.[34] Third, there should be a necessity for the restriction towards a legitimate aim. The ECHR summarised this by stating that: ‘Freedom of expression is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established.’[35] The same test is applied worldwide to measure the legitimacy of restrictions including the International Covenant, Universal Declaration, African Charter and American Convention.[36] In Europe, although Article 10 of the ECHR allows for various forms of freedom, Article 10(2) restricts this freedom to conditions, formalities, penalties based on what is stated in the law to maintain a democratic society.[37] This shows how freedom of expression is not an absolute and so restricting it should not be seen as a violation of the right of free speech. In Canada, for example, the Canadian Charter[38] maintains and applies a reasonable balance to regulate free expression,[39] whereas in France, Germany and Austria holocaust denial is criminalised due to historically significant reasons.[40] For its part, in the UK, laws like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006[41] and the Public Order Act 1996[42] regulate public order matters but this does not undermine the right of free speech.[43] On the other hand, despite the US first Amendment which strengthens the right of free speech,[44] case law such as Snyder v Phelps shows an application of restrictions there.[45] Finally, in Australia, an application similar to the one in Canada is applied to strike a balance between free speech and harmful speech.[46] Based on Lingens v Austria,[47] and Handyside v UK,[48] it seems that restricting free speech is a legitimate action that does not violate free expression since it is done for a necessary and appropriate reason. The Human Rights Committee emphasised in Shin v ROK[49] that even if the expression violates the law, Article 19(3) requires the State to explain the importance of implementing these measures.[50] As a result, even though national and international law perceives the importance of implementing grounds to restrict free speech,[51] it should fall within the specified criteria based on the test.[52] Thus, the restrictions are implemented to safeguard and stop people from abusing freedom. It seems at this stage that there is no clear violation on the right of free expression as the imposed limitations are appropriate to the nature of liberal democratic society.[53] According to Mill, different views and opinions are valuable to society either because of the truth behind the argument or if it is false because this contributes and reinforces the truth and its emergence.[54] He argued that ‘to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility’.[55] This argument was followed in the case of Mavlonov v Uzbekistan as Article 19(2)[56] had been violated due to the State not having sufficient grounds to fulfil Article 19(3).[57] In fact, the UN Human Rights Committee held that the authorities should have allowed free expression of a newspaper as well as the right to receive ideas and information.[58] This case involved a newspaper that incited inter-ethnic hostility and the State of Uzbekistan, by silencing expression and regulating hate speech, was criticised for damaging free society.[59] On the other hand, in RAV v City of St Pauls,[60] it was argued that the State should maintain open and free debate without impairing one side of the debate. This case highlighted the unfairness of free speech regulation as the State allowed anti-sexist and anti-racist speech while prohibiting sexist and racist speech. The Supreme Court decided that the ordinance was fair and favouring tolerance over intolerance was a legitimate reason to limit speech.[61] Freedom of expression is also regulated by Article 20(2)[62] of the ICCPR which forbids specific types of hate expression. In addition, ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law’.[63] It seems that Article 20 is working with Article 19 towards collaborating with the States to balance by law which eliminates criminalising.[64] As a result, it can be argued that Article 20(2) does not violate freedom of expression in a liberal democratic society but regulates this freedom positively. This is bolstered by the Human Rights Committee in its Draft General Comment No 34 (2011) which supports the compatibility between Articles 20 and 19 of the ICCPR and sets permissible restrictions on the right of free speech.[65] Hence, the Human Rights Committee re-affirmed that Article 20 provides convenient sanctions in cases of a breach so it will not interpret provisions to impose criminal sanctions in advance.[66] The case of Ross[67] clarified the overlapping characteristics of Articles 20 and 19 in which the Human Rights Committee stressed the need for consistent interpretations of the Covenant.[68] In this case, the Committee justified limiting the authors rights to freedom of expression and religion, based on Article 19(3). As a result, Article 20(2) did not violate any rights of expression due to: first, the prohibition of the act stated in the law; second, a legitimate purpose was clear; third, the necessity to achieve its stated purpose.[69] Moreover, there was a violation in a subsection of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act due to the authors expressions being considered as discriminatory and poisoning the community.[70] Clearly in this case the State Party prevented the author from expressing himself which undermined liberal democratic values.[71] Furthermore, the Supreme Court decided not to allow the author to practise his religion while being a teacher which seems to be a denial of the freedom and right recognised by the Covenant.[72] Hence, the authors right of free expression was restricted and held as a sufficient detriment for losing a teaching position as this job carried specific duties.[73] However, as teaching young students carries special duties which if misconducted might harm the pupils, it was proportionate to restrict the author’s rights.[74] This is strengthened by Mill’s point of view that instigation is a form of harming others, which is a legitimate justification for restricting free speech as occurred in this case.[75] Based on the harm principle introduced by Mill, freedom of speech should not lead to discrimination and harm to any members of society. If this could be avoided, it would lead to a flourishing and healthy society, which is a fundamental aspect of a liberal democratic society.[76] According to Article 26 of the ICCPR, hate and discrimination speech are prohibited by customary international law to avoid causing harm. This clearly states that ‘all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion ’.[77] To summarise, it is clear at this stage that there are enough legal grounds to restrict freedom of expression. This is also bolstered by a number of legal theorists who are in favour of restricting free speech. The argument is over the extent that the source of freedom which is the State should try to balance equality and liberty. It has been argued that regulating free expression is a mechanism for enhancing free speech which is not an absolute right. On the other side, some debaters claim that the truth shall only be revealed by having diverse opinions. Nowadays, there has been an increase in anti-discrimination and equality laws which have curtailed in limited circumstances free speech. There are number of legislations for restricting free speech such as Article 19(3) of the ICCPR,[78] Article 10(2) of the ECHR,[79] Section 2 of the CCRF,[80] as well as number of domestic legislations in the UK.[81] However, Article 19(3) of the ICCPR is conditioned on three grounds: first, the intervention should be in compliance with the law; second, the legally enforced intervention has to pursue a legitimate aim; third, there is a necessity for the restriction. Based on the given grounds, it seems that there are legitimate bases for restricting free speech which does not violate the rights of a liberal democratic society but rather helps to protect the society. Word Count: 2510 words Bibliography Books Article 19, Prohibiting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence  (Article 19 2012) Barendt E,  Freedom of Speech  (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005) Beatson J and Cripps YM,  Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information  (Oxford University Press 2002) Devlin P,  The Enforcement of Morals  (Oxford University Press 1965) Feinberg J,  Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law  (Oxford University Press 1984) Fiss OM,  The Irony of Free Speech  (Harvard University Press 1998) Fuller LL,  The Morality of Law  (Yale University Press 1969) Hare I and Weinstein J,  Extreme Speech and Democracy  (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010) Mill J, On Liberty (Penguin Books 2010) Mill JS,  Collected Works of John Stuart Mill  (John Mercel Robson (ed), Routledge 2011) Waldron J, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press 2012) Warburton N,  Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction  (Oxford University Press 2009) Wragg PM,  Critiquing the UK Judiciarys Response to Article 10 Post-HRA  (University of Durham 2009) Articles Bennett C, ‘Expression, Freedom of Speech and the State’ (2017) 8 Jurisprudence 360 Dworkin R, ‘A New Map of Censorship’ (2006) 35 Index on Censorship 130 Emerson T, ‘The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press’ [1979] 14 Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review 329 Flahvin A, ‘Can Legislation Prohibiting Hate Speech Be Justified in Light of Free Speech Principles’ [1995] 18 UNSW Law Journal 328 Heinze E, ‘Viewpoint Absolutism and Hate Speech’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 543 Mendel T,  Ã¢â‚¬ËœRestricting Freedom of Expression: Standards and Principles’  (Centre for Law and Democracy) Sottiaux S and Rummens S, ‘Concentric Democracy: Resolving the Incoherence in the European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association (2012) 10 International Journal of Constitutional Law 106 Strossen N, ‘Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?’ (1990) 1990 Duke Law Journal 554 Van Alstyne WW, ‘Freedom of Speech and the Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment: Antinomies of Constitutional Choice’ (1991) 29 Free Speech Yearbook 96 Yong C, ‘Does Freedom Of Speech Include Hate Speech?’ (2011) 17 Res Publica 385 Table of Treaties and Legislations African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58 American Convention on Human Rights (signed 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) Criminal Justice Act 2003 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) Malicious Communications Act 1988 (amended 2003) Public Order Act 1996 Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 United States Constitution Bill of Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III) Table of Cases Handyside v UK App No 5493/72 (7 December 1976) Lingens v Austria App No 9815/82 (8 July 1986) Malcolm Ross v Canada Comm No 736/1997 (18 October 2000) Mavlonov v Uzbekistan Comm No 1334/2004 (27 April 2009) R v Keegstra (1990) 3 SCR 697 RAV v City of St Pauls 505 US 377 (1992) Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919) Shin v Republic of Korea Comm No 926/2000 (25 April 2000) Snyder v Phelps 562 US 443 (2011) The Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom 51/1990/242/313 (24 October 1991) The Sunday Times v United Kingdom App No 6538/74 (26 April 1979) Thorgeirson v Iceland Appl No 13778/88 (25 June 1992) [1] Nigel Warburton,  Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction  (Oxford University Press 2009) 3. [2] Jack Beatson and Yvonne M Cripps,  Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information  (Oxford University Press 2002) 17-20. [3] Lon L Fuller,  The Morality of Law  (Yale University Press 1969) 185-186. [4] ibid. [5] ibid. [6] ibid. 7 Ronald Dworkin, ‘A New Map of Censorship’ (2006) 35 Index on Censorship 130. [8] Nadine Strossen, ‘Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?’ (1990) 1990 Duke Law Journal 554. [9] ibid 559. [10] Eric Heinze, ‘Viewpoint Absolutism and Hate Speech’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 543. [11] Article 19, Prohibiting Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence  (Article 19 2012). [12] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III) art 19. [13] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) art 19. [14] ibid. [15] ibid. [16] Toby Mendel,  Ã¢â‚¬ËœRestricting Freedom of Expression: Standards and Principles’  (Centre for Law and Democracy). [17] American Convention on Human Rights (signed 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) art 13. [18] Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) art 10. [19] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58, art 9. [20] Warburton (n 1) 8. [21] ibid. [22] Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919). [23] Warburton (n 1) 9. [24] ibid. [25] Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press 2012). [26] John Stuart Mill,  Collected Works of John Stuart Mill  (John Mercel Robson (ed), Routledge 2011). [27] Christopher Bennett, ‘Expression, Freedom of Speech and the State’ (2017) 8 Jurisprudence 360. [28] Joel Feinberg,  Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law  (Oxford University Press 1984). [29] Waldron (n 25) 169. [30] Patrick Devlin,  The Enforcement of Morals  (Oxford University Press 1965) 14. [31] Mendel (n 16) 3. [32] ICCPR (n 13) art 19(3). [33] The Sunday Times v United Kingdom App No 6538/74 (26 April 1979) para 49. [34] The Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom 51/1990/242/313 (24 October 1991). [35] Thorgeirson v Iceland Appl No 13778/88 (25 June 1992) para 63. [36] Stefan Sottiaux and Stefan Rummens, ‘Concentric Democracy: Resolving the Incoherence in the European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association (2012) 10 International Journal of Constitutional Law 106. [37] ECHR (n 18) art 10(2). [38] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2. [39] R v Keegstra (1990) 3 SCR 697. [40] Ivan Hare and James Weinstein,  Extreme Speech and Democracy  (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010). [41] Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006, s 29 (j). [42] Public Order Act 1996. [43] See also Malicious Communications Act 1988 (amended 2003); Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006; Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, ss 145-146; Criminal Justice Act 2003. [44] First Amendment of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights. [45] Snyder v Phelps 562 US 443 (2011). [46] Anne Flahvin, ‘Can Legislation Prohibiting Hate Speech Be Justified in Light of Free Speech Principles’ [1995] 18 UNSW Law Journal 328. [47] Lingens v Austria App No 9815/82 (8 July 1986) paras 39-40. [48] Handyside v UK App No 5493/72 (7 December 1976). [49] Shin v Republic of Korea Comm No 926/2000 (25 April 2000). [50] Thomas Emerson, ‘The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press’ [1979] 14 Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review 329, 331. [51] Eric Barendt,  Freedom of Speech  (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005) 38. [52] Caleb Yong, ‘Does Freedom Of Speech Include Hate Speech?’ (2011) 17 Res Publica 385. [53] Mavlonov v Uzbekistan Comm No 1334/2004 (27 April 2009) para 4.2. [54] Warburton (n 1) 26. [55] John Mill, On Liberty (Penguin Books 2010) 27. [56] ICCPR (n 13) art 19(2). [57] Mavlonov v Uzbekistan (n 53) para 2.6. [58] ibid. [59] Mill (n 55) 28. [60] RAV v City of St Pauls 505 US 377 (1992). [61] Owen M Fiss,  The Irony of Free Speech  (Harvard University Press 1998). [62] ICCPR (n 13) art 20(2). [63] ibid. [64] Bennett (n 27). [65] ibid. [66] ibid. [67] Malcolm Ross v Canada Comm No 736/1997 (18 October 2000). [68] ibid para 6.3. [69] ibid para 6.9. [70] ibid para 6.10. [71] ibid para 7.2. [72] ibid. [73] Paul Martin Wragg,  Critiquing the UK Judiciarys Response to Article 10 Post-HRA  (University of Durham 2009) 103. [74] ibid 104. [75] Mill (n 55) 30. [76] WW Van Alstyne, ‘Freedom of Speech and the Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment: Antinomies of Constitutional Choice’ (1991) 29 Free Speech Yearbook 96. [77] ICCPR (n 13) art 26. [78] ibid art 19(3). [79] ECHR (n 18) art 10(2). [80] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2. [81] Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; Public Order Act 1996; Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; Malicious Communications Act 1988 (amended 2003); and Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Doctrine Of God Theology Religion Essay

The Doctrine Of God Theology Religion Essay Many people find the study of the principals of Christianity to be interesting and even intriguing. For some, however, the interest goes well beyond idle curiosity. For this group of truth seekers, a hunger for knowledge and truth drives them to dedicate years of their lives to the pursuit of deeper and meaningful insight into what it all means. They dive into their studies: reading, analyzing, listening, discussing, and debating the issues surrounding creation, divinity, and human relationships with nature, one another, and deity. Though their paths may be diverse, they share the universal hope that their efforts are fruitful; that they are able to tell the story of Jesus Christ, the history of the Christian church, and share the message of a loving Creator in a way that will have a positive impact on humanity and be pleasing to God. This is where my colleagues and I find ourselves today. We are charged with explaining what we have read, heard, learned, and understand, and the magni ficent task of doing so with clarity and authority. The greatest challenge of sharing this message of hope, that is both exciting and challenging, is to be able to teach it (and live it) in a way that is not hypocritical or exclusive. While some are passionate and some are curious about the gospel message, there is still an entirely different group of people who are affected by it: those who are ignorant of Christian teachings and those who have negative feelings toward them. It is perhaps the majority of society, whom we should be reaching out to. Those people who are living outside of religion and spirituality are doing so because someone failed to share the message of God with them, or because someone failed to share it effectively. I believe there is more danger in being ineffective in sharing the message than in not sharing it at all. I grew up a pseudo-Southern Baptist. I say pseudo because my familys attendance at church was very inconsistent. We were faithful to attend church at least once a month, maybe twice in some months. I was never involved in youth activities, vacation bible school, or bible study groups. I did not have a close group of friends within the church. My experience with pew sitting included hellfire and brimstone sermons delivered by preachers who were well-versed in salvation founded in fear rather than faith. It is easy to imagine that, for me, church was not a place where I felt peace or grace. I eventually stopped attending church altogether during my teens. I had not felt any affirmation or nurture during my church experiences, so for a long time, all I felt I was missing was the guilt and fear I associated with church membership. I stayed away for about fifteen years before I felt God calling me to a relationship. Shortly after meeting Christi, who would soon become my wife, we visited the United Methodist Church with our daughters. It was then that I became deeply involved in a bible study for the first time in my life, and so much of the gospel message from my hit-and-miss church attendance finally began to make sense. We began to participate in several church activities with our children, volunteering in youth events, Sunday School activities, mission projects, and small group bible studies. It wasnt long before I was drafted into the church praise band, leading worship on Wednesday nights and at the early service on Sunday mornings. I had known for a while that I had a desire to serve more fully, but it was through a very unexpected event at church that I was rapidly introduced to full-time ministry. Stepping out on faith, I was hired as the youth minister and soon became a licensed local pastor. This served my purpose temporarily, but it did not provide fully for the kind of education I felt was necessary to preach and teach in pastoral ministry. The more tha t I learned during this time of rapid growth and awakening, the more I hungered for even more knowledge. My understanding of Christianity and church membership has since changed drastically from the narrow-minded perspective I had maintained throughout my childhood and well into adulthood. My perspective has shifted and my understanding continues to evolve. There are things which had no importance to me at all, that have become priorities. I have grown passionate about social justice and have gained a true appreciation for programs that promote the wellness and interests of women, children and others who are oppressed or marginalized. I have felt a calling to be a voice of support for women in ministry; to support their ministries and ensure that they are fully enabled to accomplish all of the good that they can, particularly in areas of ministry that they can be far more effective than a man could be. I feel strongly about the importance of encouraging inclusiveness in the church. I believe that it is important for all Gods people to have a place to participate in corporate worship. Church membership should not exclude members of the gay and lesbian community, as we all are in desperate need of feeling ever closer to God. There are several mainstream congregations within our communities that would not welcome gay or lesbian individuals into their churches. It is often openly and overtly preached against such blatant sinners becoming church members. I believe that none of our own sins can fairly or accurately be judged. Inclusiveness must be an overriding theme in all areas of the mission field. We are called to go make disciples and since we are all sinners, we would be hard-pressed to make disciples among those who are perfect. Our worship space and our church families should be places that are welcoming and inclusive, rather than rejecting and exclusive. If we are to model ourselves after Jesus, the Christ, we must remember that our savior ate with sinners. In those examples of love and forgiveness, Christ showed us the perfect model. If we are to be like Him, we must remember all those on the fringes; not just those who are victimized, but also those who are marginalized of their own poor choices. I believe that Jesus is my example and I am to model myself after Him. This is my calling. Prolegomena- The central theme of the Bible is God calling us, Gods people, back into a relationship with God. If we believe this, then we can only accomplish this restored relationship by ensuring that all of Gods people have not only the chance, but the understanding of what that relationship means. But, for many, the Bible is a strange writing. It is filled with stories and situations and language that are not easily understood. In fact, for many, it is like a foreign language. In addition, as I have come to experience in the world of theological education, there are so many terms that are indecipherable to the common person. We take our knowledge of the Bible and continue to turn it into terms that are still not user friendly. I believe that as theologians and faithful followers of Jesus Christ, we have a responsibility to humanity to give our best efforts to share Gods message with others. We are called by God and by the scripture in Matthew to go out and spread the gospel in order that all people may have the Bible accessible to them and to bring the message of scripture interpreted to them in a language that they might understand. When I use the phrase for the fringes, I am referring to those who are outside the church. For whatever reason, they do not have any affiliation with a church- possibly from a bad experience, never having been exposed, or disbelief. I believe that this is partially what we are being told in the passage from Matthew 25, the least of these. These children of God may be in the far corners of the earth, or in our back yards. They may be from the poorest of society, or they may be in the wealthiest ten percent. They may be pre-teen children, or they may be in the eve of their lives. In any case, I feel as though it is the responsibility of those who know the truth of scripture, the Christian community, to educate in common terms. More specifically, I believe that it is my responsibility, as a response to Gods amazing grace, to make it a priority to share Jesus with everyone that I can, in a language that everyone can understand. Dr. Rieger referenced our God as a fairly radical God.  [1]  This God of creation and liberation is the radical God that can appeal to the masses of those who are believed to be on the fringes, those just outside the church. Some believe that God is only available to those who gather in community and in relationships found within the fellowship and experiences of like-minded persons. We characterize those outside established congregations with terms like unchurched, or underchurched, or lost. The fact that they are not incorporated into an organized body of believers does not make them wrong. Too often the Christian community carries within itself, perhaps even in its doctrines, the belief that God can only be found inside the church. There are some who may even believe that they are the only ones who do church right. As theologians, we are faced with the challenge of presenting good God-talk, rather than bad. Unfortunately, many people experience theology as nothing more than anothers unlearned opinion or agenda, which could be limiting, damaging, or complete destruction. It is the responsibility of every person to seek knowledge and to share that knowledge. The Doctrine of God- Theology begins and ends with God. In an effort to firm our theological stance, we seek resources to support what we have learned and understand of God. The Bible and other historical documents are not written to provide proof of God, but to show what God has done, what God is doing, and what God is yet to do. They are, in fact, a documentation of Gods existence throughout history. Of these resources, there is no place better to start than with the Bible. In Genesis, we see that God created the heavens and the earthà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. and God swept over the face of the waters.  [2]  We see evidence of Gods existence at the beginning of time. However, Gods existence in the lives of the individuals is measured not by the accounts of others, but in the relationships and experiences of the individuals. The book of Deuteronomy, chapter 26 carries a hidden creed showing that the God of mercy and love delivered the writer from captivity and bondage. We cried to the Lordà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦..the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of Egyptà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.with a terrifying display of power.  [3]  Throughout the text, a merciful image of God is evident as God helped liberate a people from their captors. The Word shows that while being a God of great mercy and faithfulness, and love, that there is the existence of a God who can be terrifying. Both characteristics are contained within the same account. But, the testimony would not carry the same effect had it not been in a relational setting. The oppression and captivity were very real and very personal to the writer; also the action of God was also very personal. It is through these kinds of stories that the God of our Christian faith can be better understood. God has been presented to us with many attributes. These include Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, loving and forgiving, to name a few. Perhaps the best defining words for God would be self-existent. The fact that Gods existence does not rely on anything but God is somewhat overwhelming. The challenge is not only to gain a personal understanding of who and what God is, but to be able to effectively articulate God to others. This is the mystery of God. God can be described as everywhere, yet among us. God is said to be the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  [4]  These terms provoke questions within those who do not have a relationship with God. God has been said to be all things to all people. It is through these examples that we begin to gain an understanding of the enormity of God. God is immeasurable through our human understanding. We cannot possibly have a complete understanding of God. To simply say that God is Chri st leaves God somewhat boxed and therefore not the true God. Origen said that God is incomprehensible, transcending being itself. God is known only by inference from the created order.  [5]  We see the presence and existence of God through the world around us. God is seen in the actions of neighbors and strangers. The God of creation is seen through the beauty of nature and in the faces of our fellow humans. God said in Genesis 1:26, let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.  [6]  It is clearly seen that God is intentional in Gods communion with humankind. Biblically speaking, the image of God can be seen in each and every person. John Wesley referenced in his Sermon 111, the scripture found in Jeremiah 23:24, Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? Says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth?  [7]  Both John Wesley and biblical scholars agree that we see through this scripture that God is both immanent and transcendent. God exists entirely in this world and beyond. But the way that God is go ing to be seen in each persons perspective is going to depend on where this person is in his or her life. God will meet us where we are at. The circumstances that surround a persons life will shadow how God is viewed. A person who is suffering from loss, or poverty, or oppression might view God as uncaring, or distant. Whereas a person who is experiencing success- either socially, financially, spiritually, and relationally, may see God as very involved in their lives. It is those times where it is easier to see and acknowledge the existence of God. It is much harder to give God credit when times are hard. But the bridge to a better understanding of God is putting the two together and showing where God is present throughout. Trying to completely describe God would be failure. We cannot accurately speak of Gods greatness. Too many facets would be left out, and that would illustrate a God who fell short of the God that we have in our midst. Explaining the Trinity is equally difficult. As theologians, we are to be able to put into words that the three- God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one. In our limited ability to understand, we seek to make sense not only to ourselves, but others. The Trinity may be likened to a full chord on a guitar. Each note, or string, has equal responsibility and equal worth. Each has its own tone and depth. But when all the notes are played simultaneously, the chord makes a complete and beautiful sound- a harmony, a relationship. This is how the Trinity works. As previously discussed, God the Father, Creator is with us always, from the beginning of time. As Christians, we understand that each point of the Trinity is equal to the other two. There is no subordination. If subordination were the case, the idea of the Trinity would be pointless. A wonderful example of the Trinity in modern writing would be illustrated in the book The Shack. The main character has suff ered loss and brokenness and experiences all three facets while dealing with his circumstances. Though based on a fictional account, the lesson of each point of the Trinity, being in harmony with each other rings true. Each point of the Trinity was able to help the character in a different way. Understanding God and the Trinity has and will be a continuous journey. As we move and study and live, the presence and knowledge of God will move within. Our understanding will change daily, as will our maturity in explaining. By helping others to identify God in their own personal experiences and relationships, we have a greater chance of helping them to understand scripture and the greatness of God. The Doctrine of Jesus Christ- Jesus Christ the Son, born of a virgin, is both fully divine and fully human. Jesus came and lived among sinners and died for our sins. This is the general idea of what Jesus Christ is to the world. But, there is so much more to the idea of the Son of God. The Christian faith says that the most significant way in which it has been able to see God present within the world is through the life, work, and legacy of Jesus Christ. It is claimed that Jesus Christ is the physical embodiment of God in the world. Jesus himself is not all there is to God, but He is God as God has chosen to physically manifest Godself in the midst of Gods creation. The historical Jesus is the Jesus of today, acting in history. In Mark 8:29, Jesus asks, Who do you say that I am?  [8]  It seems that the world has been trying to answer the question since it was asked. The problem is that many different people have many differing answers. Or is that a problem. For some, He is simply a man who lived over two thou sand years ago. To others, He was a prophet, much like Elijah. To some He was a politician, or a public figure that was well known and killed for His views. And yet to many of us, He was a man, who lived over two thousand years ago, who was able to tell us things that were of another dimension, who was political and stood for a cause greater than we could humanly imagine. And then, just as He said, He would be betrayed by a close friend, arrested for upsetting the higher political figures, and murdered- all the while, changing the course of history and the future of the world. Jesus only had a short ministry, but the magnitude of things done in that time would shape a faith that give millions hope and peace all over the world. He began by assembling a group of men who were not in the upper crust of society. He never promised wealth or position, something that the average person might aspire to achieve, but instead offered life, unlike they had ever experienced before. These young men would have been the blue collar workers of our times. They understood what it was like to work long hours for very little pay. Most of them were barely educated. But Jesus saw something in them and He chose them to help Him carry the message- His message. Much of the time, they did not understand the words or actions of this man. He spoke unlike anyone had ever spoken. He used parables to teach them how to live and how to love. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, raised the dead, ate with sinners, and basically drew outside all the lines of societ al normalcy. Jesus spoke of a kingdom not of this world where we would go to be with the Father. Jesus spoke about loving their neighbor and forgiving them of their wrongdoings. He challenged them to carry His teachings to the world. And this message was for the multitudes of people who believed, and followed. We are the disciples of Christ who are called to take this message now. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit- In the Old Testament, we see the Spirit connected with deep experiences, through which its power might overcome an individual, it may rest upon an individual, or might be poured out over many people.  [9]  In the New Testament, this spirit is identified with Jesus Christ and is the bringer of justice, mercy, and the complete knowledge of God to the Jews and Gentiles alike. The idea that the spirit will be poured on the many- ie, Male and female, old and young, slave or free, as well as people of other nations, languages and cultures was radical considering the context of the time. The Spirit was granting knowledge to the outcasts. Not only were the wealthy and privileged receiving it, but so were the common folks.  [10]  We are told in scripture, beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.  [11]  In fact, considerable time and study has been spent in exploration of this topic. The subject of spiritual warfare comes to mind. There are spirits that work daily in our lives. Theses spirits are not for the good of us, rather the opposite. The Holy Spirit is that presence that is carried within us every minute of the day. It is often the guidance that we seek when making a difficult decision. This Holy Spirit lives in contrast to the negative spirits. It is the spirit of both our God and Creator, as well as the spirit of Jesus Christ the Son. And this Holy Spirit will not act always the same way. Our individual needs and context will cause the spirit to respond in Its necessary capacity. Wisdom scripture say that the spirit has filled the world and holds all things together.  [12]  It is through our personal experiences that we see the Holy Spirit at work. It is often masked as the nudging to participate or to not participate in any given activity. It is the feeling or calling of reaching out to those who are in need. We see the holy Spirit at work in the actions of others who show grace and compassion when their situations would not ordinarily warrant it. The Holy Spirit is the third element of the trinity, and is God and Jesus both active within our everyday lives. The Bible is a collection of all that God has said and done, as seen and recorded through the words of persons who were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit. It is a good example of how the Spirit works and speaks in their time and situation. The image of the spirit, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is that of wind or breath.  [13]  In the Book of John, Jesus promises the spirit as encourager to come after He is returned to God. I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truthà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦he abides in you and he will be in you.  [14]  The Holy Spirit is God living in us. And the Spirit helps us in our weakness.  [15]  The work of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives, just like in the lives of the Old Testament and New Testament people, helps to offer guidance even in our darkest hours. The battle that goes on within- should I or shouldnt I? is the direct activity of the Spirit, working against the evil and sin in our lives. It may be very complex and often difficult to explain, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit is simply our God, the Creator of all things, living inside, present at all times. The Doctrines of Creation and Providence- The doctrine of creation tells us that God is the source and the Creator of all things. God is the Creator of the universe as well as individual human existence. All life comes from God and all life returns to God. We are told in Genesis 1 that God created and saw that everything was good. We have no doubt that God was pleased with creation.  [16]  Creation, however, is not simply a process that was. Creation is a continuous, ongoing process in which God is actively involved- a relationship between God and the world. Throughout Biblical history, we have seen the hand of God at work, primarily in the acts of creation. For example, this is evident in the story of the flood, through the imagery of the olive leaf returned to the hand of Noah by the dove. We saw God establish the covenant afterwards, the creation of Israel, and then the creation of a new community of faith through Jesus Christ. These are just a few examples of the love that God has continued to show for Gods creation. We have to be able to share that creation did not create itself. It is the gift of a God who is love, and through this gift, we are shown the magnificence of God. But why did God create the earth and everything in it? Some have pondered that God was lonely, so God created. We believe that God is complete in Godself. We have already established that God is self-existent and ultimately that Gods existence does not rely on anything but God. with that in mind, it does not make sense, even to or limited understanding of this all-loving God, that God would become lonely and subsequently create. Karl Barth believed that God was radically separate from this world. Barth said that the One who loves in freedom was acting out of no external necessity but freely creating simply because love seeks to share its goodness.  [17]  This loving God that we worship, and often fear, is seeking to share Gods greatness. Through creation, God begins the relationship with humanity, not out of need, but out of love. John Calvin said, Gods providence is not that by which God idly observes from heaven what takes place on earth, but that by which, as keeper of the keys, he governs all events.  [18]  According to Wood, in the Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, we are not to believe that we are tied to our situations simply because God has willed it that way. This God who sends pain has also sent the means to alleviate it. The God who sends flood and fire has given is the intelligence to prevent it from happening, or to minimize its harmful effects.  [19]  Providence is Gods divine guidance and care. God the Creator is continues as the sustaining force for creation and the guiding force for human destiny. But why would a loving God allow evil into the world. Placher points out that often, we just dont have answers, but we might look at a few possible reasons. Sometimes good is not possible without evil, humanity abuses its freedom and the result is evil, evil helps refine our souls to be what God would have us to be, or simply that God allows some limited evil to act in the world.  [20]  It is only through Gods grace that humanity experiences free will. Sometimes, our choices through this free will cause us to be in harms way. Gods allowance of evil helps humanity to become the people God would desire us to be. Plainly speaking, we learn from our mistakes and through trials, we turn our hearts toward God. In the end, our relationship to God is strengthened, as is our witness to others. The Doctrine of the Human Creature- The problem with the issue of human being is that we all believe that we have a complete understanding of human being. And because we already know about the human being, we tend to work from that assumption. Our human condition, or human creature, or human existence is based upon our relationship with God. When we have a relationship with and we follow Jesus Christ, we become more fully human.  [21]  We are told that the human creature is not just individual, but collective, as well.  [22]  Our humanness comes with both possibilities and limitations. There is something in the individual, and in that individuals desire for personal success that is adverse to the human creature. We are qualified by the claim that what distinguishes them as specifically human is that God creates them in the image of God.  [23]  The one who is created in the image of God seeks to form and sustain loving and caring relationships with God and other human beings. When the humans desire to achiev e personal success overlaps the desires of another, conflict is created. Often in conflict, healthy relationships are not nurtured. This conflict is called sin. The Doctrine of the Church- The church is the people of God.  [24]  Though there are many divisions, facets, communities, denominations, the church stands as the people, the body of Jesus Christ, who founded the church and charged us with the task to go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  [25]  God will speak where God will and the community will form around where God is. The role of the church is to re-present Christ to the world.  [26]  In a recent lecture, Dr. Rieger alludes to a personal struggle that was similar to the struggle of Luther, Wesley, Barth, and Bonhoffer. That struggle was not about the people not believing, but that the people were being taught wrongly and therefore believed wrongly. Rieger offers that rather than idealizing the church, we begin to analyze the church. To do this, we must look at the four marks of the church to function as a framework for our analysis. First, we look at the unity of the church- One holy, catholic, universal church. But we are not one church. We have both social threats to church unity, as well as theological threats. One threat is segregation. We are primarily segregated. Racially, church is referred to as the most segregated hour in America- from 11am to 12 on Sunday morning.  [27]  Class stratification is not easily overcome, especially in America. If we are really interested in the unity of the church, we have to address the issues that divide us. We are also divided by our differing doctrines. As a United Methodist now and formerly a Baptist for 35 years, I appreciated the joke about a Methodist being a Baptist that can read. There is humor intended in the statement but the sad truth is that Baptists, United Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, and Pentecostals have been divided in their beliefs for ages. In addition to these differences, we also create divisions with the Jewish people. W e believe that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has somehow nullified the covenant of God with Israel in the Old Testament. Instead, we need to look to our similarities, oppose anti