Can the Existence of God be established by Argument? (My first philosophy paper)

            My alarm woke me up this morning at 6:43 AM to the sound of abrasive heavy metal music with philosophical prose. As I lay there slightly annoyed by the rude and early awaking, I was startled how applicable the lyrics were to the topic I was working on for this essay. They began with:

We’ve been deceived for so long now, we’ve stopped believin’. Can’t tell what’s right or what’s wrong, so you stop feelin’. When violence and coercion are their tools, then you must stand, scream; ‘No! Hell No!...We’re standing here waiting, you’ll listen to reason. This is a war you cannot win (Remains)!

           

To me these lyrics symbolize a war that is raging between religious thinkers trying to establish by argument that God exists and nonreligious philosophers saying he doesn’t. A war that very likely will never be won by either side any time soon. However, if reason is capable of giving one side the victory, which side would benefit the most? I am going to attempt to discover that question in this essay by examining Bertrand Russell’s writing in “Why I Am Not a Christian.”

Russell uses his reasoning to debunk five theories used by Christians in the past to support the evidence for God through argument. His thoughts are very compelling on most occasions, but lacking in support for me in how to determine right and wrong or good and evil.

In his argument against design, he says it’s absurd to think we were made for wearing glasses or hunting rabbits with white tails. Glasses are a byproduct of adaptation to our environment to help us see those white tails better. It is one thing, however, to jump from saying we’ve learned how to hunt rabbits because they have white tails to saying we’ve adapted from protoplasm to a complex human individual. “One does not simply walk into Mordor,” as Boromir said in Lord of the Rings (Jackson). Meaning, one does not simply go from simplicity to the most difficult thing we have knowledge of very easily. However, if I accept this theory I should be able to back up everything Russell says, if he is indeed correct we exist not because of design but by evolutionary principles.

So how do we determine what is right and wrong by evolutionary principles? If I cannot conclude that God is an option because of Russell’s argument, that if God determined right and wrong then it no longer means anything to say God is good, then I have to be able to determine what is good for mankind without God.

Russell indicates he knew the answer by posing the question to his readers that if we could be omniscient and omnipotent with millions of years to perfect our creation (like God should have for design theory), then why wouldn’t we create a world better than one with the Ku Klux Klan or fascists? This argument seems straightforward enough. If the KKK promotes hate, then why does a God with omniscience and omnipotence not withhold the KKK from hating? Does God not know what is good for mankind? Clearly it is ideal for zero hate to exist, and if zero hate existed, one is left to conclude the world would be a better place. However, there is a flaw in this line of thinking. It assumes that were I in a position of being able to do whatever it took to uphold what is good for mankind, I’d have the foresight to know that withholding a person’s decision to hate is the best possible outcome for this world. It allows me to determine an individual’s decision, consequently taking away any freedom to act on his own and giving any significance to the meaning of what is better or worse for society. If I determined right and wrong for all of mankind, wouldn’t I in effect be positioning myself as God? But we already know from Russell’s statement that if God has determined right and wrong it bears no significance on there being a true difference. Life would be predetermined by me or God thus there would actually be no right or wrong decision that could make the world a better place. I think it is safe to say that Russell didn’t have omniscience or that he wanted to play the role of God in his judgment leading to believing the world would be better off without the KKK. So what might lead Russell to believe he could make such a judgment? I believe the only explanation for his ability to make that judgment came from his intuition. And because he is human, I must have the same intuition. Therefore, I will insinuate that because we have adapted from a single-cell organism into the forms of Homo sapiens we are today, we must through that same adaptation have the ability to distinguish what is right and wrong for our society in order to survive based on human intuition.

The first order of business is to examine why the Ku Klux Klan is part of a defect in the world. If it is because they are hateful and racist to minorities because they consider these people to be inferior, then I must say I am judging this not based on the KKK’s survival instinct, but on a different standard completely. If I were to consider their life work through the evolutionary adaptation principle I would actually think they are exemplifying the principle in its entirety, not failing it. Survival of the fittest isn’t survival of all of humanity but rather survival of the fittest creature. But if we are to redefine it as survival of ‘all of humanity,’ then yes the Ku Klux Klan does not meet that requirement. Neither does ISIS who is trying to create a religious cleansing by killing off religious minorities who don’t convert to Islam (Watch). So if the KKK and ISIS are defects in society, they must be lesser evolved people who do not have the correct principle of adaptation built into their psychological intuition. If they are living primates, then those who have the correct principle of adaptation built into their intuition must be a more prominent majority of the society (as we’ve been surviving for quite some time now). So if we can judge murderers, racists, and fascists by this principle of intuition, we also must be allowed to put on the examination block pacifists and religions who promote peace and obedience to the law.

If the KKK and ISIS are evil, then what do pacifists or Christians do for society that is ‘better’ that we would conclude it would be acceptable to leave them in creation had we the omniscience and omnipotence to do so? Because if I’m allowed to make a judgment call for the KKK then I have to be allowed a judgment call for Christians. The Christian religion promotes “love your neighbor as yourself,” which includes giving to the poor, providing for the widows, submitting to authority, and not stealing, killing, or anything else that may demoralize the survival of ‘all of humanity’ (Matthew, Paul and James). So if Christians (at least what their religion tells them to do) are such great examples for exemplifying the principle of adaptation I defined earlier, then how is someone who belittles them good for the survival of ‘all of humanity?’ Shouldn’t the intuition of that person reveal to him that counting what Christians believe as pointless would have negative effects for the survival of any Christian who believes it is necessary to have faith in a God to give him a sense of right and wrong? If belittling a person who lives by the principles of adaptation (even if it’s disguised in the form of religion), is wrong then we are all guilty of falling short of the standard of intuition that evolution’s method of adaptation has instilled in us. And if we’ve all fallen short, then none of us are actually at the standard by which adaptation for the survival of ‘all of humanity’ operates. Therefore we cannot enforce a principle we have not attained ourselves without being at risk of confusing our failure as the principle of intuition we are trying to implement. In other words, I can’t stop a certain religious group or extremist from doing what they wholehearted believe is true because I risk misconceiving my lack of adaptation for intuition when in reality the extremist has only come one step closer to the standard than me. Perhaps the extremist, unbeknownst to him yet known to the survival principle, actually plays a role in killing an individual that had they not been killed would have played a role in starting a nuclear war that might be the death of ‘all of humanity.’

In essence, there is no way to determine what is right or wrong for humanity, only that each person is trying to adapt, procreate, and survive in a way that is befitting to themselves. Therefore, no human can ever state that there is an absolute standard for determining right and wrong, only that the standard is subjective to each person’s intuition.

So how do we go about examining if it is acceptable to ask if there is a right and wrong in this world or that it could be better with or without a single person? If nature cannot conjure up right and wrong in of itself through adaptation, and nature was not conceived by God, then there is no objective right and wrong only what is subjective to the living inhabitant’s arbitrary intuition. If Russell is right and the world was contrived by statistical averages that emerge from the laws of chance (which he uses against the Natural-Law Argument), then anything that is arbitrary, random, and based on statistical chances must come from that which conceived it. If that which is random gave birth to human existence, then that which is based on arbitrary statistical chance must be implemented in the continual survival of humanity. If what is random is best for the survival of ‘all of humanity,’ then an arbitrary life style should help me survive the best. But this is illogical. I eat on a regular basis and maintain adequate hygiene so I don’t catch a disease and die off quickly. I don’t drive illogically down the road, but I obey the traffic signals to increase the chances of my survival. Therefore, since what is arbitrary is not best for my survival, then it is not what contrived my existence. And if random statistical chance did not contrive my existence then it also did not conceive the world from nothing. We are left to conclude the world does not exist. This is obviously not so. Therefore, the only other explanation is that something else conceived the existence of our world. If it was not arbitrary chance we must reevaluate the possibility of God a further time.

If God is a possibility, then I am left to consider that one of our premises for designing the argument against God must have been false. I believe the answer lies in how we define an all good God who has omniscience and omnipotence. It would take another essay to redefine the character and power of God for philosophers to use in their arguments, but one thing I do not have to redefine is this: my God (the Christian God) says he is good and there is now evil in the world. He also says that he sent the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth to rescue us from the evil in the world. So if the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth is God like he claims to be and he gave his life and power for humanity by dying on a cross and then rising again 3 days later as eye-witnesses report, then I have to make a personal decision to believe he had the power to create the universe. And if God has that much power, I imagine he can restore order and justice to everything in his perfect timing.

Therefore, I conclude that reason does yield a one sided victory, and that victory is in favor of the existence of God.

Work Cited

Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. Perf. Sean Bean. 2001. DVD.

Matthew, Paul and James. "Life Application Study Bible." Matthew, James, and Romans. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1988. 1582, 1904, 2092. Print.

Remains, All That. "A War You Cannot Win." A War You Cannot Win. cond. LLC Razor & Tie Direct. By Rob Graves. 2012. iTunes.

Watch, Human Rights. Iraq: ISIS Abducting, Killing, Expelling Minorities. 19 June 2014. Web. 30 Jan 2015.

The One Fear That No Longer Hinders Me

Everyone has fears. 

I have a fear of jelly fish and bees, and possibly large dogs. Some people fear spiders and snakes, crocodiles and lions, heights and oceans, but we all have fears. My fears were developed in me due to the social environment I grew up in. 

I lived by the James River and always heard horror stories (or so they seem to a child) of jelly fish unexpectedly stinging people whenever they went swimming. It didn't matter that the chances of getting stung are slim, I had been influenced to fear the unexpected. 

For bees my fear was similar. I was told of wasps that leave their stinger in your skin after they attack, and once, I witnessed two of my brothers raking leaves too close to a nest of yellow jackets. The end result was a yelling wild run as my brothers tried to escape the pain of numerous bees unexpectedly stinging wherever they could find open skin, to the point the bees even crawled under my brothers' shirts. 

You probably get the point by now. I feared the unexpected, however, not because I didn't think I could handle the pain (I'm an eighth child, I can handle pain), but because I had no control over when the pain might come. 

So it was with me when it came to transitioning from being a home school student into the big wide world. I feared the unexpected. 

I feared I would become a college student just like everyone else my age, but somehow, because of my background, I wouldn't be ready for the unexpected. In addition, I didn't know what purpose I could offer the world. I have many small talents and passions, but if I had to make a choice, I couldn't decide whether to go for graphic design, major in music, join a circus (because I ride a unicycle and juggle), or pursue dance and performance because I felt so alive during a competition once. I also like to think, so I even considered philosophy. 

How could I make such a huge life and financial decision based on what little experience I had? 

I needed a year to focus. 

A year to slow down and contemplate my strengths and purpose.  

I needed a year to experience the world on my own, apart from the comforts of my social environment and the chilling level of pressure society places on young adults to have everything figured out after his high school graduation. 

I needed Focus One. 

Focus One, however, was not my saving grace. Rather, this one year discipleship program became the conduit for my Heavenly Father to weed out my insecurities and fear of failing when my background ceased to prepare me for the unexpected. 

I now live by the motto, Jesus is more than enough for me. In the light of eternity, what can I gain or lose that can possibly separate me from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus? 

Yes I may fail, but the unexpected has no hold over me anymore. I have Jesus to cling to and a world of possibilities should I succeed. 

So what fear is holding you back from accomplishing your dreams? 

God is an all consuming fire, He can put you through the crucible to refine you into the person He created you to be, you just have to let Him. 

Sign up for Focus One today if you feel like it's for you. You don't have to be afraid of failure or that home schooling hasn't prepared you for the public. You are better than that and you have a place in this world for this very time!

P.S. Here's a video of my confessions. 

Man Attends Party, What Happens Next Will Shock You.

Boys and girls, wanna hear a true story? 

Saturday night, I was at this real wild party. They had the liquor overflowin' the cup, and about 5 or 6 strippers trying to work for a buck. I took one girl outside with me, her name was Lonnie, she went to Junior High with me. I said, "Why are you up in there dancing for cash? I guess a whole lots changed since I've seen you last." She said... 

"What would you do if your son was at home, crying all alone on the bedroom floor, 'cause he's hungry and the only way to feed him is to sleep with a man for a little bit of money?And his daddy's gone somewhere smokin' rock now, in and out of lock down, I ain't got a job now. So for you this is just a good time, but for me, this is what I call life."

Sadly, this is based on a true story.

In 2001, the R&B hip hop trio called City High released this song called "What would you do." They received a Grammy nomination in 2002, but if you live under a rock like me, then you probably never heard it until the British band Bastille released a cover on their 2013 album, All This Bad Blood.

Evidently, the singers Ryan and Robbie from City High were at a bachelor party when they saw this friend of theirs stripping. When they confronted her about it, she told them her story as stated in the above lyrics.

This saddens me for multiple reasons.

1. This woman is degrading her body and self-esteem by selling herself as an object for sexual pleasure.
2. Men are willing to treat her like an object rather than an individual with unique character and purpose.
3. Was there no viable alternative to turn to other than selling herself?
4. How come no one is or was willing to help her? 

From the lyrics of this song, Robbie and Ryan seem to encourage Lonnie to stop making excuses and get up off her feet, but what do they do to come along side her and help her? They write a song.

I don't want to bash this song because I think it carries a message for my generation of young adults, but deep down, I hope they tried to help her find a way out of this lifestyle.

I'm not here to bash Lonnie either. In fact, I respect her for taking responsibility to raise her child at all costs. I believe in supporting human life, and I think it was very mature of her to set aside her own goals in order to provide for her son.

If I'm going to criticize anyone, it will be the men who think it's okay to use a woman for her anatomy just to have a good time.

There's no way around the fact that women are attractive. And no one can deny acknowledging that for centuries, women and men have always needed each other to be biologically successful. But step outside the concrete with me and consider what is morally ethical.

Would you want your sister, mother, or even your daughter being treated as an object of human sex trafficking?

I made the claim in an earlier post that mere association with pornography causes human sex trafficking. Yet what about tolerating or participating in the industry that supports strippers or prostitutes? This also creates an open door for enslaving individuals because it is built on the same perspective that women can be treated as objects of sexual pleasure without consent.

Though an argument can be made for women who may want to live in prostitution or for those who just want to earn a few extra bucks as a stripper, it is nullified if we simply believe each life is unique, has purpose, and deserves respect in view of this.

No man would be willing to pay for a stripper or sleep with a prostitute if he genuinely cared for her. He would treat her with the same respect he has for his own skin simply because he sees equal value in her that he sees in himself.

You may be thinking, "I don't know a single guy who wouldn't want to be paid to have a woman sleep with him." You'd be right, and this is the problem with society. We've bought the lie that it's acceptable for men to treat women as though they have nothing more to offer than a 'good time.'

I challenge you to place yourself in the body of just one of the 27 million individuals enslaved worldwide with the largest portion of those people being enslaved for sexual exploitation.

Be rhetorical and ask yourself why the market for trafficking you is the third largest criminal organization in the world (as of 2011). "Why do people (particularly men) care so little for me?"

We need to end prostitution and human slavery by replacing those objectives with a mindset built in humility and respect for the dignity of life. Then we can create new jobs and avenues for women to work and feel respected as individuals.

With the revenue from human exploitation (which is roughly $44 billion), we could drop the unemployment rate. We might be able to end or put a damper on world hunger (estimated between $30 to $70 billion). We may even be able to change culture so drastically divorce rates slow down due to less cheating.

I think it's time to take life by the horns and make it our goal to support each individual with decency and value such that he or she can live in an environment more hospitable toward the dignity he/she deserves.

It starts with changing our perception, concludes sex trafficking survivor, Rebecca Bender, as well as front line activist, Stacy King, who works to support victims of human trafficking.

So I challenge you: Change your perspective on this matter.

Start being more purposeful in your treatment of others.

Now is the time to live with a people-centered mindset!

My thoughts on the A&E/Phil Robertson controversy. Can you handle it?

So I have succumbed to the Phil Robertson controversy. I have told myself I wouldn't talk about it or even think about it, but with the influx of status updates, blog posts, tweets, and news articles, I couldn't resist reading them which in turn influenced my thought life to the point I now feel like I have to write something (whether or not people read it) just so I can clear out the garbage and move on to something else. 

Sometimes I think why was Phil so uncensored about what he said? Surely he knows how the media and entertainment industry can edit video and conversation. I mean, he is a main character in the most watched reality TV show in history. You know, they say he's not stupid, so wouldn't he have considered what a journalist could do with the words he says? Maybe Phil doesn't care. Perhaps to Phil it was more important to get the word out about what he determines the Bible says is sin than was the perspective of editing his opinions in the face of a reporter so he could keep a safe perspective that wouldn't cost him anything. Nah, that's giving too much brain credit to the creator of a multi-million dollar business. I reckon he gave the reporter the benefit of the doubt, and trusted him to accurately portray him, his values, and the context of how he was stating his opinons. I mean, that's probably what I would do if I were a Christian who cared more about my belief than my job. Hmm, let me think: "say things that reflect the way Jesus lived and the principles he stood up for (the only man to have historically died and risen from the grave) or play shy to the camera so I can keep a job that pays me with a material with no more value than what fallible, finite people claim it has?" I may just side with Phil should I take my faith as seriously as he appears to.

  

Next I like to imagine I'm in position with authority to suspend Phil's contract indefinitely. The report has just come to me in an email that one of my employees made some so called 'racial' and offensive remarks to certain spectrums of people groups. I think to myself, "this may blow up all over the news and we're going to be held accountable to this man's remarks. Do we want to apologize yet tolerate his views or do we want to show him this was unprofessional to our viewership and suspend him as an act of disciplining him for his actions?" I probably should seek the counsel of my coworkers/management team and see what we can rule. *A few hours later* "Good golly this is blowed out of proportion! Everybody and their mother is talking about our actions as much as his. I hope we made the right decision even if it will cost us a few thousand loyal viewers. We can't take back what we've done now. Ha, kind of ironic now don't you think? We seem to have dealt in equally controversial blow as the man we judged. Karma at it's best I guess. Let's just hope this cools down and the viewership returns when the next season premieres in Febuary..."

There's no point in pretending I'm the third group (the public) you've read the Facebook status' and the blog posts. By now you've chosen the ranks of being a A&E representative, a LGBT supporter, a Phil Robertson activist, or somebody who claims each person/group had the right to do exactly what they did, ie: it's life and the consequences that come with it so let's just get on with it and stop making such a big deal out of everything. You could even be one of those people who toss out numbers and other facts about what is going on in the world that is more important (either hoping for somebody to read and have their eyes opened to the fact that children are dying of malnutrition, people are being trafficked for sex, and how many people are dying from war and violence, or you are secretly wanted to validate your intellect for knowing all those facts and somehow being more grounded to reality than the rest of us who concern ourselves with the A&E/Phil Robertson controversy). 

Whatever the case, the truth is, you've heard about Phil Robertson and how he disapproves of homosexuality. You have your opinions and you either stated them or have thought them quietly to yourself. Those are very good things. Thinking for yourself is important and necessary in life. Now you've come to the point in my blog where I've stopped entertaining/frustrating you and I get to share my opinion. I get to influence your next thoughts. Are you ready? Can you handle it? Are you grounded in reality well enough?

Here it is: I simply will not share what I think in written format. I know, you've come all this way and I just disappointed you, but you do you want to know why I won't share my thoughts? It's not because I don't want to say anything incriminating, it's because I once had a driving instructor who taught me a very important lesson in life (yes how to drive don't be ridiculous). He taught me how to juggle. No, I'm not kidding. Because I was homeschooled he would pick me up before the public school kids got out and have me drive to the high school. Once there he would teach me how to juggle while we waited for school to let out (either his timing was off or I had a heavy foot, because we got there early every day for a week). One day after teaching me the principles of juggling and many tricks, he told me he had a vision of teaching 500 people how to juggle and he entertained the idea that each of those people would teach their own 500. Eventually those numbers would spread drastically and millions of people would know how to juggle just because each student became a teacher. I don't recall if I made a commitment to him openly, but I did in my mind that I would continue his discipling of learning how to juggle.

From that day on, anybody who has ever asked I have tried to teach them to juggle. I have done this in my hometown in Virginia, to a city in Illinois, and even as far as Mexico. The interesting thing about teaching someone how to juggle is I can't do it over written words. I have to show you physically and then watch you try and your physical form. If I see a flaw in your technique I can correct you in person as opposed to the complexity of trying to explain how you are doing it wrong in written format. 

So as far as my thoughts for the Phil Robertson controversy go, I wish social media didn't exist because even if the 'right' thoughts are posted about how Christians should respond, so many more were posted that were off that the wrong outweighs the good. I just wish we could go back into a time where things could be simpler and Jesus could disciple us face to face and we wouldn't have to argue about these sorts of things over a vastly connected network. That's why if you really care to know how I feel, you'll ask me in person. I'm going to bet that we can have a talk about this in a way that matters more, face to face, than if I wrote a detailed explanation of what is right and what is wrong on this blog post that you've spent twenty minutes reading. 

So come padawan, let us go to the feet of Jesus who can teach us the truth about juggling and stop listening to the voices crying out from different directions about the glamorous way to juggle. I think we may just find that though we know how to juggle, our technique can be critiqued in such a way that it has yet to match the master.  

Guilty By Association or Only By Participation: Three Things That Cause Human Sex Trafficking

In the box office thriller, Taken, Pierre Morel is the director who has now made millions on showing us what it’s like to see a loved one taken by force into the sex trafficking industry and sold to greedy, selfish, and corrupted people to be abused for entertainment and sexual gratification. Many of us wish that there was a real life Bryan Mills who could single handedly put an end to commercial exploitation of individuals, but not even William Wilberforce was able to completely end slavery for the whole world in 1833 when the British parliament passed his bill to ban transatlantic human trafficking.

However, the bill did lead the way on this issue and has set the standard ban almost all countries have now adopted (Human Trafficking). This was a remarkable accomplishment for an individual and for our society, yet laws alone cannot stop the human trafficking industry. This industry exists because our current society either associates with or participates in the market that feeds it.

Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery, and slavery is the process by which in individual is placed under the domination of another. Slavery is nothing new to current society; records as early as 2500 B.C.E. show how enslavement was implemented in the Sumerian Civilization (Coffin 11). However, culture has changed over the course of history, and what was current in the Sumerian Civilization and what was the current form of slavery during the American Civil War is not quite what it is now. The most current form of slavery is human trafficking for sexual purposes (Rodriguez and Hill). Statistics estimate up to 27 million men, women, and children are currently enslaved worldwide (U.S. State 7), more than at any other time in human history (Guay).

Why is slavery so vast and why is sex trafficking culturally relevant? Could it be that innovators advertise old news in a relevant way to create new commerce? For example, mankind has often wanted or needed to travel for survival, discovery, conquering or other purposes. Therefore, innovators were able to design things from the wheel and the chariot, to boats, motor vehicles, planes, and so on, to meet the demands for travel. Humanity has a natural inclination to travel and innovators have cultivated a market for profit from selling vehicles and plane tickets permitting our traveling demands. Likewise, exploiters are now using slavery in a relevant way to meet demands of the twenty-first century.

When America was in the nineteenth century, cotton was a big industry and many land owners employed slavery to assist in the farming of this product. The society at this time mainly employed manual labor because it was culturally relevant. Between the end of the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, we see a society with more freedoms and more technological advances. One of those technological advancements came in the form of computers with the ability to connect to each other via the World Wide Web (Internet).

With the explosion of the internet over the last two decades, came the proliferation of one of humanity’s most natural inclinations: the desire for sex. Mankind’s natural inclination for sex is understood in the natural process of reproduction. However, reproduction is technically a benefit of sex as an outcome for biological success. Therefore, sex is more than just reproduction for humans, and the natural desire for it can be easily illustrated through the sudden increase of internet pornography.

Pornography can be defined as “material that contains explicit sexual subject matter intended to arouse sexual excitement (Online Pornography).” Once again, the explicit use of human imagery for sensuality isn’t a new novelty (Coffin 96 and 112), but nudity is more culturally relevant because of the internet avenue used to promote pornography. Statistics estimate pornography is searched for 68 million times daily, and that our society spends 97 billion annually on this content (Internet Pornography Statistics. Why is this so significant to human sex trafficking? Because in an exploiter’s mind, where there is a desire, there is potential for business.

If a business wants to profit from what they have to sell, they will evaluate whether or not people will pay for the product before it goes into mass promotion and production. When we take a look at these numbers, it becomes evident internet pornography is a huge industry. Human trafficking is also a large industry. In fact, it is the third largest and fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world (Rodriguez and Hill). Profits from human trafficking are estimated to be around $44.3 billion annually, with the majority of that coming from sex trafficking (Human Trafficking). It stands to reason, then, that pornography contributes to the sex enterprise for human trafficking because it is sex trafficking only in a different medium. Victims of sex trafficking are forced, abused, and coerced into this labor and are bought for pleasure. Likewise, pornography is viewed for pleasure, at the expense of the people exposed online. People may volunteer their bodies to be filmed or photographed (Wallance), or they may be coerced (Cleveland); nevertheless, association with or participation in pornography validates using the image of people for private pleasure of the viewer. And if the image is validated, what’s going to stop a person from taking it a step further and validate raping a woman who was trafficked? Will the law stop them?  It hasn’t yet.

Pornography is not the only cause for sex trafficking, but it does contribute to trafficking as a gateway for what industry can do with people. However a vital key for industry is not just the product, but also the profit. Our society operates under a universal medium for trade called money. The more money you have the more things you can acquire in your name. The less money you have the more money you need to survive. Because money is such a necessity for society and is also a tool for gaining power and influence, it is sought after by just about everyone.

People are not just trafficked for the love of sex. Individuals are sold, forced, deceived, and coerced into this industry because of the money that can be obtained. A study performed by the International Labour Organization estimated in 2011 that there were 456 million workers “living below the $1.25 a day poverty line (The Millennium 8).” This is a recipe for unfortunate circumstances because individuals in poverty may be deceived by the “job” they took, when in fact they are trafficked for sex. Parents or other adult relatives may sell children into this industry because of the state of poverty they live in. Brothel owners make their financial gain after initially purchasing, coercing, or forcing the individual into their establishment and then repeatedly selling the victim for sex.

I’ve never been in a brothel, but I saw one from the outside. I’ve never talked with a brothel owner or a parent who has sold their child into slavery, but I did e-mail an organization who rescues sex trafficked victims from brothels and this is the report I received: “Traffickers can be anyone and everyone, including law enforcement and government officials. Especially where the countries have corrupt systems in place, again, it takes it back to money and the lust for more. A lot of girls who come through our program have mentioned ‘it was this nice lady who knew my aunt and uncle.’ They usually give false promises of a job in the city working in a restaurant (USA Office).”  

You see, the desire for money will compel a relative, a government official, or a business agent to turn over another human to be victimized by the sex trafficking industry. But not even the love for money or the desire for sex can be attributed as the only causes for human sex trafficking. First there must be a demoralization of an attitude toward human life. It is not possible to maintain a sense of dignity and self-worth within the context of a humble attitude and associate or participate in the things that cause sex trafficking. To place value on oneself and maintain humility generates a perspective of equality or less than to others. In which case, if an attitude of self-worth is sustained by an individual it would be outside the confines of their ego to get involve in an industry prone to take advantage of them. Therefore, to keep a humble opinion of oneself within the context of that self-worth, they would not sell, force, deceive, or coerce another human of equal or greater value into that which they cannot go.

Alternatively, when this barrier is broken and one allows their pride to impose the idea that individual self-worth is more important than others, they lose grasp of their own mortality and the basis of which humility was derived, thereby initiating the ego needed to devalue life and become the source from which contribution to sex trafficking can be made. In other words, if a man maintains a sense of dignity and self-worth within the context of dominance, he will engage either by association or through participation in the things that cause sex trafficking.  A historical narrative written on the life of Jesus of Nazareth records him putting it this way: “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks (The Life Application Study Bible Luke 6:45).” In essence, if what is defined as “good” by Jesus is put in our thoughts, our actions will be “good.” But if we put “evil” in our thoughts, very simply, our actions will be “evil.”

Thus the vast number of people enslaved and the cultural relevance of human sex trafficking are a result of these three causes stated above. The industry hangs on these three causes because if an individual ever allows his pride to elevate his self-worth over another human being, he will use his dominant ego to enslave, denigrate, and or robotize people for selfish pleasure. He cannot have both humility and self-worth and treat others in hostility. However, he can still desire sex and remain humble because of the mutual partnership of marriage. He may also desire money and remain humble because money is the universal tool of trade and can be gained through submission of work without lowering self-worth. However, take humility out of the equation and a proud man can attain finances through associating or participating in sex trafficking. Take humility out of the equation and a proud man may desire sex outside the partnership of marriage because his dominant opinion of himself permits him to treat others as though they have something to offer him. This selfish motive can either lead to association with sex trafficking by viewing pornography or by direct participation.

Works Cited

Cleveland, Stephanie. "Pornography Is Harmful to Women." Feminism. Ed. Christina Fisanick.

Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Hot Cherry Pies:

Pornography and Justice for Women." www.adonismirror.com. 2006. Opposing

Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Coffin, Judith, et al. Western Civilizations Their History & Their Culture. 17^th ed. V 1. W.W.

Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, 2011. Print.

Guay, Justin. "Economic Development Causes Slavery." Slavery Today. Ed. Auriana

Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Economic

Foundations of Contemporary Slavery." Human Rights & Human

Welfare. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

"Human Trafficking." Human Trafficking. Ed. Christina Fisanick. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,

2010. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

"Internet." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Opposing

Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

"Internet Pornography Statistics." Addiction. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,

2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

"Online Pornography." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit:

Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

Rodriguez, Amanda Walker, and Rodney Hill. “Human Sex Trafficking” FBI.gov

Stats & Services. Reports and Publications. LED. March 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2013

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-

bulletin/march_2011/human_sex_trafficking

“The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012” UN.org International Labour Organization.

2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013

The Life Application Study Bible. NIV. Ed. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Illinois: Carol

Stream, 1997. Print.

USA Office, Rachel. “Re: I have a quick question.” Message to Jordan Gayfield. 10 Oct. 2013. E-

mail.

U.S. State Department. “Trafficking In Persons Report 2012”. pg. 7. June 2012 Web. 15 Oct

2013 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/192587.pdf

Wallace, Benjamin. "Online Pornography Creates a Unique Creative and Entrepreneurial Outlet

for Individuals." Online Pornography. Ed. David E. Nelson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,

2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Geek-Kings of Smut." NYmag.com.

2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Are Young Readers Being Influenced by What They Read?

When I was a kid I liked to read stuff like If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, or when I was a teenager any of Brain Jacques’ books about talking animals in the land of Mossflower often captured my interest. But young adults are getting bombarded with less harmless reads in today’s current culture. Meghan Cox Gurdon is on the forefront of examining this topic as a Children’s Book Reviewer for The Wall Street Journal. On March 12, 2013, she delivered a speech to the Hillsdale College campus, which in turn was adapted into an article entitled “The Case for Good Taste in Children’s Books” for the Imprimis issue, a publication of Hillsdale College.

In Gurdon’s speech, she addresses the category of Young Adult (YA) literature as "becoming increasingly lurid, grotesque, profane, sexual, and ugly." She explains how this becomes a meta-message to children and young adults, condoned by adults, as what to expect in reality. Therefore, condoned bad taste in YA literature is taking a turn toward normalizing distorted portrayals of life leaving the reader feeling coarseness, emptiness, and sorrow as opposed to experiencing beauty, wisdom, and morality through good taste in book choices.

As I was reading this article on Meghan Cox Gurdon’s speech, I started to wonder what her opinion would be regarding the numerous books that seem to be influencing the Young Adult literature with their explicit content. Would she propose to banish them? Would she argue for more clean and moral depicting stories? How about the authors? Would she demand they stop writing? I discovered what she proposed to be rather reasonable. Her stance goes like this: “I do not, in fact, wish to ban any books or frighten any authors.”

“What I do wish is that people in the book business would exercise better taste; that adult authors would not simply validate every spasm of the teen experience; and that our culture was not marching toward ever-greater explicitness in depictions of sex and violence.” She refers to content from three different books to support her opinion that YA literature is full of these depictions: The Marbury Lens, by Andrew Smith, Rage by Jackie Morse Kessler, and Anatomy of a Boyfriend by Daria Snadowsky.

While Gurdon admits near the end of her speech that books she supports like Hansel and Gretel, Beowulf, and the story of David and Goliath, have gruesome and scary depictions, she argues they have a redeeming quality that is uplifting and transforms the scene of violence into something beautiful. Whereas, on the contrary she states: “the problem with darker offerings in Young Adult literature is that they lack this transforming and uplifting quality. They take difficult subjects and wallow in them in a gluttonous way; they show an orgiastic lack of restraint that is the mark of bad taste.”  This appears to be a brutal attack against the very authors Gurdon said she didn’t want to frighten, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s an argument vocalizing how counter intuitive it is for adults, whether parents or authors, to condone this sort of bad taste in YA literature. Gurdon parallels this kind of approval to anti-drug and anti-tobacco programs in elementary and middle schools. While kids take in the message that drugs and tobacco are bad, they see the meta-message that their expected by adults to use drugs and tobacco. The correlation is a meta-message in YA literature that, Gurdon, claims normalizes violence, sex, and abuse to be expected in the young adult’s life or friends lives.

Admittedly, Gurdon agrees with her critic Sherman Alexie who wrote a rebuttal to Gurdon’s twitter article that started Gurdon’s radical disproval of  “dark content” in Young Adult literature, asking her “does she (Gurdon) believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will somehow shock a teenager whose life has been damaged by murder and rape? Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?” I respect Gurdon’s honesty to include the opposing view point and agree with it. But after agreeing with him, Gurdon takes it a step further by stating: “I also don’t believe that the vast majority of 12-to-18-year-olds are living in hell. And as for those who are, does it really serve them to give them more torment and sulphur in the stories they read?”

This remark settled the matter for me. The way I see it, if an author’s reason for depicting explicit and detailed descriptions of sex, abuse, and violence in books oriented toward 12-to-18-year-olds, is because the minority of teenagers experienced this in reality, then what does that say about justification and validation? Should we also justify all “darkness” in the world and try to normalize it because the minority experiences this “darkness”? It’s like trying to justify abortion for all people because the minority of some unfortunately experience rape. What message does this send to those young adults who have a good life and free will? If they or their friends experience abuse, then does that mean abuse is okay, because well, it’s a social norm, at least in literature? What about sex? Just because sex is normal in books, does that now mean it’s okay to experience it at a young, developing, immature age? 

Gurdon expresses the idea that adults should exercise judgment when it comes to deciding what children and young adults read, because if children have ultimate reign over what they read, why does adult judgment in every other area of life suddenly vaporize as soon as it comes into contact with printed word? I don’t think that adults should be a gatekeeper into the realm of literature, but neither should they omit all judgment leaving a developing young mind to see the world through a distorted lens of graphic violence, sex, and abuse. Therefore an adult’s stance should reflect one that has the child’s best interests in mind. A perspective Gurdon shares, which is why she concludes her speech by quoting Saint Paul the Apostle out of Philippians 4:8 “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praise worthy—think about such things.” And then goes on to say: “And let us think about these words when we go shopping for books for our children.”

I think this sums up her speech and this adapted article quite eloquently. How can a child or young adult be thinking about anything excellent or praise worthy if the content of the book has no redeeming qualities, only a wallowing grotesque denigration of reality? What Gurdon and I now ask, is not that author’s stop writing, but that they would exercise better taste of virtue and life in their stories. They should give their readers a book that’s uplifting and full of beauty, and less full of sallow hope and gruesome imagery. 

The "Bad" Side of Town.

"There's a nice library downtown you can visit if you like," said my mom. "You don't want to be there after dark though. It's not the best side of town..."

"Did you hear about that man fishing in your pond?" Said my neighbor while I was paying him a visit. "I have," I replied. "My mom told me all about it." "You can't trust people anymore nowadays." He responded. "You know that man lives down the road from us. There's a lot of bad people down there..."

"I actually don't know this area very well." I admitted to a pair of new friends from my first time at church. "Tell me more." "Well there is some real nice buildings and historical structures you can check out downtown." My new friend advised me. "There's even a dollar theater. But you won't want to be there after midnight, it can be kind of sketch."

To be honest, these accounts are fabricated based on my memory of the conversations so they are not word for word, but the topic remains truthful.

On 3 separate occasions this month I've had 3 discussions with 3 different people from diverse walks of life about unsafe areas with untrustworthy people. I've only been in this community for a month...

What, then, compels us to speak about our own town in this manner?

I'm sure you've experienced something similar at one point in your life. There always seems to be a "bad" side of town that attracts "up to no good's" and whether they're friends or family who advise us, we are often steered clear of these areas, mostly at certain times of the day (as if zombies come out to eat you if you stay out after sunset).

The premise of these conversations are usually beneficial and well directed, but somewhere in the midst of being concerned for your friend or your relative's safety, the conversation can take a turn towards one of judgement, condemnation, and marginalization. I am guilty of this, too. But lately I've been examining the result of these conversations and how to approach talking about the "bad" side of town without casting judgement or marginalizing people as a ramification of their location.

My points of view will be personal, public, practical/logical, and biblical.

Personal:

As a result of contemplating why we consider the inner city or downtown sections unsafe or unfit for us to venture into, I came upon an opportunity to get involved in said area with my local church.

One of the lady's from the church I've started to attend this past month runs a food-bank ministry for the church. For the past year this lady has organized the donation and purchase of non-perishable food products to be distributed within the inner-city to low income housing residents. I had the honor of tagging along this past Thursday.

We loaded her car with about 8 equally packaged bags and drove ten minutes into one of the most historical parts of town. Just a few days prior I had come to this very area to celebrate my father's 25th anniversary of employment to his company. His boss and many of his co-workers had dined with us in a historical restaurant by the water. This was a fairly expensive place which I deduce draws middle to upper class clientele. Yet only a few streets away happen to be The Virginian. A place I will acquaint  you with now.

The Virginian, I presume, was a hotel of prestige at one time as Thomas Jefferson was a guest. Yet now it has lost much of it's grander, other than the marble walls in the lobby, and nobody of distinction, I fear, would wish to be found dead in the place. The current residents are on welfare (for whatever reason, but none that I wish to address here), living in a building without central AC or heating I believe. Each floor has it's own unique odor (none pleasant) and access to a single elevator, which I've been told hardly ever works.

We loaded a grocery cart with the food we brought and proceeded to go from floor to floor delivering to residents we had on a list for that week's rotation. Every two weeks the lady I assisted makes a delivery to The Virginian, but never with enough food to feed everyone. The goal is to provide consistently to those they've build friendships with and for a few who are disabled and unable to make it out to collect from other social services.

In spite of being in the midst of one of the 'roughest' parts of town, I never once felt in danger (keep in mind this was at 10 in the morning). In fact, many of the residents would greet us sincerely and often would wait for us when they knew we would be using the elevator. One gentleman we ministered with confessed to us that he'd like prayer for deliverance from black magic, voodoo, tarok cards, evil spirits, demons, voices, etc. But even in that I did not feel afraid. I was joyful that we were able to pray with him and believe with him that the power of Jesus could expel any weapon formed against him. More over, once we had finished delivering food we were approached by a woman in need of a ride to the YMCA to pick up free food and then to her home. We humbly did as she asked with no concern for our welfare as it was not being put into question.

The least promising thing that came from our trip was the fact that though we had successfully distributed food and given a ride to a young lady, we saw what appeared to be a confrontation between police officers and some residents outside of The Virginian. I am not sure why they were there, but if I had to postulate, it would be because we witnessed lots of smoking. I assume the illegal use of marijuana could have been a possible outcome. However, this does not verify the danger to a person nor the need to avoid such locations. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

In a location with very little income, influence of unhealthy habits, and people with physical disabilities, how can I as a Christian, as an individual, as a human being, not feel sympathy for these people? How can I judge them for the state they live in without ever considering the circumstances that brought them to that place. Why would I allow my preconceived notions of downtown's, of inner cities, and "bad" parts of town influence my behavior toward these people? Are they less human because they live in a area with a poor reputation? A reputation, mind you, that I've only ever heard described as the "bad" side of town from people who live outside this location. Yet I found that even in our efforts to "help" them with food and prayer we still judged them.

As we were getting ready to pray for an older gentleman who served in World War 2, I set on the ground a box I had been holding. The box's purpose was to hold more bags of food than our hands could carry. The box made it easy to transport food from one level to another without having to haul individual bags. Since the box was valuable to our needs we were keeping it instead of getting rid of it. I made the mistake of setting the box on the floor of the lobby in The Virginian only to be snapped at not to do so. I understood the floor was sticky and perhaps not the most sanitary place to set something down, especially since we planned to place more food in it for our next visit, but the quick snap brought my mind not to the person we were getting ready to serve (who by God's grace we were able to minister to), but rather the slum conditions they live in and thus the reason we, who live in an area with clean floors, are superior to them. This is not at all the mindset we carry with our words, but our actions seem to indicate otherwise.

The final straw that broke the camels back came when the lady we gave a ride to the YMCA and then  home kindly offered us a couple bottles of water. No offence to the lady I was volunteering with, but she denied the water. Why was it necessary to say no thanks to a person who was only trying to repay the favor? Again, why live in a way that indicates "I'm better than you because I have a car and money to buy purified bottled water?"  Sure the water was not purified or from a natural spring and taking a drink would not increase our health, but it doesn't hurt to accept the gift. I took the bottles in respect of her offer and the fact that I really needed what she was giving me as it was a hot day. I drank and I have not yet died. I drank and I have not yet received worms. I drank in the attempt to accept where this lady was from and the conditions she lives in as not being harmful to me in any capacity. I drank in the attempt to acknowledge in myself that her circumstances don't define her, and to show her I'm willing to submit myself to them because I want to honor her existence, not as a means to do good works within my religion, but as a person who lives and breathes and moves. A person who has value. A person who has been given the same kind of love I have been given whether or not she has received it, I don't know. But I believe she is a person who is loved by Jesus Christ. And Jesus through life and death displayed a love so strong nothing can separate her from it.

Conclusion:

It is evident to me that people because of their location are looked at as lesser humans. As if their location defines them as scum rather than people. Whether we realize it or not, my opinion carries that we marginalize people because of their circumstances.

(Again, I'll address this more from a biblical perspective, the public's opinion, and also more on the practical ways this is done and if it is healthy or unhealthy to do so in upcoming posts. But for now I only want you to see my personal experience with people inside the city.)

Let it be known that I do not live in said area and have only visited a few times, but each time whether it was in my own town or a different city in a different country (referring to my Vancouver experience), I have not felt at harm. It startles me then, that we even say there is a "bad" side. Does a reputation of moral, and perhaps more accurate, legal corruption taint you with fear of people? It doesn't swallow me up with fear. In fact, my heart longs to get to know these people so that I may have a better understanding of them and their difficulties. If I understand their hardships, I can do what I can to help ease their burdens and share mutual happiness with them in this beautiful world we live in.

My personal view is based on my religion which would agree with the statement that all people are loved by God and because of that love I have received, I now have the grace to offer it to everyone I encounter. This means I shouldn't be judging a person because of their location or even past affiliations with moral or legal failure. I have the obligation to treat them with value as if they never made a mistake, because to assume I have the right to judge them for their mistakes would be, in effect, ignoring my own moral and legal failures. If I am not worthy of love, and yet I am loved, how then can I have the audacity to not treat others in the same love I have received? By stating there is a "bad" side of town, I conclude that there have to be bad people and that because I'm not in that location I must not be bad. But the reality is, I know I am! Therefore, I cannot bring judgement upon those people at all, but especially because of their location. I must then conclude that because I am bad and that they are also bad, there is no distinguishable delegation that can be made in regards to there being a "bad" side of town. The town is "bad" wherever a person resides, therefore it is not a location that determines "bad" people but it is their inherent nature. So then, if it is our nature that defines our failures to what purpose does it serve to marginalize people for their location rather than their condition? And by act of marginalizing people as a result of their location I am, in effect, becoming the very "bad" person I am warning others to avoid. It is not by love through grace and mercy I have received in my life to call somebody "bad," but it is out of my own pride of thinking I have it together more than they do. But do I really have it more together because I was born or grew up in a less controversial location?

We cannot choose where we are born or to what past we must inherent, so I cannot devalue a person by their circumstance or at all really if I must hold myself to the integrity that I am by no act of my own better than them. Therefore, because I am no greater than them, why plead to my friends and family to avoid these locations? I will discuss the probability of the risk of physical danger in my practical approach, but as a personal perspective on this matter, I cannot say there is one more "bad" area than the next.

If you have to be cautions of physical harm that can come to you and your family, it may be best to approach all locations with the sense that someone can inflict harm on you. But if you are like me and you have been given freedom of fear, you don't have to worry about there being a "bad" side of a town. You will see people broken by oppression in need of the love and freedom you and I possess. May you then, like my new philosophy, view a person not by their location and the possible risk of danger that has corrupted their area, but may you view them as real people subject to unfavorable circumstances. Only then will you see that it is not a "bad" location made up of "bad" people that you should warn your friends and family to avoid, but rather real people who have been marginalized by our judgmental mindset and subconscious actions that you should encourage your friends and family to share life with.

Thank you for reading! I hope you got something out of this and want to come back for more. Now go into the downtown of your city and befriend somebody you can do life with!