Is There a Difference Between State-Subsidized Churches and State-Subsidized Schools

In Canada and the US the public schools are subsidized by the government, which means that these public schools are funded for by the state, which also by the means that they are paid for indirectly by taxpayer money which is the main source of income of the state. Besides that point, state-subsidized schools are funded more or less by the state. State-subsidized churches on the other hand are not a common thing anymore at least in Canada and the US, but they have existed in the past. But is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and schools?

Before answering this question one must first know of the similarities and differences between the two. The similarities between state-subsidized churches and schools include: both are funded primarily by the state, they are under state control, and they are both at risk to the state pushing out their own agenda. Of course the majority of people today would think it is ludicrous to have state-subsidized churches because what if the government begins to push out their own agenda, or enforce preaching the wrong message. I believe the majority of people believe that any form of religious worship should not be funded by the state. But why is this any different from state-subsidized schools?

What about the differences between the two? There is almost no difference between the two, the only difference is the fact that churches are a place of worship and schools are a place of learning. Because of the lack of differences between state subsidized churches and schools, why do the majority of people neglect to notice the fact that because public schools today are technically funded and run by the state, which means that it would be completely possible for the state to push out their own agenda when it comes to the curriculum. For example the public school system today portrays itself as a neutral institution that does not force upon beliefs, which is probably why people still believe that there is a difference between state subsidized churches and schools. But in actuality the state is quite capable of influencing the world views of the students through this set up of state subsidized schools. Thus state subsidized churches and schools are almost no different from each other, both have similar risks involved, and both are under state control.

In conclusion, though the majority of the churches today are not subsidized by the state. If you think of a situation in which they are, that situation would be very similar to the situation we are in today with state subsidized schools, which is why there is little difference between the two.

Hobbes Main Arguments

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679), was an English political philosopher during the 17th century, who greatly promoted the idea of absolutism. He had many arguments and views which he explained in his written works; but what were these main arguments in his his written works? At least what were the ones I noticed from the small section I read from a piece of his writing?

Something that is very clear about Hobbes is the fact that he believes that humans are utterly selfish and that everyone is a potential murderer to another. He also argued that humans only go after their passions and their own power. Because as humans we are selfish horrible beings we need an absolute government to control us. Thus these were Hobbes main arguments.

What is Constitutionalism

The constitution is an important thing, especially in the United States; in the United States and in other countries the constitution helps preserve the freedoms of the citizens. A similar word to constitution is constitutionalism; what is constitutionalism? 

Constitutionalism in short means that a ruler is not above the law, they cannot be the law, and they have to enforce a set of laws that they themselves must follow. Thus, this is constitutionalism.

What was Hesiod’s View of Mankind’s Past and Future

Hesiod was an ancient Greek poet who wrote the works, Theogony, and Works and Days. For the past week I have been studying and reading his work, Works and Days, which was directed to Hesiod’s brother who had won a legal battle against him, that was related to their father’s inheritance. The piece of literature itself contains many interesting messages which are related to the gods but are directed to Hesiod’s brother. An interesting aspect of this piece of literature is the fact that it shares the author’s(Hesiod’s),view of mankind’s past and future. Exactly what was Hesiod’s view of mankind’s past and future?

Hesiod in Works and Days, stated that there were four races of man before our race of man. The first race of man was called “the golden race,” which was created by Greek deities. This race of man lived similarly to the gods and had no troubles, but due to them being mortal they died off and a new race of man was created. The second race of man was known as the “silver race,” which was very pathetic and poor minded, which Hesiod blamed on the fact that they were raised by their mothers.

After the “silver race” died off another race was created which in turn became known as the “bronze race,” which was a race that loved war and violence. This race was very strong, but like the last two races they too died off. The fourth race and the last before our race of man was known as the “demigods,” which was a noble race of man; but like the rest of the races they too began to die off from war, but those who survived were gifted by Zeus to live in a special place where they lived without sorrow.

The final race of man, the race of man that Hesiod was a part of had no break from hardship and sorrow, but also they had moments of joy and happiness. The final race of man is known as the “iron race,” and Hesiod in his own words stated quite frankly that this race of man too like the rest would eventually die out, thanks to the race being unrighteous; which in turn will lead Zeus to destroy them. But other than that Hesiod also stated that this race was not a completely bad one.

Hesiod’s view of mankind’s past and future is a unique one. Instead of perceiving the past and the future in the way that us people do today, Hesiod instead sees it in cycles of different races of man. These races of man all in the end have the same end, they all die off in the end and a new race is thus created by Zeus to replace the old race. Hesiod sees man kind as destructive beings who in the end somehow manage to destroy themselves through violence and dishonoring others, and that they were always like this in the past and that they will continue to be like this in the future. Which makes one wonder why Hesiod thought in this way.

What Factors Contributed to the Decline of Spain?

Spain was an important and powerful nation which was involved in overseas trade, but it began to decline especially during the 17th century. But what were the factors that contributed to the decline of Spain?

Spain’s economy during this time was heavily influenced by monopolies and state favoritism, which did not help. Also a revolt began during the midpoint of the century which was known as the Catalonian Revolt, which also contributed quite heavily to the decline of Spain.

To conclude, the main factors that contributed to the decline of Spain included: the economic situation being influenced by monopolies and state favoritism, and the occurrence of the Catalonian Revolt.

The Question on Venom

These days people are discovering and creating remarkable things from things that one would not at all imagine as a possible component than ever before. Something that has come into some debate on its uses is venom. Do I personally believe that venom can provide some possible benefits or uses for humans?

One of the uses of venom today is anti-venom, which is used to counteract the effects of venom. But there are other uses; and I see in the future that there will be most likely more studies and discoveries on venom and the uses it will have. Which is why I personally believe that venom can provide possible benefits or uses for humans.

What Were Cardinal Richelieu’s Primary Aims?

Cardinal Richelieu(1585-1642), was a chief minister and clergyman of France, who was an important French figure during his lifetime. He was able to separate his religious and pious self from his political self, which in many ways made him more of an effective chief minister. But like most political figures he had aims or goals that he wanted to attain; what were his primary aims?

Cardinal Richelieu’s primary aims included: the centralization of power in France, and the opposition against the Habsburgs, who were a royal family ruling Spain and Austria. In general his main aims had to do with increasing the power in the French government. Thus, these were his primary aims.

Did all Four of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Promote Liberty?

 Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the well known American presidents in American history. He uniquely had the longest time in the presidential office as president, and was president during the Great Depression and the majority of World War 2 until his death in 1945. Most remember him today for putting in place something known as the New Deal and for his principle of Four Freedoms. On the note of his principle of Four Freedoms, did these “freedoms,” promote liberty?

Before diving deep into the main arguments, what were these Four Freedoms? The Four Freedoms include:

1: Freedom of speech and expression– everywhere in the world.

2: Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way– everywhere in the world.

3: Freedom from want– which means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–anywhere in the world.

4: Freedom from fear–means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

These Four Freedoms use the words strongly: anywhere in the world, world-wide, and everywhere in the world. For example the first two of the freedoms sound, sound in of themselves but with the usage of the words, “everywhere in the world,” it does seem that those two freedoms involve involvement by the state to enforce them to other places in the world. But overall the first two freedoms do somewhat align with the definition of “freedoms,” and go with the “American view.”

The last two of these “freedoms,” on the other hand state that you will receive state security. The third freedom, or the freedom from want states that one does not need to worry about poverty since the state will take care of you; that as Americans you have the right to “free money.” Again this state’s state security. No, don’t get me wrong the idea of no poverty sounds very nice but it is pretty much impossible to get rid of all poverty. Also “free money,” is not free and it would involve taking from one group and giving to another which is the politics of plunder. The fourth and final freedom, freedom from fear, states that you do not need to fear the government and your neighbors, that the state will keep you safe from harm, which in turn means you will be free from fear. Again this goes with security from the state, and state control.

But most importantly do these four freedoms promote liberty? Well the first two actually promote liberty. Freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms that do actually in many ways define and set apart America. But the last two of these four freedoms do not promote liberty, instead they promote state security, or state control. This is not very obvious, when I first read the four freedoms I believed they sounded sound and reasonable and seemingly promoting liberty, but in actuality at least with the last two they do not in many ways.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was loved by many, and is one of the well known presidents of America, because he was president during one of the lowest points in America history. One of the things that he is known for are his Four Freedoms, which are seen by many to promote freedoms. In actuality the last two of those Four Freedoms do not promote freedom but instead promote state control.

Why Does Locke Believe the Absolute Monarchy Fails to Resolve the “Inconveniences,” of the State of Nature?

John Locke(1632-1704), was an English political philosopher, who is considered to be “the father of liberalism.” He promoted the philosophy of natural law and natural rights, which was a large influence later on when it came to the American Declaration of Independence. But why does Locke believe the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature?

The reason why Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature is because it cannot be impartial(treating all rivals equally and justly), to everyone. The reason why this is the case is because it would not apply to an individual who was having a dispute with the monarchy or state. Well it would not make sense for one to defend and protect themselves, while treating their rival impartially. This is why people are under the state of nature when under a monarchy or ruler.

Thus, this is why John Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature.

What are the Main Differences Between Genesis 1 and Theogony

Genesis 1 is in the book of Genesis which is contained in the Old Testament. It tells the story of how God created everything in seven days, and how the world came into existence. Theogony on the other hand is an ancient Greek piece of literature written by a man named Hesiod. Theogony tells the story of how the world came into existence in regard to the ancient Greek gods. Both pieces of literature sound very different just by these descriptions, but what are these main differences between Genesis 1 and Theogony by Hesiod?

Genesis 1 like I stated above tells the story of how God created everything in seven days, and how the world came into existence. This telling explains what God created on each of those seven days: for example on the first day of creation God created light. This story in my opinion is quite organized and easy to understand; it clearly explains how everything was created by God.

Theogony on the other hand tells the story of how the world came into existence in regard to the ancient Greek gods. This story goes something like this: the world began in Chaos, which created earth. Earth, also known as Gaia goes on to create Heaven, and together they create the first gods, which in turn created more gods. This in turn created a very large, complex, and dramatic family of gods or deities. 

The first main difference between these two stories is that of the creators. In Genesis there is only one creator, God, who created everything. In Theogony there were many creators involved, for example Chaos created earth, earth, Gaia created Heaven and the first of the Greek gods, and those Greek gods went on and created more gods. There is more than one creator involved in the story of Theogony, unlike the one creator in Genesis, God.

The second main difference is that of how the creators are portrayed. In Theogony the gods are portrayed with human emotions and behave in many ways like humans with supernatural abilities. God in Genesis is portrayed above this, and behaves as a sovereign God. Another key important difference is that to do with sovereignty. The Greek gods are not sovereign; they are not fully in control; they still are able to get tricked by other gods, to have conflicts with other gods, etc. God in Genesis is sovereign and is in control, which is very unlike the gods in Theogony.

Genesis 1 and Theogony are two unique stories that both contain the telling of a creation account. Both of these creation accounts are quite different; for example the creation account in Genesis 1 tells the story of how one sovereign God created everything in the course of seven days. The creation account in Theogony involves many creators, for example Chaos(which created earth or Gaia), Gaia(who created heaven), and they in turn created the first gods, who in turn created more gods. But regardless of the differences of both accounts I recommend reading both pieces of literature: Genesis and Theogony, especially Genesis.