Wednesday, 30 August 2017

Six (6) Reasons for Studying Political Science

INTRO: Political Science is the king of sciences. Aristotle called it the master science. It is simply the systematic study of power acquisition, power exercise, and power consolidation in the state. From the definition above, it is observable that Political Science amounts to a nullity without power at the centre of the circle of the discipline. Students of Political Science have often times been faced with the question of why they study Political Science. Below are some of the reasons for the study of Political Science.
1.     We study Political Science in order to be better citizens: This is the basic reason for studying Political Science. Leadership and followership training are in the domain of Political Science. Political Science in this way, stands out as the most relevant agent of political socialization, molding the citizenry to be better participants in res publica. This explains why Political Science calls herself the only institution for qualitative leadership training.
2.     We study Political Science for a career in Political Analysis: Political Analysis is a career opportunity for students of Political Science. The skills required for in depth study of political phenomena is acquired from the Study of Political Science. Political Science features a course titled Political Analysis which is designed to teach students of Political Science the technics and technicalities of political analysis. The importance of political analysis in governance is central as it concerns policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. Political Analysts offer consultation services, advisory and assistant roles to governments, even beyond borders.
3.     We study Political Science in order to be aware of our rights and duties: Study of Political Science teaches people their rights and duties as citizens. In this manner, the study of Political Science helps us to get the best out of our lives. It gives us confidence and ability to ward off intimidations from our fellow citizens who would have ordinarily exploited our ignorance of our rights in the society.
4.     We study Political Science because it helps us to understand the dynamics of the political system. A typical political system is complex matrix of power play so that a political novice would find it an incomprehensible maze of discordant political actions and inactions. The study of Political Science makes the convoluted political issues, actions and inactions of our daily life understandable and predictable. Political Science studies the past, compares it with the present and predicts the future.
5.     We study Political Science in order to remain informed on the latest politics around the world. This is important in the globalized world where countries no longer live in isolation. Policies of one country today affects the lives of the citizens of other countries of the world. The study of Political Science keeps students of politics informed, gives analysts a better understanding, and helps governments to adopt best practices, and adapt to changes.
6.     We study Political Science for academic reasons and intellectual exercise. Political Science is a discipline of its own with theories, approaches and methods for academic and intellectual purposes. Students of Political Science upon graduation are awarded relevant certificates which represent feathers on their academic cap, and basis for career in academics.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Five (5) Logical and Biblical Reasons Why Catholic Priests Don’t Marry

Five (5) Logical and Biblical Reasons Why Catholic Priests Don’t Marry
INTRO: Catholic priests are known for their life of celibacy. Records however, show that the life of celibacy that the priests live is a sheer convention rather than a hard-cast dogma of Catholic Church. What this means is that a radical Pope can change it tomorrow. The celibate life of Catholic priests is not as old as the Church. St. Peter, the first Pope of the Church was a married man; and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The tide began to turn against marriage in 325 AD, in the Council of Nicea which decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. This decree hints the fact that marriages which predated the ordinations were allowed. Thus, in 385 AD, Pope Siricius left his wife (he married a wife before his ordination) in order to become Pope. In an obverse case, Pope Benedict IX in 1045 AD dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry (his was not lucky marrying before his ordination, and could no longer bear the sexual starvation). Following the position of the Council of Nicea, Pope Gregory VII in 1074 said that anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives. The last straw that broke the camel’s jaw was the decree by Pope Calistus II as an outcome from First Lateran Council in 1123 AD, that clerical marriages were invalid. This decree made all the pre-ordination marriages which the Council of Nicea once allowed, a nullity. The Second Lateran Council, and the Council of Trent in 1563 reaffirmed the decree. “To our sex-obsessed culture, priestly celibacy seems a hard teaching of the Church, a heavy burden that must be borne with ascetic grit and iron resolve,” Stephen Beale wrote. Several reasons have been floated arising from the Bible, logic, and common sense why Catholic priests should not marry. Some of them are hereunder discussed.

Monday, 14 August 2017

Four (4) Reasons Why the Media Must Set Agenda for the Society

INTRO: The influence of the media on the perception of the people on public issues is empirically verifiable, and well-documented. As far back as 1922, Walter Lippman, a newspaper columnist was concerned that the media had the power to present images to the public. Little wonder why Bernard Cohen in 1963 observed that the press "may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” The empirical confirmation of the truism of the Lippman’s 1922 position came only in 1968 when during the Chapel Hill Study, published in Public Opinion Quarterly, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw studied the 1968 American presidential election and demonstrated a strong correlation coefficient (r > .9) between what 100 residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina thought was the most important election issue and what the local and national news media reported was the most important issue. That study promoted the agenda setting theory of mass communication. Although, affirming the effectiveness of the agenda setting function of the mass media, the agenda setting theory of Mass Communication argues that media agenda does not reflect the reality. This however does not mean that media agenda setting in the society is dysfunctional. The mass media agenda setting function is important due to the following reasons:
1.     Agenda-Setting Molds Public Opinion for Policy Process: The strong correlation between mass media priority issue and public opinion has been verified in the Chapel Hill study of 1968 by the duo of McCombs and Shaw. This is why it is not uncommon to hear people say something like, “it is true, I heard/read it in the news.” By nature, people are followers, and this is manifested as bandwagon. Armed with the rare capability of reaching large number of audience simultaneously, the mass media have been able to exploit the bandwagon tendency of people in molding public opinion. Given the strategic importance of public opinion in policy formulation and implementation, agenda setting function of the mass media therefore helps to chart the waters for policy formulators to the overall betterment of the society.   
2.     Agenda-Setting Helps in Maintenance of Law and Order: Media content disseminated to the society are sieved and filtered through the process of media gatekeeping, bearing in mind among other things the maintenance of law and order in the society. In this manner, the media trivialize volatile issues or fundamentally doctor the content for law and order.
3.     Agenda-Setting Helps in Promotion of Democracy: The media in its agenda setting function have promoted democracy with several fronts of propaganda. Thus, scholars seem to have reached a common consensus that recognizes mass media’s critical role in democratization (Hall & O’Neil, 1998; Hyden & Okigbo, 2002; Jakubowicz, 2002; Pasek, 2006). Agenda setting function of the media tells the populace about current events, educates the electorates for meaningful contribution on public issues, and inspires participation which is the hallmark of democracy.
4.     Agenda-Setting Helps in Policing against Abuses: Be it in the political power box or in the streets, the media eye-of-god surveillance polices abuses. The simple knowledge that the media are out there and very ready to make a mountain out of a mere hill of an abuse has served as a deterrence to political, social, economic and or religious abuses. Agenda setting function of the media may not truly reflect the reality but it has achieved a noble feat in getting popular attention against heinous crimes and abuses in the society.   

References
Hall, R. A., & O’Neil, P. H. (1998). Institutions, transitions, and the media: A comparison of Hungary and Romania. In P. O’Neil (Ed.), Communicating democracy: The media and political transitions (pp. 125–146). London, UK: Lynne Rienner.
Hyden, G., & Okigbo, C. (2002). The media and the two waves of democracy. In G. Hyden, M. Leslie, & F. F. Ogundimu (Eds.), Media and democracy in Africa (pp. 29–53). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Jakubowicz, K. (2002). Media in transition: The case of Poland. In M. E. Price, B. Rozumilowicz, & S. G. Verhulst (Eds.), Media reform: Democratizing the media, democratizing the state (pp. 203–231). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pasek, J. (2006, August). Fueling or following democracy? Analyzing the role of media liberalization in democratic transition. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Conference, Philadelphia, August 30–September 3.


Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Six (6) Moral and Medical Reasons Why Abortion Should Never be Chosen


INTRO: Abortion has been defined as the accidental or deliberate destruction of pregnancy before the birth is due. Several reasons have been floated in support of abortion; most of them are medical while others are social. Some of the reasons for abortion include: Abnormal progress of pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, maternal medical conditions, unwillingness to be a single mother, pregnancy resulting from rape, child abuse or incest, etc. The one million dollar question here is, are the reasons reasonable? The answer is negative and monosyllabic. Deliberate abortions can never be justified judging from the moral and medical reasons listed below:
11. Abortion is an Act of Murder: It has been proved that right from fertilization, life has started in a typical foetus in the womb. Destroying the foetus by implication is assassination. The Fifth Commandment we all know is quite vocal on this: “Thou shall not kill.” As an abortionist, there is no difference between you and a convicted murderer. Yours is even the worse because you roam the streets instead of prison yards having killed a weakling that cannot be able to sue you. Abortionists should please, fear God.
22. Abortion is Against the Golden Rule: The Golden Rule establishes that you should do unto others as you would like to have them do unto you. I wouldn’t want to remind you that you were once in the womb and nobody killed you, and now why should you decide to kill? Even as an adult now, I am sure as hell that you don’t even want to die; that is the more reason you should not kill. Abortion by every scale of measurement is against natural justice, equity and good conscience. You are not even justified for abortion even if the doctor says your life is at stake. Is the doctor God? Aren’t you not going to die for the love of your child?
33. Abortion Could Lead to Death: It will be the greatest joke of the year if for instance, an abortion is committed to “save” the life of the abortionist and then the abortionist dies. Satan I bet will give such a person a very warm welcome befitting a serial murderer (having killed the baby and herself) into hell fire. Cases abound where abortions went awry. You may not be able to predict your fate; therefore, forebear from abortion.
44. Abortion Causes Infertility: This is not surprising. If abortion pills or injection could be able to destroy a foetus, the damage that it could at the same time inflict on the womb is better imagined than described. The choice of abortion can obliterate your dream of future conception permanently, leaving you with all the attendant social humiliation that follow barrenness. Kindly play on the side of caution.
55. Abortion Leads to Depression, Regret and Substance Abuse: Regrets and depression that follow abortion are fertile breeding grounds for substance abuse in the attempt to let bygone be bygone. The sad truth is that he who murders sleep can sleep no more. Futile efforts to shake off the guilt of abortion could worsen the substance abuse, pushing the person to the cliff of insanity.
66. Abortion Makes One Unworthy of God’s Blessings: By abortion, one treats God’s blessing as a curse. Misfortunes, accidents, and other similar ill-fates have hit known abortionists. I bet that you don’t doubt the reality of Karma. Come to think of it, while couples jostle for adoption, you are considering abortion. Kindly have a rethink.      


Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Three (3) Simple Reasons for Proving the Existence of God


INTRO: God is a spirit. Nobody has seen him face to face. This has cast doubt about His existence in the minds of the people. Some people that believed, later began to falter in their belief in the existence of God because of their various life experience. I was once among the latter group until recently when I found reasons that proved the existence of God to me. They are as follows:

1) Duality of Life: I observed our world and found out that there were two sides of virtually everything in it - day and night, black and white, man and woman, birth and death, good and bad, and now, God and Satan. Majority of the people that don't believe in God, believe in the reality of Satan because they see magicians for instance employing satanic powers in a broad day light to pull their stunts, and evil ones using it to destroy their targets at will. Going by the duality of life, at the polar opposite of the satanic powers sits the power of God; therefore, there is God.

2) Orderliness of the Universe: The universe is too orderly for coincidence. It is by providence. The Solar System, Galaxies, Nabulae, time and seasons, etc follow a very consistent pattern. In their nature, they profess the existence of a supernatural intelligent being as a designer. The designer is God.

3) Hierarchism: This argument focuses on ranking. In every sphere of life, there are ranks. Equality is utopian. Even in the "Animal Farm," it was later discovered that though all animals were equal, some were more equal than others. We are therefore living in the world of ranks: Good - better - best; powerful - more powerful - most powerful; etc. In the ranks of beings (human and spiritual), at the top of the triangle is a being, and the being is God.