Assignment 2.03 Amendment selected: First Amendment The first amendment was written due to the fact that most of the citizens demanded their basic freedoms. (“Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of the religion, and prohibiting the free exercise of; or abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’’) What is the personal liberty defined in the Amendment? The first amendment is referred to as Freedom of Religion. This amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two types of ways; one is preventing the government from establishing an official church. And the second is free will to worship as they please to their religion.
In Rhode Island, people such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson challenged the Church of England as well as Puritan beliefs. Anne Hutchinson argues that people had the ability to talk to God, and that it was unnecessary to go to Church as well as reading the Bible. Roger Williams, also with radical ideas, questions whether the government had the right to regulate religious behavior. Also, he pursued people to make a clean break from the Church of England. In Rhode Island, Williams established a Baptist church, with freedom of religion.
Its author had no intention of violating the First Amendment. When the Pledge is recited in public places, no one person of any age is forced to violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to the freedom from and of religion. The Pledge of Allegiance should remain intact in the public arena -- for the fact that it helps citizens of the United States to remember essential principles for which this country was founded, such as “liberty and justice for all.” In more recent years, the Pledge controversy presented itself when Michael Newdow filed a lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District. The reasoning behind the lawsuit rested on his disagreement with a rule that make the recitation of the Pledge mandatory in a California public school district. In Elk Grove v. Newdow (1), Newdow’s Establishment Clause claim demanded that President Bill Clinton change the Pledge of Allegiance and omit the phrase “one Nation under God.” The Founding Fathers created the First Amendment which includes the Establishment Clause to “impose a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to the civil liberties of the people, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition” (2).
We have not seen him in action four years ago we just heard what he had to say about why he should be elected as president we heard his words of persuasion about change. However actions speak louder than words and his actions did not show favor to Israel. My current opinion on Obama was formed through the process of social learning; my view of him was acquired through observing his actions. My reasons for not wanting Obama reelected is an example of reactance, I feel that Obama being reelected is a danger to Israel’s personal freedom. “President Barack Obama’s longtime pastor at Trinity United Church, Rev.
Where to Draw the Line The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution boldly states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” As members of society, we witness this privilege utilized in both positive and negative ways through our daily lives. But, what happens when this liberty is abused and the emotions of certain groups are damaged in response to this “freedom?” Through his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” scholar and former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, expresses his firm claim that “Hanging a Confederate flag in public view or displaying a swastika in response is insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives students is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes
George Washington, for example, is not known to have taken communion, and one bishop who knew him was confident he was not a believer. Jefferson's scissored-down New Testament is well known. In the realm of what Meacham calls "public religion" the founding fathers thus assiduously avoided any sectarian bias. They strongly protected the right of every citizen to freely exercise "private faith," or no faith at all, as each individual conscience saw fit. Such was the paradox between political liberty and religious faith: "Many, if not most, believed; but none
Jefferson stated in his speech, “having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered,” I again refer to the First Amendment for the freedom of religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” The freedom of religion allows all the people in America to practice their own religion without being criticized and spat at. If you are Baptist or Catholic you can practice without being yelled at or put to death like they did in the Victorian Ages where if you didn’t believe in the Queen’s or King’s religion you could be put to
If we try to mix in logic, we end up with a rhetorical disaster. American politics has a Christian bias. Remember how much crap Obama went through when people found out he was born half Muslim? He had to swear to several newspapers that he regularly attended church. To answer the second part of the question, no, religious arguments do not hold water for nonbelievers.
The Al-Anon Family Groups have no opinion on outside issues; hence our name ought never be drawn into public controversy. 11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, films, and TV. We need guard with special care the anonymity of all AA members. 12.
Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. It was drafted following the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals), as established by the United States Department of Defence, were procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, and did not provide protections under the Geneva Conventions. It prohibited detainees who had been classified as enemy combatants or were awaiting hearings on their status from using "Habeas corpus" to petition federal courts in challenges to their detention. All pending habeas corpus cases at the federal district court were stayed.