Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue. The second article from The New York Observer also had a few ideas that in my eyes were wrong. First and foremost, the author seems to doubt his own opinion towards the end of the editorial by questioning his own views on the matter. I believe that if you are going to write about something you should be sure about it. The author also states that the U.S. is unable to prevail in Iraq.
An example of this is when he informs the President that Arab and Muslim countries are also against them along with 28 countries providing military support against Iraq. This makes the audience realize that perhaps Iraq is the culprit as majority of the countries and religious groups are against it. Yet, the letter does not present with the cause of this unity, this agreement, regardless of how many agree to the
Ibbetson makes a blatant appeal to authority by saying that lack of god in the debate over stem cell research will lead to “…an ending point worse than past atrocities.” Not only does Ibbetson contradict himself by having earlier criticized Bush for basing his stance on stem cell research on his religious beliefs, he also manages to somehow tie Hitler back into the debate, although far more subtly this time around through the use of the phrase “past atrocities.” When taking an outward perspective at the argument Ibbetson makes one can realize how ridiculous it truly is. Aside from actually providing any legitimate solutions, Ibbetson essentially states that Stem cell research is a godless and vile science and in Obama’s support of it he will only succeed in reenacting actions brought forth by Hitler. Based merely on the first amendment alone Ibbetson’s final statement clearly has no place in the real life debate on stem cell research, however aside from that its only purpose is the same as any of his other arguments, to demonize those that actually support stem cells by essentially stating they are going against
Rhetorical Analysis Essay- “Civil Disobedience” The public should not obey and respect a faulty, harmful or malfunctioned government. The essay “Civil disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau alerts the public of that idea and expounds upon it in a variety of ways. With his authorative, rebellious and mainly condescending tone, compelling point of view and diction he inspires the readers to espouse his distaste for the U.S. government and their unjust treatment of the American public. Why follow and associate yourself with a stronger, more powerful institution then yourself that is impure, less than perfect and abuses their powers? With that idea implanted into the audience’s mind, Thoreau proceeds to exercise diction while fully getting his point across.
ama Bin Laden and AmericaBy Tauqeer Ul HassanIt is difficult to say it with surety that why Osama Bin Laden extremely dislike Americans.US Presence in the Middle EastPresence of the US military in the Arabian Peninsula is known to be the most importantcondition related to his hatred against Americans. Especially he became furious at the timewhen United States of America send its army in the sacred land for Muslims, Saudi Arabia. Hispoint of view is that presence of American in the holy land is a thing that is against the religionand unacceptable.The Saudi Royal family allowed Americans to land out in Saudi Arabia which was a great shockfor Mr. Laden. Osama bin laden express his disappointment and anger towards this decision ofthe Saudi Royal family to permitted Americans to land in the country. After that he becomemore against America and shows his aggression towards Saudi command as well.Pro-Israeli Policy of the U.S.One more cause of the extreme dislike of the Osama Bin Laden to wardsthe United States is its pristine support of the unfair Israeli stance overthe Arab region.
Islam Paper Since 9/11/2001 we as Christians, and as Americans, have come to realize the impact of Islam on a personal level. Although, 9/11 was perpetrated by radical Muslims carrying out a Jihad (holy war) against the America, we as Christians must not judge all Muslims based on what transpired that day back in September 2001. Jesus said in Luke 6:37, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” As Jesus proclaimed, we as Christians must find a way to forgive thy enemy, even if they are of Islamic faith.
He is almost certainly sure that no God exists, but says that he would change this view if he were confronted with empirical evidence that suggested otherwise. However, Dawkins’s declaration that he is not a fundamentalist could be questioned by examining other parts of his book. Dawkins seems to focus more on the evidence that religion lacks opposed to the evidence that his evidence-based worldview contains. He also holds Darwinism in a very high esteem. One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism.
The World: One Quarter Terrorist The article “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America” by Eliyahu Ster is a short, general article about how a high percentage of people in America believe that at least some, if not all, of the Shariah Law should be prohibited in the United States because it poses a threat to the American people. Ster, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, also compares the treatment of American Muslims to that of Jews in the 19th century Europe throughout the article. The author is definitely against discrimination of any kind toward Muslims and thinks taking away their religious rights “ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation.” When reading the article, I could not stop thinking to myself, “are there really that many people out there in the United States that do not have the same stand on this issue as this author?” The fact that people are
The Cigarette Ad Revolution We live in a country where we occasionally find ourselves blindfolded by censorship. Of all the amendments, the government chooses to bend the cornerstone of our American being: the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, press, and most importantly, speech. In “Cigarette Ads and the Press,” writer Ira Glasser argues against the government’s censorship of cigarette advertising. According to him, the government holds so-called exemptions allowing them to bypass the Constitution’s First Amendment by condemning tobacco ads as messengers of death. He says the “terrible erosion of First Amendment Rights [is excused by] the tendency of courts to allow illegitimate government claims of danger to justify
Many people believe that racial profiling should be prohibited because it is offensive to American values. Malkin disputes this and insists that, “…the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure ‘diversity’ or ‘parity’ in peacetime.” (493). However, Iftikhar strongly disagrees and believes that, “the most disturbing legal trend in America has been the growing disparity in how American Muslims are treated under the law.” She explains how the reports of civil rights cases, a majority of which were Muslim hate crimes, have increased tremendously since the 9/11 attacks due to racial profiling. Many Muslims were accused of crimes they didn’t do and were treated awful. While Iftikhar understands that America is focused on keeping everyone happy and winning over people abroad, she strongly states in her piece that, “it is high time that the Bush administration try spreading a little American democracy here---while winning the hearts and minds of Americans by treating all people equally under the law.” (497).