Descartes wonders if God deceives him or not. Which God cannot do because he is the Ultimate and would not do that to something he created. Descartes states “the desire to deceive without doubt testifies to malice or feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in God” (73). So God does have power and some people believe that a man of power will use his power to deceive, but the fact that something wants to deceive and show God to be a coward. God cannot be a coward because he is the Supreme.
Some foreign cultures just don't fit well with democracy and it's a waste of time”(Jackson 1). Jackson went on to summarize his view with a great statement, “My point is that no matter what we THINK, it's not our business to judge how another country should be run. We would have a fit if Israel were to send troops onto our soil with the intent to fix our moral decay with their policies and laws, so why do we think that it's alright to do the same to other countries? We would do more good to take our troops out of other countries
Protestants were concerned whether one's faith or beliefs may influence his or hers decisions in a high authoritative position such as the President of the United States. In 1960, John F. Kennedy believed religion and America was a separate social unit. In 2011, Rick Santorum's thoughts on Kennedy's speech was a radical misunderstanding of what Kennedy was trying to convey in that speech. Religion should not dictate the state nor should the state dictate any form of religion. John F. Kennedy believed “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute” (Kennedy, John F.); in other words, church does not influence the actions of the states or
Sandel argues that Democracy attempts to be grounded in this neutral state which allows tolerance of many religious and moral convictions and thus excludes the influences that our individual moral and religious convictions have upon us in political debate. Sandel’s first attacks this way of democracy by claiming the principles of a liberal democracy are moral convictions; freedom, tolerance, and equality are all moral convictions based in Liberalism. Since Liberalism states it respects all values, making no moral judgments, but has principles which are moral values it has created a contradiction within itself and cannot be used as a governing philosophy. He then continues to state that a person cannot separate their moral convictions from themselves in debate and should not. Humans’ personalities and way of life is greatly influenced by our moral convictions so to have discussion about how humans should live together without taking into consideration what shapes us, is not only a mistake, but it is impossible.
Which argument did you find most compelling? Why? I like the Appeal to Authority. He makes a good argument because people who did believe in God would realize that there is only one person in control. It can make people realize they don’t need a king because he is not in control of them, God is.
Page 386 (7 and 8) 7 As Thoreau discusses his essay on civil disobedience, he discusses several political ideas such as that the government is not really needed in a person's life and that it can change a person. Many people might think that he might be a patriot with his ideas or as traitor. I might self saw Thoreau neither as a patriot or a traitor, because a patriot is a a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors and a traitor is a a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. I would say that Thoreau was more in the middle of this spectrum. He neither loved the government nor betray it.
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 main issue here is not that America lacks the presence of religion the problem is that the US separates religious views from the state and therefore they make laws based on ethics and what is deemed right by society and not what any particular religious teaching deemed as right, if America attempts to make their laws based on religious laws then in order to eliminate bias and chaos they would have to include the laws of every religion and every sub-sections of each religion in the country and we can see how difficult that could be for law makers. On the other hand, law makers in the three religious countries that I mentioned they do not have that problem since there is only one dominating religion and the majority of the citizens are a part of or in agreement with the laws and teachings of that religion. And with that said whenever religion is the corner stone of a country it is most likely that gay rights will be frowned upon and will definitely have no room
John Locked firmly believed in the division of civil government and religion because they have separate functions, and should therefore act as independent institutions. Another argument made in A Letter Concerning Toleration is that it is ineffective to gain converts through violence because although it can coerce temporary obedience, it does not truly change one's beliefs. Voltaire explains an idea similar to Locke's in his essay, Of Universal Tolerance. He maintains that no religion is more divine than the rest, and thus no religion has the right to determine what is right and wrong for others. David Brooks's article, Kicking the Secularist Habit, outlines six steps for the modern secularist to realize that religious fervor never declined
Martin Luther King stated, “A just law is a man-made law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). King believed, “that people have the right to disobey unjust laws under certain circumstances” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). I agree with King’s beliefs in regards to civil disobedience. If a person feels strongly about something, the only way for things to change, are for people to take a stand.