The father is Arthur Dimmesdale a religious minister who the society considers as a righteous person. Hester refuses to confess who the father of her child is because of the fear that she may lose her. Here once again the society limits Hester from making a decision freely. In conclusion, the laws of the country force us to act accordingly whereasare the moral conduct accepted by the society must also be followed to prevent oneself from being shunned by the society. Thus although we may have the right to make our decisions we are still bound to the laws and norm set by the
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
Church and State: Religion in America has led to many heated debates going all the way back to our founding fathers. Jefferson brought to light the idea of separation of church and state. The separation is revolved around keeping religion out of politics, or vis versa. However it is a broad term when it comes to how one interprets whether it’s favorable towards public worship and acknowledgment of god or not. It touches most aspects of government leading to how much the federal government incorporates religion yet restricts states from doing the same.
He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true. Religious doctrine surrounding the existence of an omnipotent god could no longer be taken literally. This left a huge problem for mankind, in terms of the source of their values. Although he did recognise that some of the greatest cultures of the world had been based on strong religion he simply felt that these now belonged in the past. The ‘death’ of God meant that people had to find a whole new way of understanding the world and a whole new base for ethics.
The Greatest Debate of American history concerns the mysterious, and least understood branch of the United States government: The Supreme Court. The differences between those who favor activism and those who favor restraint are all apart of the biggest riff in our justice system since the beginning of the nation. Conservatives, or those who favor Judicial Restraint, believe the original intent of the founding fathers is (written in stone and it is not our responsibility to change such a great document) suitable for all generations, past, present, and future. These people believe that they have the power to interpret the founding fathers, so they have the power to manipulate the law, and power such as that should only rest in the hands of the executive and legislative branches. On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation.
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the
Separation of church and state is a flawed philosophy. Why is this notion accepted as law by the government, yet nowhere is this decree mentioned anywhere in any governing record? We are all familiar with the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” . So why should a partition be cast into inquiry? Because though the constitution says that congress shall make no law establishing a state-run religion, it doesn’t exactly say “separation of church and state.” The significance of separating church from state has had a tremendous impact on our country’s moral principles.
And I interrupt this not only as just other gods, but also things that hinder our religion. We do need to accept other and love other’s but not to turn against God’s laws and plans for us. Also, with the Declaration of Independence says from the first amendment that the government will make no law about making a new religion. So, even the bible and the First Amendment says they should be separate.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.