I don't want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine. Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical.
It is difficult to challenge people who hold this view because to them their belief in the absolute truth of the Bible (or other Holy Book) is so essential to their beliefs about God that to suggest otherwise – perhaps by quoting example of scripture that are particularly unkind, such as views on women and homosexuals – would be considered unthinkable, and contradict their whole belief system. Other Christians would say that Biblical stories are often simply stories that
“Analyzing the Text” Michael Levin’s, “The Case for Torture” argues that there are various reasons for allowing torture in the United States of America. Michael Levin believes that torture is justified when victims are at risk, claiming that torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. The author makes hypothetical scenarios in which people’s lives are in danger and preventing future events from occurring. Then stating his position on torture when people’s lives are placed in danger. Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks.
About a month an a half after the tragic attacks the United States government passed a new law called the USA Patriot Act, signed by President at the time George W. Bush. The USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act (gpo.gov). The PATRIOT ACT posses a greater threat to American liberty than terrorism itself. This is true because the PATRIOT ACT gives the government undemocratic power that is immoral to society, it directly violates amendments and there have been actual cases where the PATRIOT ACT harmed innocent people and was used unsuccessfully. Firstly, if the government of the United States tried to pass the PATRIOT ACT of 2001 today, they would have a much tougher time.
It is interesting to note that this film almost paralleled to a point, the real life scandal of President Clinton and his threats of military action against Iraq; the film started production before the Lewinsky scandal, but opened up after it happened. To pull of the ‘war without a war’ idea, they turned to Hollywood; more specifically to Hollywood producer Stanley Motss to pull it off. So Motss and crew start planning and executing this fake war; they come up with slogans to support the war and the cause, recruit a singer to come up with a moving theme song (shades of Lee Greenwood? ), and even come up with actors to portray the needed parts. More importantly are the ‘leaks’ that are let out to the media; something that the media is more than willing to run with.
Criticizing Bill Clinton Speech Essay “If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign” William J. Clinton,1974 Introduction: Critics should pay a very special attention to the Bill Clinton apology speech. The speech of the ex-president Bill Clinton was a bright example of how perfect rhetoric techniques might fail to deliver the message of a president to a mass audience if it goes about his morality. In his speech, Clinton, actually confesses he had a private relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It is a rule that such a confession and especially from a person of the highest position in the society means the end of the career. It took William Jefferson Clinton seven month to realize that people need apologies not for the deed, but for the lies.
In the film documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, former Vice President Al Gore primarily discusses the topic of global warming and the possible adverse effects that the world may have to face due to unawareness of this significant issue. In the movie, Gore seems to portray the general public as careless towards the matter. This is what I believe led his determination to let the issue be brought into further detail such as portraying the very serious and severe effects on many, if not all, parts of the world. Although the general consensus by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not one hundred percent positive on the direct cause of global warming, it has been stated that “The Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including variations in its orbit around the Sun, orbital forcing, changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations” (Bard). Among these the only issue that we as humans can actually help to resolve is the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced, and try to help curve the accelerating depletion of our ozone layer.
We see this now when a politician will amend his opponent, even though he has devastated him just previously, this is ethos. “Who is here so vile that will not love his country?” he asks. Who would say no? When our politicians began passing legislation after 9/11, a repeated strategy was to say that anyone who questioned the legislation was not patriotic, which is very similar to Brutus’s tactics, this is logos. This is how and why I believe Brutus delivered the more effective speech.
Al Gore’s effort to save the climate was a failure, yet his pride refused to give in. Al Gore disrespected many other political figures and caused disgust throughout America. Many people expressed their disgust towards Gore throughout media. Al Gore’s loss in the presidential election resulted directly from his arrogance and refusal to admit failure. The feeling of superiority in an overbearing manner infected many famous figures throughout history.
1. Give an outline of the different views on whistleblowing presented in the texts. In the article “The NSA Leaker: Traitor or Hero?” by Teresa Welsh from US News & World Report website in June 11, 2013 it is discussed whether Edward Snowden, who leaked secret NSA surveillance programs, should be punished or applauded for being a whistleblower and bringing new information to the world. The article balances between thinking of the leaking as an act of betrayal and an act that should be rewarded. Some people believe that the Americans are now at risk and have lost their protection from terrorist threats while others believe that the Americans’ right to privacy and freedom are lost.