Cultural Relativism In Social Media

Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence. King does not believe in using violence to fight violence and uses ethos to appeal to the audience: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (King 65). This is similar to the saying that two wrongs don 't make a right. King is acknowledging that being violent to respond to violence is only going to cause more chaos which in terms is not right; he is thinking about consequence. Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage.

To understand why religious freedom has become so controversial, it helps to know what constitutes as religious freedom. The First Amendment states that there will be no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (First Amendment). This means that the government cannot establish anything considered an official national religion, and they cannot bar the practice of any religion within the United States as long as there is no danger “to others or to society at large” (Boston). Originally written to ensure that the religious persecution in Europe didn’t come to the United States, the First Amendment is “a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart” (“Your Right to Religious Freedom”). That doesn’t mean that the U.S. has been exempt from religious conflict, however, and there are many

In the Constitution, there is no mention for the freedom of press, assembly, religion, or speech. Since the listed freedoms are not mentioned in the Constitution, the government is free to exploit and violate them. Americans fought a war for the security of their fundamental rights, and they don’t want a constitution that would place those rights in danger of loss.The Federalists would say that a bill of rights is not needed because The Constitution is the ultimate protection of the people, and the people are the sovereigns. This can be countered by the fact that, in the Constitution, there is no mention of the freedom of religion speech, press, etc. National government is free to violate these

Ultimately, someone holds the power, but the idea projected by the society’s existence itself is unquestionable equality. This being said, there isn’t much depth to the scripture, as looking too deep will lead you to a dead end. There is little logic behind it, and overall doesn’t make too much sense. An individual pledging for its entire community by themselves without their own identity is one large paradox that doesn’t add up, no matter which way you try to solve

The democratic government in the past and until recently has been missing this key point and offer a simple minded, ineffective solution to a problem that is much bigger than just the use of guns. In America, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be broken. This poses a problem for the American democratic government as well because banning guns would conflict with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This another a clear example of how flawed their ideology is and America should instead concentrate on the bigger picture of terrorism and restricting access to

D). In Document A “study the problem of genocide and to prepare a report on the possibilities of declaring genocide an international crime.” Although this would have been a great action to protect civilians value during the Nazi crimes, which were inhumane. However, due to the “lack of adequate provisions and previous formulation of international law, the Nuremberg Tribunal had to dismiss the Nazi crimes,” (Doc. A). The international government have not payed attention to serious issues concerning their people.

The most important points Vonnegut is trying to get a crossed to his readers are the issues of the inevitability of war, fatalism, and of free will. War is usually fought over religious beliefs, different cultures, land, or governmental disputes. We as people are more willing to be violent to one another to get our point across then to avoid war entirely by recognizing everybody's differences and learning to live together in peace and the key to no violence is communication. War is inevitable because both sides are never going to accept one another's differences. The bombing of Dresden wasn't necessary because there was no threat coming from there.

Marginalizing our right to bear arms endangers civilians due to the fact that those laws only affect law abiding citizens, rendering them defenseless. Regardless of what they may think, the government has no means of eliminating the illegal

Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsly shouting in a theatre and causing panic.” Similarly, the Supreme Court’s ruling to arrest Schenck was wrong, and a U.S. citizen should be allowed to protest a war or draft in times of war. Specifically, the Espionage Act violated the first Amendment, Charles Schenck, whom was arrested after violating the Act, was indicting no violence, and the Act violated the 13th Amendment. First, citizens in the U.S. being allowed to protest wars or drafts specifically shines through since the Espionage Act violates the 13th Amendment. The first Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, after the Espionage Act was passed, during World War 1, Schenck was arrested for violating this Act by printing 50,000 leaflets that contradicted the war and the draft. As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech.

Religions, such as Islam, believe you can’t take away a person’s life. The government can’t make end of life decisions for anyone because it violates their beliefs and this also relates to the first