King values civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands by nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes, but the violence created from that is not his fault. Logic is key in this situation because its obvious you shouldn't punish someone who isn't being violent. Another example is, "We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. .
Finally, Mr. Thoreau willingly accepted the consequences of his actions in order to prove his point. Civil disobedience is “the refusal to obey or comply with certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as a peaceful form of political protest [such] as boycotting, picketing [or not paying] taxes and fines”(Dictionary). Henry David Thoreau broke the law by not paying his taxes but the motive behind his “crime” is comprehensible. Thoreau being a good humanitarian opposed the injustices being committed against the less fortunate and made sure his money was not being used to glorify and expand the horrible atrocities of war and slavery.
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.
Americans in our world today believe that “ minor” laws do not mean anything, but it is the “minor” laws that lead you to be a real criminal or lawbreaker. Frank Trippett argues in his passage, A Red Light for Scofflaws, that scofflaws should be stopped and be shown that a minor law is just as important as a violent crime. The author supports his argument by giving reasoning why people would think minor laws are not a huge deal. The author’s purpose is to show the reader that any laws against littering, speeding, or noise pollution should be serious and not treated by scofflaws. The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order.
A feeling of security at the conclusion of life, led many people to become Muslim so the Empire could expand. A respect of other religions by Muslims made Islam a sensible religion. In “The Caliph Omar: Arab Imperialist”, a secondary source, written by J.J. Saunders, a British historian it tells how Muslims respected other faiths as the empire spread. People were not forced into Islam (Doc H). The Muslims respected other faiths, helping their empire to stay strong.
Dobson’s words can resonate with young and older Christians. The politically correct, liberals, or the Christian left may perceive his words to be ungracious and condemning; whereas, the word of God clearly dictates acts that are sinful and should not be tolerated (Galatians 5: 19-21). Dobson challenges Christians to stand up as Jesus did since truth by nature is intolerant of falsehood. If being intolerant means agreeing with condemning abhorrent behavior as God mandates in the scriptures (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, sexual perversion), then yes, it is okay to be intolerant. Tolerance is not encouraged in the Bible considering God is not tolerant; ergo, tolerance in itself is not loving, since tolerance denies justice (Kruger, 2013).
Worship is an important part of the religion of Islam. Worship (Ibaadah) is a term that includes everything that Allah would be pleased with. It represents the utmost love for Allah through submission. Prayers,zakaat,fasting,hajj,being kind towards others, maintaining relations with kin, doing good and staying away from doing evil, being beneficent to neighbours,to the poor people or orphans,supplication,reciting the holy Quran and such others are types of worship. An act of worship must obey these two circumstances: Firstly, it must conform to the orders of Allah’s Law as found in the Quran and Sunnah.
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
This adds more and more to my reasoning of just banning guns from unworthy people completely. Since the second amendment is not applied daily to all citizens, this indicates it is fully flawed and shouldn’t have to take people dying in order to change our unfair system. Most of the time -if not always- your skin tone defines how situations are handled for you. In certain cases of mercy, colored people don’t get into as much trouble but aside from that, people with a lighter color of skin are found hardly ever guilty of crimes they wrongfully
Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them. As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other ====h I accept all Criticism from any one, however not all of people who characterized by good behavior and politely Speak. I cant accept Speak in a rude, offensive and aggressive way their says even if it was true and right.