The Sumner is absolutely right because in this universe, every man and woman have to take of their own self and are responsible for themselves. They should not depend on others for their protection.
<u>Explanation:</u>
With the rights given to the men and the women who are the citizens of a country, there are certain responsibilities of the men and the women also that they should fulfill.
They should take care of themselves on their own and should not depend on others to take care of them. The government of a country should make policies to protect them but they should take care of themselves also. Thus this view of Sumner is right.
Answer:
Topic: Helping families during the pandemic.
Explanation:
Dear Mr/Mrs (your US representative)
As you know we are entering a pandemic, and the economy will become bad. Many business owners are going to fire their employees or putting them on a break without pay. The employees that make up these businesses are mainly a part of the lower and lower-middle class. Now the question is: When these families don't have a monthly income, how are they going to survive this pandemic?
Of course the higher and higher middle class will have no problem staying home and can afford all of their necessities. But the government will have to help our community. I propose that there should be at least 3 days out of the week where the city counsel can give out groceries to the families in need. These groceries can have the basic needs such as bread, eggs, milk, juice, rice etc. When the counsel gives out the groceries, they could be stationed somewhere where everyone knows how to get there.
I'm sure the counsel has some money to be able to do this for the community. This could help the families in these difficult times. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Your name
.
An amount/number of something
Quantitative describes the quantity of something
Qualitative describes the quality of something
Answer:
yes he loves much more it
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
