In epics, fame and glory, perseverance and leadership are commonly topics explored.
An epic poem may be described as a long, narrative poem that usually deals with heroic deeds and events that are significant to the culture of the poet. Many ancient writers used epic poetry to tell tales of intense adventures and heroic feats. Epics ordinarily involve a living memory in which the extraordinary doings of the extraordinary men and women are related.
The correct answer based on the given question above would be the third option. The model that suggests that our "self" has four aspects that control what we share with others is the "Johari Window Model". This model is a technique that aims to let people understand their relationship with themselves and with others. It was created by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham.
Answer:
Anaya structures his excerpt as an analysis, while Nye structures her excerpt as an observation.
An analysis involves examining and interpreting facts to understand deeply the causes behind this and draw a conclusion. This process can be seen in the excerpt from "Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry" by Rudolfo Anaya because the author examines the fact his friend stop using his native language when writing poetry and by analyzing this, Anaya gets to the conclusion his friend was not only taking out his native language but "he took the soul out of his poetry."
On the other hand, an observation focuses on reporting a phenomenon the author witnessed without interpreting or analyzing it. This can be seen in the excerpt from "Speaking Arabic" by Naomi Shihab Nye because the author only describes what she witnessed in, this can be seen in "I overheard a young man say to his friend" or "the tall American trees were dangling their thick branches". Thus, Anaya uses analysis, while Nye uses an observation.
Explanation:
brainly.com/question/16914034
Hope this helps.
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.
