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.
Answer:
Suspiros, Merengues, the stale candy of everyone’s childhood.
Explanation:
An allusion is the referencing of something without actually explicitly mentioning it. It acts as a means to bring something into the mind without directly mentioning it in detail. It could be used as a means to refer to something that the writer/author wants to bring into mind but not direct referencing.
Judith Cofer Ortiz's "The Latin Deli: An Ars Poetica" is an observation that uses vivid imagery and detailed description. It focuses on the issue of an immigrant displacement and the identity crisis, being uprooted from the 'old lie' into the new world of America. An example of an allusion is found in the mention of <em>"Suspiros, Merengues, the stale candy of everyone's childhood"</em> which is a reference to the childhood of the author or anyone displaced, for that matter. It brings back memories of their childhood.
Thus, the correct answer is the third option.
Answer:
"People can change for the better".
Explanation:
The excerpt supporting the theme i. e. "people can change for the better" because in the story of "a reformation" written by o' Henry shows that a person who commits many crimes can change himself if he decided to change. People are able to change themselves for their beloved just like in the story of reformation in which a person named Jimmy Valentine changed himself for his beloved.
What does Tom Canty do that makes some people in the palace suspect that something is wrong with Prince Edward?
A.
He invites his father and grandmother to visit the royal palace.
B.
He insists that he is not the prince, and he fails to recognize Prince Edward's father, the King.
C.
He puts on the clothes of a pauper, and he demands that the servants of the royal palace be given more money.
D.
He tells the royal guards a story about how much his father dislikes the King.
Ans is B.
