I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
When i am stuck on wording i usually go to a thesaurus. it helps a lot! just make sure switch the right words and that the voice of your writing carries on nicely.<span />
<span>Based on the given excerpt related to this question, the purpose of Sancho's writing is to convince Sterne to write more texts against slavery. This is based on the excerpt from Letters of the Late Ignatius Sancho, an African who wants to tell the public about the pain and mistreatment in slavery.</span>
<span>Because Mrs. Debose is a old and ill lady.</span>
The difference between Noda being Japanese American and being racially Japanese is that in the former, her physical race is that of an American and the latter explains her cultural upbringing.
<h3>Why did Noda not identify with being japanese?</h3>
This is because, from an early age, Noda's whole identity as a Japanese-American is the subject of a mixture of incomprehension and stereotyping from white society.
In the story, the author, Kesaya Noda writes about her personal experiences growing up as a daughter of Japanese immigrants and this shows that a person's race does not define them as a person.
Even though it was a difficult thing for her to accept her identity as a Japanese American woman because she was ostracized for being a Japanese American. She also faced racism and discrimination.
Hence, the difference is her physical race and her cultural upbringing as a woman.
Read more about<em> narrative</em> here:
brainly.com/question/1934766
#SPJ1
