Abraham Lincoln adressed the American people with a speech that, as a side fact, is one of the most quoted speeches in the history of the U.S.
Over the years scholars have analyzed the speech, and they suggest that Lincoln used extreme care with his words. He wanted to deliver a heartfelt and precise message in moments of extreme national crisis. The magnitude of the battle in Gettysburg stunned the whole nation, and the dedication of a cementery at the site of the Civil War's most pivotal battle was seen as a solemn event, that empathized with the whole nation.
He placed this battle within the larger context of the American history, by making reference 87 years before to it's foundation. Lincoln sought to transform America by making an attempt at redefining liberty and nationalism by fusing the two together. Lincoln forever changed the way we think about the country.
Answer: yeah, I just wanna write an essay about anything tbh-
Explanation:
The theme developed in both stories which represents a life lesson, and coincides in Marigolds” and “First Love”, deals with the meaning of emapthy and love while we are growing up. In a general sense, empathy is defined as the human ability to understand and share the feelings of another while love is an intense feeling of deeper affection. These two feelings are brought to light by the authors of both stories in different ways and, through their main female characters whose ages are before their adulthood.
When comparing the stories, the plots used by the authors coincide in two important items. The first one is the age of the main female characters who are in the childhood and, the second is that they believe that empathy means to love someone. While the main character of Marigolds thinks that destroying Miss Dottie’s marigolds symbolizes the antipathy, felt by the rest of her friends, to this lady; the main character of First love believes that the first empathy kiss received from an elder man means He is in love with her. The conflict of both stories is solved at the end, when the females regret the things they did during their childhood.
In Marigolds, she regrets her behavior, stating:
“In that humiliating moment I looked beyond myself and into the depths of another person. This was the beginning of compassion”
In First love: she recgnized how mistaken and innocent she had been to think that the boy was deeply in love with her, she stops to be a child.
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.
