Separation of church and State
Is There a Wall of Separation between Church and State? Filip Stojkovic Mrs. Dersch Senior Seminar February 20th 2005 During the 1620 and onwards, Pilgrims from Europe traveled across the North Atlantic Ocean due to religious prosecution. These men and women were in search of religious freedom. They accepted all forms of religion and even some colonies in the states were created for religious tests such as the state off Pennsylvania. After a couple of years the Americans started to resent being ruled by the British and so fought for their independence. With they independence they needed to create a form of government to rule over the society. The "founding fathers" of America as they are called were all very religious men. Though they knew if they were to create equality and peace within their new nation they would need to grant religious equality. They wrote these words in the American Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise..." (Am. Constitution, 1st Amendment). Though since man puts religion on top of his list of priorities, can a government be truly secular? Separation of church and state is completely impossible, thus due to the fact that the people who created the idea of secularism are religious people them selves. So what is the textbook definition of secularism? According to Cline,
President J F Kennedy.
JFK Courage is the virtue that President Kennedy most admired. He sought out those people who had demonstrated in some way that they had courage that they would stand up, that they could be counted on. In his book, Profile in Courage, he studies men who, at risk to themselves, their futures, even the well being of their children, stood fast for principle. It was toward that ideal that he modeled his life. This book tells the stories of men who in their own time recognized what needed to be done-and did it. If there is a lesson from the lives of the men Kennedy depicts in this book, if there is a lesson from his life and from his death, it is that in this world of ours none of us can afford to be the critics standing on the sideline. This is a book about the most admirable of human virtues, according to Kennedy, that of courage. These are the stories of the pressures experienced by eight United States Senators and the grace with which they endured them-the risks to their careers, and the unpopularity of their courses, the defamation of their characters, and sometimes, but sadly only sometimes, the vindication of their reputations and their principles. In recent years, society has given a bad name to politicians. The people of the United States have criticized those who have followed the needs of society and yet at the same time criticized those who have defied them.
Pressure Groups.
Pressure Groups Pressure groups can be defined by placing them into two categories-insiders and the outsiders. The outsiders usually resort to illegal methods, endangering their lives and disobeying the law, in order to get their voice across. Insiders are intelligent people who have contact with the government officials, these people can be very useful because they raise the issue in parliament and discuss the problem in a formal way. These people have expert knowledge and have researched that particular area towards which they feel strongly, they specialize in one particular area that is of concern to them. Because of their lengthy investigations which are carried out by these knowledgeable people they are taken seriously by the government, because only genuinely concerned people would go to such extents, researching a topic which they are not paid for and committing their lives to make the world a happier place. In this way the government can have a reliable representative who gathers locals opinions, whom they can contact if a law which concerns them is to be introduced, or a plan of something is being though off. In return these groups are able to influence the decisions and some receive financial support. The main methods used by pressure groups are collecting together a petition to address to the MP and ask him to discuss the problem in parliament. There are two types
To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and communist rule?
To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and communist rule? Hannah Roberts - Jones 13eld. There were many changes of agricultural policies under the Tsarist and communist rules of which all had different results and reactions. Stolypin's land law as stated in source 2 was produced 40 years after emancipation displaying that the policies made after emancipation were not successful as they were still being altered 40 years on. This supports the idea that government's policies on agriculture consistently failed. Source 1 supports this as it states that the peasants were still tied to the land after the emancipation highlighting the failure of the policies. Many of the sources state that the government policies before were a failure. Source 3 for example, states that collective farms were necessary as the policies before failed. This included both Tsarist policies and Lenin's NEP policy. Source 6 also supports this idea that the basic problems of agriculture were "inherited" showing that the policies did consistently fail as the agricultural problems even under Khrushchev in source 6 were blamed on previous governments. The bad crops and the broken equipment in source 4 gives the impression that the government policies failed and source 5 gives the figures to support
The Provisional Government.
History essay on the Provisional Government The Provisional Government had attempted to keep its power over Russian affairs during the trouble that followed the abdication of the tsar in February 1917, and as events would show, they were largely unsuccessful in doing so. This may have been because of Kerensky's mistakes, the government's lack of political power, or its failure to solve the problems of Russia's peasant majority. The Bolsheviks were quick to take advantage of time of weakness, although whether or not they succeeded because the Provisional Government failed needs to be assessed. The primary weakness of the Provisional Government was that it was essentially powerless. Primarily this was because the government was simply a 'provisional' one, meant only as a temporary solution until the revolution had run its course. When the Soviet drew up Order Number 1 in March 1917, it effectively limited the power that the government could have upon the Russian people. The Soviet held the power over the troops; the railroads, post and telegraphs, and the Provisional Government could do little to prevent such political domination. This conflict of 'dual power' was also complemented by the devolution of power among the rural villages that increasingly desired 'independence' from the capital. The Provisional Government also had no electoral mandate and the people, which meant
Which major domestic and international factors made German unification possible?
Which major domestic and international factors made German unification possible? The process that occurred to unify both East and West Germany was one, which had taken many years to occur, and, when it finally did in 1989 it was somewhat of a relief to both Germany and the rest of Europe itself. There are many factors both domestically and internationally, which played important parts in helping Germany to become a unified state once again, from the collapse of the SED to the major role, which President Gorbachev of the USSR had to play. These are just two of the numerous reasons for the eventual unification and more will be explained throughout. Unification for Germany was always going to be difficult due to numerous obstacles occurring in its pathway. On the international front the fact that the Western States were against the idea of unification occurring between the East and West Germany was always going to hinder the process. The reason for this being that the two German states formed the frontline between NATO and the Warsaw pact, and from this the West were not prepared at all to contemplate the formation of a Germany which was not actively involved in NATO. The United States of America were all for the unification process however like Great Britain and France, they wanted Germany to remain a full member of NATO, and unification may have jeopardised that which may
To what extent had Liberal Italy satisfied the needs of Italians by 1914?
TO WHAT EXTENT HAD LIBERAL ITALY SATISFIED THE NEEDS OF ITALIANS BY 1914? One might think that the most efficient way of creating a truly united state would be to involve the people of the state, by giving the men and women a say in the matter. However the politicians who were controlling Italy, which at that time were the Liberals, disagreed completely. Politicians administrating the unification of Italy believed that the ordinary people of Italy were far too inferior and did not have the ability to participate in governmental issues. For many years Italy was faced with corruption and deceit. Bribery and incompetence were widespread within the Italian government, which later served to damage the reputation of the Liberal system within the eyes of many Italians. At this time Italy was divided into two separate parts. 'The legal Italy', which is the Italy of Parliament and the political class who ran the government, and 'The real Italy', which were the ordinary Italians with their day-to-day concerns. Most Italians didn't have a clue on what went beyond their villages, they believed that they were made illegal aliens in their own country, who only considered Italy as a power that forced them to pay taxes and do military service. In the 1890s the Liberal state faced major challenges both from the Left and Right, creating mass unrest. Somehow the Liberal government had
What is Politics?
What is Politics? Among many political issues the topic of revolution as a way of social change has been highly contradictory. On the one hand, most scholars target the creation of a system that would be stabile and preserve its political and social order, replicating it over centuries. On the other hand, many of them believed that change is necessary if the society's political system lands in a deadlock. A change is also welcome is the government is corrupt. The website of the MultiEducation Inc. gives the following definition of the phenomenon: "complete and usually violent process by which the government and its manner of rule are taken out of power, and a new government is established" (MultiEducation Inc., n.d.). Perhaps the wittiest definition is that by the Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith who says that the revolution is "the kicking in of the rotten door" (John Kenneth Galbraith Quotes, n.d.). Locke on the Dissolution of the Government John Locke, one of the most reputable political scientists whose works are often cited for major ideas such as division of power into three branches and natural rights, did not object to the disbandment of the government that mistreats its people. In Locke's view, this dissolution is usually "brought about by such in the commonwealth who misuse the power they have" (Locke, 1690). Thus, the government is formed to maintain
What is Politics
What is Politics? In its broadest sense, politics concerns the way in which people interact - how they make decisions and settle disputes. It is, therefore, concerned with power and the way in which power is distributed in society. Whilst power is most obviously held by the government and its agents, it is not exclusively held by them. Decisions are made at many different levels. Politics therefore operates at many different levels. People as social beings. People are social beings. They choose to live together in groups. Because people live together in groups, there is a need to make decisions - about how the resources available to the group are to be shared out, for example, or how conflicts which arise within the group are to be resolved. The study of politics is the study of how such decisions are made. It may also be the study of how such decisions should be made. Since the resources available to any group are limited, questions inevitably arise about how the resources which are available should be distributed. Should everybody have an equal share, for example, or do some people deserve a bigger share than others? Since it is possible to increase the resources available to a group (by conquest, technological advance or better management of existing resources), further questions arise. For example, what (if any) strategy should be employed to increase resources and
Why were there two Revolutions in 1917?
02-04-10 IB1 History Lamin Khadar Why were there two Revolutions in 1917? Many tend to believe that there was just one general revolution in Russia in 1917. However, there were two revolutions, two different revolutions with different leaders and different ideas. The first was a provisional government, a kind of democracy, and the second instituted a Communist government. The question is, why were there two revolutions? The immediate cause of the first revolution, the February Revolution of 1917 was the collapse of the czarist regime under the gigantic strain of World War I. The underlying cause was the backward economic condition of the country, which made it unable to sustain the war effort against powerful, industrialized Germany. Russian manpower was virtually inexhaustible. Russian industry, however, lacked the capacity to arm, equip, and supply the 15 million men who were sent into the war. Factories were few and insufficiently productive, and the railroad network was inadequate. Repeated mobilizations, disrupted industrial and agricultural production. The food supply decreased, and the transportation system became disorganized. In the trenches, the soldiers went hungry and frequently lacked shoes or munitions. Russian casualties were greater than those sustained by any army