Zero tolerance policies and schools
Rubenstein, Deanna EDCR 103 Foundations Zero Tolerance Position p.145 RL: 8.2 Words: 450 Zero Tolerance The zero tolerance policies call for students to receive automatic suspensions or expulsions as punishment for certain offenses, primarily those involving weapons, threats, or drugs. I agree that safety is an important concern in schools, but sometimes the zero tolerance policy is taken too far. It is as if administrators don't distinguish between minor and major discretions. I do believe that students who get in fights or who bring drugs into school should be punished. However, a third grader who shouts "bang" with an imaginary gun should not be suspended. That is just the imagination of a young child. He means no harm. If anything, he/she might have gotten the idea from television or video games. I understand that those who are disruptive to the learning process should be removed from school. It is not fair to other students who actually want to learn. If they aren't very disruptive, I think other punishments should be implemented, such as in school suspensions. In the movie we watched, it discussed an eight year old boy who was suspended for playing with a paper gun. I see no harm in this. He obviously wasn't trying to hurt anyone; he just wanted to play cowboys and Indians like a normal young boy. However, due to the zero tolerance act, he was suspended. I see
What Christians Believe Is Up To Them, But They Should Not Impose Their Views Onto Others. Do You Agree?
What Christians Believe Is Up To Them, But They Should Not Impose Their Views Onto Others. Do You Agree? It is definitely the case that what Christians believe is up to them, as it is that what anyone believes is up to them. If Christians believe that euthanasia is correct, anyone can say that they are correct or incorrect, but imposing their views on others can be agued both ways. There are extreme cases, where a religion or group of people have tried to impose laws, ways of life even that go against that of the people. If you take significant times in history, possibly any time in history, you can argue that if it hadn't happened then the world today might not be as it is, it could even be better or worse for it. This is one of the strongest points that suggesting that the argument might be argued both ways. If the Vikings or the Romans for that matter hadn't invaded England and imposed their Views, Religions, Laws and Ways of Life, would the world be as it is today. After all, changing the invaded country into another Roman or Viking Empire was the aim, and it was done no matter what, even by force. But the question remains, is it or was it right for people to impose their views on others. Well, some see it as though they would not be here today if it had not happened, and so in that respect it may be right. But could the world have been a better place if it hadn't
Why has American society developed so violently?
Why has American society developed so violently? Violence in American society is a vast topic starting at its birth in the 1776 Revolution and continuing to the present day. Despite the diversity of each period of violence there are common features that resurface in each one. The use of violence to found the nation and also to preserve it in Civil War, legitimatised it with the belief that "violence in a good cause pays"[1]. In many ways this accounts for the spill over of violence into society in the countless hostilities including whites against blacks and also Indians, struggles of labour against industrialists, clashes of religious and ethnic factions and also conflicts of ideologies. Violence has appeared on both the extreme right and left and the overriding factor in all cases seems to be a fear of the unknown, whether it is fear of the alien, his religion, his ideology or of change in the status quo. The first group to arise, that made use of violence to achieve its aims, was the nativists. The term nativism is broad in scope covering hostility and violence against un-American people including Catholics, Native Indians, Irish, Jews and Orientals. It also covers violence against foreign ideologies such as communism, mostly seen in the two Red Scares (1920's and 1950's). Although nativism changed its features and the context of each crusade of persecution was different,
Examine the arguments for and against Britain going to war to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
Examine the arguments for and against Britain going to war to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction The primary anxiety of the United Kingdom and The United States Of America is that Iraq could have the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. Weapons, that if placed into the wrong hands, could cause immense devastation in the world. Not only this, but Saddam Hussein continues to be a threat to the UK and US due to the possible link he has with terrorist organisations such as the Al Queda. It is also a fact that Saddam is a brutal dictator who killed the Kurds, attacks his neighbours and eliminates any "enemy combatants" who dare stand in his way. That being said, should the U.K. be the country to get rid of Hussein? Would the elimination of Hussein solve many of the problems associated with him or would it create larger problems? Does the U.K. even have the right to make this decision? There are numerous arguments for and against going to war with Iraq, however potentially the most important matter that going to war should prevent the future production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This kind of weapon, with a potential to kill millions of people, should not be used under any circumstances. Many countries have them in their ownership but both Tony Blair and George Bush do not have enough trust in Iraq to believe that they do not have these kinds
Nero And His Inhumane Torture of The Christians In Rome.
Danielle McManus December 5, 2003 Nero And His Inhumane Torture of The Christians In Rome The persecution of Christians by the Roman emperors seems rather strange, when one considers their inoffensive ways of faith and worship. When one contemplates the skepticism that prevailed among the pagans, this harshness seems all the more remarkable. Nero, a man with light blue eyes, a thick neck, a protruding stomach, and spindly legs, was a crazed and cruel emperor, a pleasure-driven man who ruled the world by whim and fear. It just goes to show the difference an upbringing makes. Nero was born in Antium on December 15, AD 37. His mother, the plotting Agrippina, managed to convince her husband Claudius to adopt her son Nero and put him, ahead of Claudius's own son, first in line for the throne. Maternal concern not satisfied, she then murdered Claudius, and Nero ruled the world at age seventeen. Nero believed himself to be a great singer and poet. All the better dispositions of his nature had been stifled by his sensuality and moral perversity. The young Nero, having been tutored by the servile philosopher and pedophile Seneca, was actually repulsed by the death penalty. But he resourcefully fumed this weakness into strength; he eventually had his mother stabbed to death for treason and his wife Octavia beheaded for adultery. He then had Octavia's head displayed for
Does screen violence influence people?Discuss.
Does screen violence influence people? Discuss. Screen violence is often violence used to entertain like in the motion pictures or in television programs but it can also be in the news for information purposes. I will mainly be looking at violence in the movies and how it affects young children. Some people think violence on screen is educational while others think that it has a negative effect on people. I will look at the facts then, in the conclusion I will give my own opinion on the subject People think that screen violence is educational and that it represents reality. The argument is that if they show children violence then they will know that it is wrong. It is often felt that it is reality and that fights and murders do happen so by showing this to children it will prepare them for life. The strongest argument is that it is entertaining. Millions of people every week go to see a violent or horror movie. The shocks and tension created raises the heartbeat and heightens awareness. People can become absorbed in the story line and characters but they know that it is a movie and that it's not real. Others do not feel that this true however. They believe that some people, especially young children, find it hard to distinguish between reality and realism. Screenwriters have been trained to make anger more appealing and exciting so it is often teamed with sex and your
Source based discussion on the events at Sharpville.
History Coursework a) There are some similarities between the two Sources (A+B) The first that I noticed was the presence of Saracens, both writers time and again point this out: "...the Saracens headed for the police station..." Almost directly links to "...about a dozen Saracens were on call..." in Source B. Secondly both writers agree about the influx of people to the area of Sharpville. Whereas Tyler writes about "...crowds in the street..." and source B refers to "...thousands of Africans shouting Africa! Africa!" Finally I will mention that both articles and authors agree on the time of the event. Tyler refers to "...lunch time..." and Source B uses the word "...noon..." to very loosely describe the time in which these events occurred. Together these sources should be rather closely similar information. b) Alongside the similarities there are several distinct differences between the key points in the texts; the first that I noticed was the descriptions of the crowd's attitudes and moods. Source A describes the mood as a calm "...Sunday outing..." with both Africans and Police "...waving..." at each other, whereas in source B; the writer puts emphasis on the crowds aggressive actions towards the police. "...Virtually besieged..." and "...Africans closed the way again..." make out that the Africans were being very forwardly/openly aggressive and this is backed up with
Explain Christian beliefs about War.
Liz Elliott AO1 Explain Christian beliefs about War The ten commandments tell us thou shall not commit murder. If you resort to violence or war, you can not be sure that you are not going to kill someone. There are other ways of solving situations, such as compromises, talking things through and sometimes realising situations are not really as bad as they seem. Many Christians do not agree with war unless their own 'conditions' or beliefs are met. The four main beliefs behind the crusade (Holy War) were: . The reason for the war was a holy one 2. God will guide and lead the armies 3. The crusaders are on God's side; the enemy are against God 4. The war must be carried on to the bitter end. On the other hand Christian pacifists say that violence is never acceptable and that it breaks the commandments for it says in the bible "Thou shall not kill" It is definitely against the Christian idea of love. The early Church was mainly pacifist. Few Christians joined any army until the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity at the beginning of the 4th Century. Christian Pacifists point to a number of passages in the Gospels to support their views. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek two. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-46) In this passage Jesus teaches us not to take revenge and to love our
Explain what Christians believe about conflict and war. Use Bible passages and Christian church teaching to support your answer. A conflict is an opposition between characters or forces in
Explain what Christians believe about conflict and war. Use Bible passages and Christian church teaching to support your answer. A conflict is an opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot. A war is a violent disagreement mainly against countries. All Christians are asked to be pacifists. Christians are pacifists because they believe everything can be resolved by talking through it rather than having a war."..... They believe war and violence are always wrong." Pacifism is an ideal world where everyone would live together in peace. Christians believe there should be no conflicts or wars and everyone should work together for the good of the human race. Mathew 26:47-53.when soldiers came to take Jesus by force, he did not resist arrest. When a disciple drew his sword to defend him, Jesus stopped him. Does this make Jesus a pacifist? In my view I believe Jesus was a pacifist he did not detest when he was arrested and he stopped his disciples from carrying out a violent act as he drew his sword. Although Jesus felt he was doing no wrong by spreading the word of god he didn't want any conflict with the opposing faiths. Pacifists want peace; they know there are so many unfair and unjust things in the world, but which can be solved without violence and conflict. 'Quakers' are a group
Preacher of Non-Violence Protest
Hussain Ali Instructor: Elizabeth Aston Class: English 1303 Sec: 04389 Date: Oct 23rd, 2002 Preacher of Non-Violence Protest "Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean a meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means pitting one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant" Mahatma Gandhi "An eye for an eye makes everybody blind" summarizes Gandhi's view of violence. That statement is one of the greatest things ever said, and was borrowed by other world leaders including Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi did not believe in violence as a technique of achieving his goal of an independent India. He preached non-violent non cooperation. Gandhi considered non-violent non cooperation as requiring more courage and dedication then violence. Through the methods he used in his campaign for the Free India he proved the previous statement to be true. Many people would find "non-violence in its dynamic condition" ironic. By the word non-violence Gandhi did not mean mere ignorance of the injustices that came upon his people, He supported active non cooperation, organizing non-violent marches and other events to protest the unfairness of the British occupation of India. In the salt marches Gandhi protested the British monopoly on salt and the salt tax Indians had to pay. He tried to provoke violent a response from the colonial