ipl-logo

Dobson's Argument Analysis

420 Words2 Pages

Dobson’s words can resonate with young and older Christians. The politically correct, liberals, or the Christian left may perceive his words to be ungracious and condemning; whereas, the word of God clearly dictates acts that are sinful and should not be tolerated (Galatians 5: 19-21). Dobson challenges Christians to stand up as Jesus did since truth by nature is intolerant of falsehood. If being intolerant means agreeing with condemning abhorrent behavior as God mandates in the scriptures (e.g., homosexuality, abortion, sexual perversion), then yes, it is okay to be intolerant. Tolerance is not encouraged in the Bible considering God is not tolerant; ergo, tolerance in itself is not loving, since tolerance denies justice (Kruger, 2013). True Christians are viewed as intolerant on account of standing in obedience to the directives and laws of Jehovah God.
An example of being intolerant and loving in the same measure would be: …show more content…

For example, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a law suit against North Carolina for discrimination against Transgenders (and North Carolina countersuing for over-reach) for standing to protect women and children by denying transgenders the right to enter girl’s restrooms (DOJ, 2016). Apparently, North Carolina is intolerant for denying transgenders rights that are privy to biological women and children; however, the DOJ believes they are tolerant for forcing this over-reach of the law on others. Religious Liberty is under attack by the present administration who is demonstrating zero tolerance for the rights of Christians and Jews. The question is, “Are we going to use our freedoms while we still have them constructively, or are we going to stand up and defend them to keep America, One Nation under

Show More
Related
701 Words | 3 Pages

Callarman’s argument is that Chris McCandless made a lot of mistakes because he was arrogant and that he had no business going into Alaska with his Romantic silliness and he says that he was just crazy. I disagree with Callarman’s argument because I think that Chris McCandless (Alexander Supertramp) was not arrogant I think that he just wanted to learn new things. I also disagree because I think that Chris did have a reason to go to Alaska or else he would not have done it even if it just to go because he likes nature, and I don’t think that he was crazy at the beginning but I agree that he did start to get crazy when he was stuck in the wild on the bus. I don’t think that Chris is arrogant I think that he is just a guy who wants to learn new things about nature and just the world in general.

Read More
1314 Words | 6 Pages

In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential

Read More
139 Words | 1 Pages

I disagree that the Constitution is an “agreement with Hell,” because although there may be some sections that aren't ideal, the American Constitution is remarkable because it has the ability to change and adapt to the times. William Lloyd Garrison, a famous abolitionist, proposed that all states that don't keep slaves should secede from the Union because he felt that the Constitution heavily supported slavery. His argument is now not valid because the Constitution has been amended, and now slavery is illegal. No one today could claim that the United States as a nation supports slavery. William Wells Brown, a former slave, also advocated for the nullification of the Constitution.

Read More
1094 Words | 5 Pages

The major theme of the book “Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America?” by Mark I. Sutherland is the courts reaching pat their constitutionally delegated power and assuming a new role as legislators, even legislating in areas that Congress has no power in. Through the collected teachings and speeches contained within the book, Sutherland points out that basic freedoms, such as the freedom from legal restrictions on practicing religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, are currently under attack and have been for quite some time. From legal fallacies like the modern notion of “separation of church and state” to the all-out attack on the Bible in public, this book goes into detail as to what is being done and how it can be stopped. Sutherland

Read More
839 Words | 4 Pages

Though the message of Christianity is forgiveness through Christ, this concept does not seemed to be practiced by those who claim to follow Him. In fact, young outsiders claimed that Christians were disinterested in listening to them and more interested in following their list of rules (33). In order to gain the respect of these young people, they would need to truly feel like Christians cared about them, no matter what their current circumstances might

Read More
948 Words | 4 Pages

Chapters four, five, and six, pertain to the rights of the American People and how the government goes about these rights. The chapters also go in depth of how the laws have been put into place. The Civil Rights Act of 1865 to 1875 provided much needed rights for everyone, not only African Americans. Rights were in place to the equality that all Americans were created equal.

Read More
355 Words | 2 Pages

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.

Read More
538 Words | 3 Pages

Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure.

Read More
965 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, the Christians do state that if the Muslims don’t protect them in return, then the Christians “forfeit [Muslim] protection and [Muslims] are at liberty to treat [Christians] as enemies and rebels” (Document 3). Through stating this, the Christians prove that intolerance leads to devastation of a civilization. If a civilization was to oppose another’s religion, conflict and rebellion may wreak and the peoples would be negatively affected. Hence, tolerance is necessary for a civilization to succeed, since it allows people to live peacefully. Also shown by the Christians, tolerance creates peace in many civilizations and greatly benefits many

Read More
1217 Words | 5 Pages

When it comes to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I believe that he has found a common thread in humanity in the fact that humans strive for the moderate in living virtuously. However, I would argue that the thread is varied enough to have no true worth in discerning the aspects of humanity. People have too different moralities and goals. Because Aristotle allows for these “local variations”, as Martha Nussbaum later terms in her defense of Aristotle, he is acknowledging that there cannot be an overarching analysis of humanity.

Read More
718 Words | 3 Pages

The cases that are most controversial often deal with when people think that something is wrong. For example, a very heavily debated issue currently is LGBTQIA+ topics and rights and whether they should be allowed in books in schools and in schools in general, whether or not gay marriage should be legal and many other things(see more related cases in the article "Notable First Amendment Court Cases"). The first amendment isn’t going too far when it allows those who are part of the LGBTQIA+ to express themselves through their freedoms just as other people get to and not having to worry about whether their books or thoughts or who they marry will be allowed because, after all, they are people just like all every other

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Intolerance leads to various kinds of violence, and it divides men. His works constantly mention God and the acceptable beliefs, behavior, and morals in His eyes. He states: “Effect your own salvation. Pray for mine and believe that anything you permit yourself beyond this is an abominable injustice in the eyes of God and man” (Intolerance, n.pag.). This means that whatever any person is entitled to his salvation, but he must pray for his neighbor to be redeemed as well.

Read More
582 Words | 3 Pages

Police Brutality is a huge problem in America today, and few steps are being taken to prevent this justice. There are numerous cases where a police officer’s motives are put into question, leading to public unrest due to controversy. Whether it is racial, simple hate, or if the police officer is simply unstable, there is an easy way to bring justice to this problem. Body cameras have been employed in various cities and states already, and have proven to be effective in reducing police brutality. Body cameras are on the verge of changing policing as we know it.

Read More
588 Words | 3 Pages

The First Amendment The First Amendment was written in 1791 by James Madison, the fourth president of the United States. The constitution consists of 27 amendments, which were finished on September 17, 1787. The First Amendment states that (National Constitution Center)“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances”. In other words, the First Amendment states that no religion can be the formal religion of the country, no law can be made that keeps us from saying what we think, everyone has the right to get together,

Read More
1121 Words | 5 Pages

According to the Constitution, people can’t be stripped from their inalienable rights which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Despite the implement of the Constitution, “freedom” was defined differently in the 1980s than it was in the 20th century. Back in the 1980s, “freedom” was still not seen as a right to all people due to some of the laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act” that were implemented to go against the Constitution. While, in the 20th century, “freedom” was viewed as a right since “freedom” was offered to every people no matter what their race, their color of the skin, their religion, and their sexuality. For example, former president Barack Obama was able to make same-sex marriage legal, lifted the restriction on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” barred employers for firing their employees for being either transgender or having a different sexuality, allowed everyone to have universal access to ObamaCare, and had a diversified cabinet that helped Obama make tough decisions to make America the most affluent and strongest country in the world.

Read More

More about Dobson's Argument Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document