Why should someone's actions change your view on things? If someone decides to do something sporadic, and it can’t conclude with a criminal punishment, why argue on it? The following texts that will be brought up are “What of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?” by Etgar Keret, “Texas V. Johnson” by William J. Brennan and “American Flag Stands for Tolerance” by Ronald J. Allen. The way that others act should not affect our opinions and thoughts upon our beliefs and we should not discriminate against others for having their beliefs. “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?” (page 7 lines 131-132) “No,” Sergei says. He’s shaking his head from side to side. “I can’t,” he says. “I’ve been saving it. Saving it for something.” Right here we don’t quite …show more content…
The first event had a court opinion about a man who burned the American Flag and decided that it was unconstitutional to criminally punish a man who committed an act by which he is protected by the First Amendment. (Page 19 lines 34-38) “A concomitant of the commitment to freedom of conscience in a sense its mirror image, is that no one has better access to truth than anyone else. Official dogma is not better (perhaps no worse) than the beliefs of private citizens.” In the following text it is spoken upon official dogma that can be no worse than what citizens believe in their own minds. The people have the freedom to follow their righteousness or their wrongness, each and every person has the open truth and no one knows more of the truth than another. The author has a very implicit opinion on the matter; he believes that everyone has the same rights as each other under the constitution no matter their