responses to discussion 2
Alexis
“Freedom of Religion”
Freedom of Religion is linked to The First Amendment. According to the textbook, “The Bill of Rights begins by guaranteeing freedom of religion, and the First Amendment provides the freedom in two distinct clauses: “Congress shall make no law (1) respecting an establishment of religion or (2) prohibiting the free exercise.” This amendment was to protect state from interfering with church and religion, however it is questionable if that is the case. The removal of prayer from schools, the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that student-imitated public prayer in school is illegal, and questioning of whether the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are all going against the Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. In my personal opinion I believe that use of prayer in school should be decided by the school and the choice for the students to participate in prayer is up to the student. If it is truly “Freedom of Religion” then let it be freedom.
Need assignment help for this question?
If you need assistance with writing your essay, we are ready to help you!
OUR PROCESS
Order
Payment
Writing
Delivery
Why Choose Us: Cost-efficiency, Plagiarism free, Money Back Guarantee, On-time Delivery, Total Сonfidentiality, 24/7 Support, 100% originality
Ilia Brodskii
The topic that I will discuss in this post is the right to bear arms, which is linked to the Second Amendment. This issue is one of the most widely discussed and debated topics of modern politics, and regardless of where people are on the spectrum of how strict gun laws should be in their opinion, it is easy for them to come up with arguments supporting their position. The Supreme Court has not very often issued decisions on this particular issue, but the two most recent rulings interpreted the amendment in the way that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of the U.S. citizens and should be taken away, not given, in special circumstances.
Opponents of such a stance point out how the wording of the Second Amendment implies that not all citizens should have the right to arm themselves, but rather specifically designated forces and militias. The wording is indeed ambiguous enough as to allow this difference of interpretations; however, I do not think this is actually what the founders envisioned. The key here is that the fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms is to prevent the government from becoming tyrannous. If only distinct military forces possess firearms, then as the government controls them, this would sooner contribute to its oppressiveness by it threatening military use on civilians and not allowing them to fight back. Thus, I believe that in the current context the amendment implies that citizens in general should be able to own weapons, as the Supreme Court ruled
