Critical thinking argument
The Supreme Court recently heard a case in which a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. How is this different from the Kim Davis case? Do you think he has the right to refuse? (The Supreme Court decided for the baker on narrow grounds, leaving the more significant question unanswered.)
The case a baker is slightly different from the case of Kim Davis even though they are both touching on the same-sex marriage, but we find that the baker was making his decision basing the argument on the culture of his private business. According to the baker, his religious beliefs, which might also have close ties to his private company, does not allow giving services to the same marriage. But in the case of Kim Davis, we find that she was holding public office, which does not provide room for discrimination. It is always out of law to base your decision on your religious beliefs, which is personal and private when working in the public office. “I am working under God’s authority,” Davis declared. This statement is against the code of services, which is guiding the civil service. The court sent affirmation that it is out of law for a government official to use the public office to impose private and personal religious beliefs. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
In my opinion, I think the baker was not right to refuse to bake the cake for the couple. Even though the business was private and holding an individual’s values and norms, but should not be discriminatory. The business person should serve customers without checking on what they believe on. The baker’s action was discriminating against the gay even though he argued of projecting his religion. However, religion should also not discriminate against other people within society.
Must an individual choose to believe in either creationism or evolution? Are science and religion incompatible? Explain.
On what to believe in between the creationism and evolution is upon individual decision, but still, a human being got to believe and hold on something. Creationism has its facts and points which the firm believers of faith hold on, and the creationism believes that there was the origin of everything, that is God who created even the science and the scientist who now believes in the evolution.
I believe that science and religion are not compatible; this is because of their differences on their distinctive ways and methods of knowing. Science and religion are also incompatible with their different conclusions. A good example is when we consider the religious belief on creation, miracles and faith healing; science believes in evolution and practical taking of medicines to heal a known disease.
Do you agree with the student essay arguing that Cavanaugh should be allowed to practice Pastafarianism in the Nebraska State Penitentiary? Why or why not?
I disagree with the students’ essay supporting Cavanaugh to its totality. The reason why I disagree with the student is that Pastafarianism is not a religion that is within the meaning of federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It does not prove the fact that there will be no interference with other inmates during the practice. Pastafarianism requires the believers to wear given attire, which might go against the laws and regulations of the prisons, which need every inmate to be in uniform without discrimination. The student in the essay argued that Cavanaugh was not allowed to receive communion. However, still, the prison laws which is governed by the constitution does not prohibit any enable items from outside the prison. From the above points, I don’t agree with the student.
Your town displays a nativity scene and a menorah on the town square every December. You sit on the town council and have to deal with a request to add a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the display. What do you decide? Explain the reasoning behind your decision.
I will decide that the statue of the flying spaghetti monster is not displayed within the town. The reason why I will make this decision is that the flying spaghetti monster always promotes a light-hearted view of religion and society. And again, it opposes the teaching of intelligent design, which is a fundamental pillar of the most community. So by the community constructing the statue of flying spaghetti, they will be supporting the church of flying spaghetti monster and Pastafarianism practices within the society. Ill also base an argument on the federal court decision, which ruled that the church of flying spaghetti monster is not a real religion.
Define these terms used in the argument:
Logos is the logical argument that an individual will bring up to support his or her point during the argument
Ethos is the process of establishing your authority to speak and give your opinion about the subject which is being argued out.
Pathos is an individual attempt to sway an audience by bringing emotional points during the argument process.