Berlin Wall Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Berlin Wall - Research Paper Example After the Second World War, Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union established an informal union of states which would be known later as the Eastern bloc, with Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia as its allies (Wettig, 2008).   It was a grouping of nations which he planned to maintain together with the Soviet-controlled portion of Germany.   His plans were to compromise the power of the UK over its portion and when the US would later withdraw, he then wanted to push forward with his plants to create a united communist Germany (Wettig, 2008).   In order to funnel Soviet communist ideals to Germany, Marxism-Leninism became a standard part of the German school curriculum and this prompted many students, as well as scholars to defect to the West (Wettig, 2008).   East Germany was however under close monitoring by the German police as well as the Soviet secret police, also known as the SMERSH (Wettig, 2008).   This made defection difficult, but not impossible for thousands of East Ge rmans.     With disagreements regarding the introduction of new German currency, Stalin implemented the Berlin blockade which prevented the entry of food and other supplies from the Western occupied blocs (Pearson, 1988).   The Western bloc countries then airlifted some supplied into West Berlin.   The Soviets launched their public relations campaign against the Western bloc protesting the policy changes of the Western countries (Pearson, 1988).   As 300,000 Berliners protested against Stalin’s actions in stopping the airlifts.

Analysis Of The God Delusion Debate

Analysis Of The God Delusion Debate For The God Delusion Debate, Gayathiri and Sandra chose to listen to Dr John Lennox because the two of us personally believe there is a God while Len Jin and Jerome chose to listen to Professor Richard Dawkins because the points brought forth by Dawkins has more relevance to them personally. There were 6 main thesis that was being debated between Lennox and Dawkins: 1. Faith is blind and science is evident based 2. Science supports atheism, not Christianity 3. Design is dead otherwise one must explain who designed the Designer 4. Christianity is dangerous 5. No one needs God to be moral 6. Christian claims about the person Jesus were not true, alleged miracles violates the law of nature The main points of Lennox are summarized as follows: He believes that faith is supported by rational evidence. Science is limited but anything beyond science is not irrational. Religion is the driving force for science. Atheism undermines science. Science is possible is because God is responsible for our mind. Scientist needs faith to believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe. Darwinism does not explain life and the existence of replicator. God is not created because a created God is delusional. Simplicity is not the only criteria of truth. Everything comes from the mind of the planner. Perpetrators disobeyed the explicit command of Christ. Atheism commits intellectual murder. We cannot know the foundations of being good without God. If there is no good and evil, we cannot talk about the good of atheism. Morality obtained elsewhere is of no use. History proves Christianity. Dawkins got his information from an anaesthesiologist and not a theologian. Laws of nature only describe what normally happens. Human beings believed in the existence of science because science also believed in the existence of the universe. From the debate, we think that Dr. John Lennox was an excellent debater based on a few reasons. Firstly, he respects the criticism Dawkins made about Christianity even though he is supporting theism, which is the belief that there is a God in the debate. He listens to all the points that Dawkins has against Christianity with a calm nature. He does not make facial expression that shows he is angry or disturbed even though the some of the comments made by Dawkins were indirectly insulting Christianity. Secondly, most of the points presented by Lennox was very strong, not only in because of how he phrased his points nor the words he use to put forth his points but the points he stated to support Christianity was very logical and is very reasonable. For instance, Lennox made mention that Dawkins denied the concept of good and evil. If what Dawkins believed in was true, there would not be justice and terrorists would escape from punishment! The third supporting statement would be that Dr. Lennox was very familiar with Dawkins literature because he was very confident with each and every argument values that he has given while Dawkins was blabbering to the overall conversation. Dr. Lennox also seemed very prepared with his opposing points toward atheist. Moreover, Dr. Lennox also agreed that science is based on faith at some point and that atheism undermines science. The world needs to believe in faith and religion in order to live morally as religion teaches us to live with moral values. Dr Lennox also gave an overview of both sides and a reasonable conclusion. The existence of the designer is also showed as evidence in the bible and also the creation of beautiful universe for the human beings to live in. And finally we must say that Lennoxs end speech was argumentative and as well as inspiring for the younger generation to have more faith in the existence of god. Dr Lennox gave an expressive and distinct speech on Christian faith. As much as Dr. John Lennox was a good debater, we found a few weaknesses in him during his debate. Firstly, Lennox could not finish putting forth his points in the time given which was 5 minutes. From this we can say that Lennox did not do a very good job in making sure his points were straight to the point so he could make sure that everything he has to say will be able to be presented in the 5 minutes given to him. Secondly, Lennox used the time given for the particular thesis being debated at that time to continue debating in the previous thesis. These are seen as a weakness by us because Lennox has a little time management issue. Lennox also seemed to be going off from his points as he was very much interested in opposing Dawkins points. There were also lack of evidence in Lennox arguments and universe is not evidence due to its existence. Lennox could actually define faith in a more reasonable and elusive manner. In conclusion, Lennoxs statements are much more supported and reli able rather than it was opposed. The main points of Dawkins are as follows: Religion nulls the impulse to understand by putting everything in gods hands. Science is the opposite by explaining how a lot of incidents happen based on hard evidence. Science initially describes that reality is between rationalism and superstition of the existence of god. The idea of science and reality does not overlap with religion. The speculation that god is the designer is flawed. If god was complex enough to design the universe, surely it would require an even more complex design in its own right. Faith is evil as it requires no justification; people can just use faith to justify terrible acts. People should use rationality and common sense instead of blindly following faith. It is unnecessary to distinguish good and evil from the bible, since we already know what is good and evil, and also we are making logical choices of our own. Fundamental incompatibility between complex sciences and some deity that can simply bend the laws of physics at its will. According to the video of debate, Dawkins say that God is merely an illusion and God does not exist. His theory was fully opposed by Lennox who has faith in God. Throughout his debate, the 1st strength that we think Dawkins had is the fact that he stated that sciences are based on evidence while faith is nothing but trust. He stated that We are overwhelmed with beauty and the complexity of the world, and have a desire to worship something. Science emancipates us from this feeling. This point of his is part of his strength because it is true that no one has ever seen nor touched God before. What is God? It is just our beliefs and what can God do if we do not intend to believe in him? During the ancient times, God may just be a highly intelligent being compared to the people then. He may be using the law of sciences to perform miracles. During that time, people would believe in him because people have not yet discovered science. Through the ages as science and technology keeps improvin g, people tend to ignore the existence of God because people now tend to be more civilized and more intelligent. According to the anthropology text book written by ember, God exist because of the fear of human being during the ancient time. They do not know why earthquakes or floods or any other natural disasters happen and hence they think that there is a God which is controlling all these things because God is angry. For the second strength, Dawkins stated that If God made everything, who made God? A designer god cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any god complex enough to design anything would require a complex design in his own right. Or could it be other things that created us rather than God? As stated above, God exist because we are uneducated. When science comes alive, everything just seems to have a way. Everything needs proof and evidence. What is the Galaxy? Has anyone even experience it? Somehow science came out with the width of the Milky Way but still they are not 100% sure because its just one of a theory. Apparently everyone refers God to a human being. Why? God could be in various forms. God could look like a handicap person. Who knows? And when they ask who made God? It means that everyone refers that God is also merely a creature being created. And if he is created, is he still God? For the 3rd strength, Dawkins states that we dont need religion to be good or ethical. How do you define good and ethical? Every culture is different. Hence the teachings will not be the same. Since young, we have been taught not to kill. We then get the mindset and if we practice that, we will be punished badly. But for some other culture, killing is a way to show their bravery. Hence, killing is ethical for them. If there is a God who created this world, why does the teaching of different places not the same? What our ethical means depends on our culture. We may think that it is impolite for people to burp after a meal but for the Arabians, burp after meals means they think that the food is nice. Rather than religion, there are still laws and rules to follow so that people would be as they call ethical. Hence, religion is not required to shape a good being. However, Dawkins states that religions are dangerous. He says that if there is no religion, there will be no suicide bombers killing for the sake of God, and there will be no 9/11. I think that this point is his weakness because the terrorist are just misusing these faithful people to bomb themselves. They claimed that after the suicide bombing, they get to have 72 virgins in heaven according to the Quran. Did they die just because of the virgins or do they have faith? Hence this is not the matter where religions are dangerous. It is the same where the Israelites having war with the Palestinians because they claim that they will fight for their sacred place. However, will God want them to fight? Although God maybe a delusion but think of it. War is not a joke you can practice. It makes people suffers. Not to say God, even anyone of us would not want that to happen right? We think Dawkins showed his weakness during the time where he was questioned by Lennox. Do you have faith in your wife? His whole face was red and the audience was laughing. He could not control his emotion and this shows he is angry. Hence he showed that Lennox had said something good to step on him. So, who won the debate? After considering both the strength and weaknesses of the two debaters, Dr John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins, we have come to an agreement that both the debaters Lennox and Dawkins won the argument in a fair manner based on several reasons. Lennox was supporting theism in the debate and we agreed that he has won the argument is because firstly the way he spoke about faith in our opinion is very strong and convincing in supporting Christianity. This can be seen in the debate when Lennox stated that faith is not blind because faith itself carries with it the ideas of believe, trust and commitment and is therefore only as rebus as the evidence for it. He also states that faith, in relativity theory is not blind because there is evidence supporting it. Faith in Christianity according to Lennox is rational and evident based, part of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some comes from history and some of it is subjective coming from experience. Besides that, we think Lennox won the argument because of the way he presented his debate. He not only made the crowd laughed a couple of times, he also managed to refute Dawkins in a manner whereby Dawkins seemed as though he was speechless. This shows that the points that Lennox put forth was so strong until Dawkins could not come up with anything to defend his beliefs. The whole group also thinks that Lennox won the debate because he refuted Dawkinss claim about Christianity is dangerous really well. First and foremost, Lennox performed very well by being honest in admitting that he is ashamed of Christianity personally because of all the happenings that were caused by the crusades and so on. However, Lennox explained further by stating that the perpetrators were not followers of Christ because Christ explicitly commands us not to use physical weapons because Christs kingdom is not of this world. Lennox theory could also be supported because even though there are many types of different religion or also known as cultures that tend to have variety of beliefs, we still have the same teachings. We are trying to say that each and every religion teaches us to live with moral values and to be away from sin and it has a great impact in our lives. Thus, even though the followers are different but they tend to practice the same following. In conclusion, each and every human beings need to have faith in their god and practice their religion in order to live with compatible moral values because science can only teach us not to do certain event but it is unable to explain the reason behind it. However, we also agreed that Dawkins was a fair and evenly matched contender to Lennox as he also made many strong points in the discussion. He backed up his thesis with solid and scientific proof that has been extensively and thoroughly studied. Take for example, the renowned scientist Charles Darwins theory of evolution. Even though Darwin was not able to explain the origin of life, he was at least able to link the gap of evolution between different variations of animals of the same genre, in contrast to Lennox who was basing most of his thesis from the bible, which does not have much, if any at all, certified or standing proof. Among the other points that Dawkins was delivering, another one that came to us quite strongly is that religion and faith is still a manmade entity, not a perfect being such as god. Hence it must have its flaws, because it was not made by a perfect being. Though the ideals promoted by the writers of the holy books are intended to be righteous, others may force us to believe in something that does not make sense, or conflicts one another. For example, the Christian and Islamic religions state that people who do not embrace their god will be sent to hell. There are many other religions out there with different gods and deities. Does this mean that hell waits for people who are not Christians even though they did not commit any sin? It would be illogical and unreasonable, attributes a good god would not have. Lastly, Dawkins also argues that the problem with religion is because religions were created during the olden days, people then did not know much or anything about science. Back then, gods could have been used as a simple and easy means of explanation for many natural occurrences which can be explained through sciences. Back then, god might have been a reality for them as religion gave them something to hold on to by giving them some sort of an explanation to the unknown. Before any advance in scientific knowledge, when lightning occurred, the average god fearing individual would think that God was angry at the people for their sins, and they feel scared so they worshipped god. However, that theory is no longer applicable as we already have a logical, scientific, and rational explanation for it. Based on all the reasons stated above, once again we would like to state that we think both the debaters won the argument fairly because presented their stand point of views in two distinctive manner but both are strong and convincing.

How Young Goodman Brown Became Old Badman Brown Essay -- essays resear

Nathaniel Hawthorne was a nineteenth-century American writer of the Romantic Movement. Born in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1804, he was one of those rare writers who drew critical acclaim during his lifetime. Hawthorne used Salem as a setting for most of his stories, such as The Scarlet Letter, The Blithedale Romance, and â€Å"Young Goodman Brown†. Today, readers still appreciate Hawthorne's work for its storytelling qualities and for the moral and theological questions it raises. Nathaniel Hawthorne's work is typically fraught with symbolism, much of it deriving from his Puritan ancestry; relatives of his were judges in the Salem witchcraft trials. â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† is an allegory whose characters play a major role in conveying the reoccurring theme of sin and retribution. The short story represents one man's journey to leave his faith, home, and security temporarily behind to take a walk with the devil into a dark forest.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The forest is a symbol of the test of strength, courage, and endurance. Aside from â€Å"Young Goodman Brown,† forests carrying a negative or challenging connotation have been featured in other stories. For example, in the folk tale The â€Å"Three Bears†, Goldilocks encounters the cottage of the three bears in a forest; in Hansel and Gretel, the children's father takes them off into the forest to abandon them and they have to find their way back out; in Red Riding Hood, the little girl has to travel through the forest to her grandmother's house. There has always been an association between forests and evil because of its dark and gloomy nature. The forest further goes on to represent evil in â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† because Faith asks Goodman Brown not to go into the forest on his mysterious errand. What is his errand? Hawthorne never says, but clearly Goodman Brown has planned for it. He knows that the aim of his journey is less than whole some, for he feels guilty at leaving Faith on such an errand (1264). Despite Faiths protest, Brown goes on his quest anyway. Thus, faith was not able to achieve the desired outcome. This means his faith tried least and got the least, for it was apparently weak. When faith is weak, not only it cannot control desires, but also it needs protection, for it could be lost at any time. That was what made faith beg Brown to put off his journey and stay with her th... ...expresses the theme of sin and retribution. Goodman Brown’s life was destroyed because of his inability to face this truth and live with it. The story, which may have been a dream, planted the seed of doubt in Brown's mind, which consequently cut him off from his fellow man and leaves him alone and depressed. His life ends alone and miserable because he was never able to look at himself and realize that what he believed were everyone else's faults were his as well. Hawthorne was a writer way ahead of his time. His stories have been a testament to the timeless nature of his style. Although written by a Puritan, many of his stories challenge all of that which is puritan. In its day, this story raised controversy because of the risquà © subject matter. Today, people can turn on the Disney channel and see adultery and satanic rituals. Society has been callused by the sands of time. Works Cited The Bible. 2nd ed. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953. Martin, Terence. â€Å"Young Goodman Brown.† Nathaniel Hawthorne. 1st ed. New York: Twayne P, 1965. 90-99. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. â€Å"Young Goodman Brown.† The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed, Nina Baym. 6th ed. 2003 1263-1272.

Reel Injin vs. Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief

Coastlands of films have somehow, directly or indirectly, touched on the subject of native issues. The Reel Injury and Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief are Just a couple of examples. After comparing the two films, I believe that the Reel Injury is the better- suited movie to be studied by my grade 9 class. This is true since the film is more interesting to the age group, the timeline is broader, and it addresses native issues in greater detail. The film, the Reel Injury is more interesting for a class of grade g's than Doctor,Lawyer, Indian Chief. The film Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief is much harder for the students to relate to. Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief was made in 1986 and while the Reel Injury was made recently, in 2009. When students are viewing this film it could be distracting and feel dated since the film was made over 25 years ago. Since 1986, there have been drastic improvements in the way films are being shot and the picture quality. Everything that the grade 9 class has be en viewing in modern media has been in the same format as the Reel Injury and has also contains the same fashions and appearances.Since the Reel Injury was filmed within the last 5 years, students can connect more with the language, art form and media quality. The Reel Injury contains more action, which students will find more interesting. The Reel Injury contains movie clips from over the past century whereas Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief is strictly interviews. As a result of the Reel Injury incorporating movie clips, it adds extra action. The higher level of action will keep the students intrigued and they will pay more attention to the information. The format for Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief is ere dull as it only contains non-fiction clips taken by the Director.The timeline in which the Reel Injury contains is superior to Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief. The Reel Injury shows the progression over time. â€Å"Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond takes an entertaining and insightful look at the Hollywood Indian, exploring the portrayal of North American Natives through a century of cinema. † (Aquatint). The Reel Injury in traveling through a century of cinema whereas Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief is only focusing on the year of 1986. This is less effective in showing the regression of how things are improving.As a result of the improvements being noted, students will be more inspired, and can have hope towards solving the issues completely one day. Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief only focuses on the year in which the film was made. A quote from the description of the film states that â€Å"Each of these women talks about how she got to where she is today†¦ † (Geodes). However where she is â€Å"today' was in the year of 1986, when the documentary was produced. As a result of the film being produced so long ago the stories are now irrelevant as the runner state of native women in the workplace has drastically changed.When the film the Reel Injury displays the information with a timeline, starting a century ago, it is event how far we have come and also how far we need to go. This provides an idea of hope, but also shows that there is still a problem for natives today. The Reel Injury deals with native issues to a greater extent than the film Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief. Doctor. Lawyer, Indian Chief focuses only on the positive side of things. Comparatively, the Reel Injury exposes what is wrong with the way native people are portrayed. A tribute to Native women everywhere, this short documentary focuses on 5 Native women from across Canada†¦ They have achieved success in a variety of careers†¦ † (Geodes) is a quote from the National Film Board when describing the film. The film is not a documentary to expose native issues but a tribute to native women who have successful careers. This is not effective for a class of grade 9 students, as they will not think there are any issues. Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief will not inspire anyone to make a change towards the native obstacles we are errantly facing.Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief takes a more positive approach as it only talks about successes with native women in the work place. The Reel Injury however exposes problems within the film industry. This will inspire people to look into more issues relating to natives. When the students start thinking about their own stereotypes towards natives that are exhibited in the movie, they will become more aware of what is wrong with societies view. This will inspire the students to further their own research on native issues. From this it could grow to help change al of the obstacles natives are facing today.Showing a movie, which incorporates the stereotypes natives are dealing with, can make students change their own views on natives. â€Å"Traveling through the heartland of America, and into the Canadian North, Diamond looks at how the myth of â€Å"the Injury† has influenced the world's understand ing – and misunderstanding – of Natives. † (Bantering). This is a direct quote from the National Film Board website and outlines what the movie addresses. While this â€Å"myth† is being exposed in the movie, it could change the views of the dents in the class.The ultimate goal of the moviegoers was to try an expose the myth of the Injury directly within the film industry but also within all of society. I believe the film met this goal and therefore would help in changing the stereotypes of natives that the students believe. In conclusion, the Reel Injury is the better-suited movie, in comparison to the Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief, to be studied by my grade 9 class. The Reel Injury is more interesting to the age group, it has a superior timeline, and it addresses native issues ore effectively.

The Exxon Valdez 1989 Oil Spill

This summary will briefly discuss three topics: a) the oil spill, b) the environmental damage and clean up, and c) the insurance coverage settlements. This paper will then focus on the insurance coverage settlements. Afterwards, it will provide an analysis on the effectiveness of the dispute resolution process. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of 1989 was one of the largest manmade environmental disasters (Rodgers et al, 2005, p. 136). It occurred in U. S. waters at Prince William Sound, Alaska in March 1989 (Rodgers et al, 2005, p. 136).The oil tanker, Exxon Valdez, struck a reef and discharged an estimated 10. 8 million gallons of oil according to Exxon estimates but other sources indicate that it is around 30 million gallons (Rodgers et al, 2005, p. 136). The oil belonged to Exxon Corporation while the tanker belonged to Exxon Shipping, its subsidiary (Holman, Fenwick & Willan, 2004, p. 1). The environmental damage caused by the oil spill and the subsequent clean up of the spill and its contaminants became the subject of numerous litigations (Rodgers et al, 2005).Environmental damage claims and settlements ran into several billion U. S. dollars (Rodgers et al, 2005, p. 149-88). Oil spill clean up expenses likewise ran into several billion U. S. dollars (Holman, Fenwick & Willan, 2004, p. 2). In this regard, due to the huge volume of lawsuits, the complexity of the case or cases, the wide coverage of the disaster, and the disaster’s far-reaching implications among other considerations, Exxon Corporation undertook a wide variety of legal strategies. One of those strategies involved alternative dispute resolution through settlements for insurance coverage disputes.The Exxon insurance coverage disputes are complex (Covington & Burling LLP, 2007). One point of consideration is that Exxon’s primary insurers are reinsured with Lloyd’s London (Holman, Fenwick & Willan, 2004, p. 2). This complicates the disputes since Exxon is an American company while its underwriters are international business entities. Hence, the dispute involved significant activities in many locations: Texas, New York, London, Oslo, Alaska and other places (Covington & Burling LLP, 2007).As such, issues on jurisdiction and applicability of laws whether English law or New York law should be applied made litigations costly and long. Covington & Burling LLP represented Exxon from 1991 to 1997 in â€Å"its hotly contested, multi-forum claims for coverage of losses arising out of the grounding of the Valdez† (Covington & Burling LLP, 2007). In early 1997, these disputes ended after Exxon and the Lloyd’s consortium of international underwriters and various Scandinavian companies settled for $780 million (Treaster, 1996; Covington & Burling LLP, 2007).Covington & Burling LLP (2007) best describes the legal complexity of these disputes, to quote: The Exxon claims arose out of the company's Global Corporate Excess package of policies for 1988-89, which was characterized by high limits and high retentions. Exxon claimed coverage under various sections of the package, including the first-party property section's cover for removal of debris, the marine liability section's cover for cargo-owner pollution losses, and the general liability section's cover for pollution clean-up costs.Meanwhile, the Covington & Burling LLP strategy involved: a) â€Å"a non-binding ADR procedure moderated by a London-based barrister before any litigation commenced;† b) â€Å"a Texas lawsuit filed by Exxon that the underwriters unsuccessfully sought three times to remove and that resulted in a jury verdict for Exxon on one of its three claims;† c) â€Å"an arbitration proceeding in New York;† d) â€Å"a federal declaratory judgment action in New York that the underwriters struggled to keep alive despite a dismissal and multiple trips to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court on jurisdictional issues;† and finally,e) â€Å"two settlements — one for $300 million before the Texas verdict and one for $480 million while the Texas verdict was on appeal and just before the arbitration hearing was to commence† (2007). Many forms of alternative dispute resolutions or ADR can be made. Balmer (n. d. ) notes that several types of ADR can in fact be customized as can be seen from the Exxon insurance settlements. Some of these customized ADRs can range â€Å"from non-assisted discussions through mediation, neutral fact finders, case exposure such as mini-trials, arbitration both binding and non-binding, and limited issue litigation† (Balmer). Exxon already spent some U. S. $ 2. 5 Billion in damage claims as a result of the oil spill (Rodgers et al, 2005).Without ADR, it would have been unable to recover some $780 million from its insurance coverage (Treaster, 1996) while Exxon’s insurance disputes could have been unnecessarily protracted. For this incident, Exxon employed litigation but was always open to the many forms of alternative dispute resolution. For instance, Exxon used mediation through a non-binding ADR procedure moderated by a London-based barrister before any litigation commenced (Covington & Burling LLP, 2007). Technically, mediation involves a neutral third party who helps in hammering out a resolution (Balmer). In another instance, Exxon employed arbitration proceedings. Balmer describes arbitration as â€Å"getting a neutral party or panel to reach a decision on facts, law or both.† Most importantly, Exxon often used settlements.