The Philosophical Legacy of the 16th and 17th Century Socinians: Their Rationality :: Philosophy Religion Essays

The Philosophical Legacy of the 16th and 17th Century Socinians: Their Rationality ABSTRACT: The doctrines of the Socinians represent a rational reaction to a medieval theology based on submission to the Church’s authority. Though they retained Scripture as something supra rationem, the Socinians analyzed it rationally and believed that nothing should be accepted contra rationem. Their social and political thought underwent a significant evolutionary process from a very utopian pacifistic trend condemning participation in war and holding public and judicial office to a moderate and realistic stance based on mutual love, support of the secular power of the state, active participation in social and political life, and the defense of social equality. They spoke out against the enserfment of peasants, and were the first Christians to postulate the separation of Church and state. The spirit of absolute religious freedom expressed in their practice and writings, ‘determined, more or less immediately, all the subsequent revolutions in favor of religious liber ty.’(1) The precursor ideas of the Socinians on religious freedom later were expanded, perfected, and popularized by Locke and Pierre Bayle. Locke’s ideas were transplanted to America by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who implemented them in American legislation. The rationality of the Socinians set the trend for the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenment and determined the future development of many modern intellectual endeavors. Several religious and intellectual movements today claim the right to the heritage of the religious group, the Socinians, that developed in Poland and in Transylvania in XVIth and XVIIth centuries. The claimants vary from the Christian churches to the atheistic or deistic Humanists and each of them usually selects a specific set of Socinian views ignoring the rest. The Socinians were known under various names such as the Polish Brethren, Antitrinitarians, Arians, and Unitarians. The name Socinians was used mostly in western Europe.(2) They were eventually expelled from Poland in 1660 to fulfill King John Casimir's religious vow to the Holy Virgin to avenge the denial of the Divine Trinity by "heretics." Such a denial was deemed an act most blasphemous according to Catholic ideology. Historical Outline At the roots of Socinianism are the theological ideas transplanted from western Europe and the social ideas borrowed initially from the Anabaptists and Moravian Brethren. Discussions at the meetings of the secret society of Catholic scholars in Cracow since 1546 had, as a purpose, reform of the church and included the works of Michael Servetus.

“A Case for Torture” by Michael Levin Essay

â€Å"The Case for Torture† by Michael Levin, presents excellent justification for the use of torture in situations of extreme desperation. Levin gives great arguments for the use of torture through clever wording and great exemplification. In supplement to the already great argument, he provides potential counter-arguments and proves why they are invalid. It is made very clear that he believes that torture is morally mandatory and makes great effort to sway the opinion of readers, provided they keep an open mind. Levin presents a great argument and presents the ideas in an organized fashion, but as with many essays, it is not without flaw and could use some minor changes to make this great essay into a incredible essay. The format of the introduction of Levin’s essay is somewhat unusual. It begins with a few powerful statements, but the very first statement violates a rule of literature, inclusion of an unsupported fact. Levin says,† It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age.† Not only is the statement a generalization, he is saying that something is generally assumed, but he does not say whom it is assumed by. So who generally assumes it? It seems it is more of a mistake of wording because he is the one who is assuming that generally people think torture is wrong, therefore the essay should read that way because the last thing one should do is start off on the wrong foot. The essay truly lacks any real lead-in or background. The essay just jumps right into the real issues without introducing them or explaining why it was even written in the first place. The reason for the essay is not the real issue though. The issue is that it lacks background because it doesn’t appear that Levin is actually arguing against another point of view. Last I knew, an argument required two points of view to start with, but as I read the introduction it doesn’t seem he has an opponent to win favor over. Without question it is obvious that the paper is about torture, but the introduction does not introduce the main ideas as clearly as it should introduce them. Upon reading the body of the essay, it also comes off as unfinished. The paragraphs in the essay do not seem to flow together, but rather jump from  one point to the next. While the paragraphs may be about the same topic overall, the transition between minor points is somewhat abrupt and adds to the essay’s unfinished feel. Another point of interest is Levin’s inclusion of two subtitles; however, the subtitles are not complete. The first subtitle reads, â€Å"Death†, but the following paragraph does not discuss death. With â€Å"Death† being the subtitle, it seems that’s what the paragraph would be about. The next and last subtitle reads, â€Å"Idealism†, and accordingly that is what the following paragraph is about, but why does that paragraph gets a subtitle and the previous do not is a mystery because they are all about something different as they should be. It seems to be another oversight that also adds to the essay’s unfinished quality. Though the essay has its flaws, it is not without strong points. Levin’s great use of examples through hypothetical situations really brings the reader in and aids in his quest to change their point of view. The examples themselves do not make the essay; however, it’s clear they are greatly assisted by the excellent use of vocabulary and clever wording. Levin does a great job of using powerful words, it makes the essay seem more credible and creates a feeling that the writer really knows what he’s talking about. Why that may or may not be the case, it can be said that Levin really knows how to write a good persuasive argument; however, his oversights deduct from what could be an incredible persuasive essay. The overall impression of the essay was good. It seemed the argument itself was well though out, but the actual writing itself was what most needed work. Without a doubt, Levin’s essay presents some very valid facts and they are rather well supported in most cases; however, to make a strong argument you need support on every level. Not only do all the facts need to be organized and well developed, but the writing does as well. As previously stated, it is clear that Levin really knows how to write a good persuasive argument; however, his oversights deduct from what could be an incredible persuasive essay.

Legal Citation Law Of Regents Of The Univ Essay

Legal Citation Alves v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. 804 F3.d 1149 (11th Cir. 2015) The Facts The two parties of this case are the five appellants, Dr. Melissa A. Alves, Dr. Corey M. Arranz, Dr. Sandrine M. Bosshardt, Dr. Kensa K. Gunter, and the three defendants (appellees), the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Dr. Jill Lee- Barber and Dr. Douglas F. Covey in their individual capacities. The appellants were full-time staff at the Georgia State University Counseling and Testing Center that were terminated due to the initiative of â€Å"reduction-in-force† led by Dr. Jill Lee-Barber, the Director of the Center and Dr. Douglass F. Covey, the Vice President of Student Affairs, in 2012. Dr. Alves served as the Center’s internship training Director and was a clinical psychologist in the Center. Dr. Arranz was the Crisis Response Coordinator and a clinical psychologist at the center. Dr. Bosshardt. Was the Coordinator for Mind Body Programs and a clinical psychologist, who also served as liaison tor International Student Services and as a member of the Center’s Clinical Task Force and the Executive Training Committee. Dr. Gunter, the final Appellant was the Outreach Coordinator for the Center and transitioned into the Coordinator of Practicum Training. She was also the Athletic Department liaison, Diversity Committee Chair, and Cultural Competency Conference Planning Committee Co-Chair. Dr. Jill Lee-Barber, one of the three defendants, was the