Soviet Union and the United States

Soviet Union and the United States A. Plan of the Investigation â€Å"What were the significant differences in the internal dynamics of the Soviet Union and the United States during Cold War?† As one of the most enduring and intense disputed conflicts to mark history, the cold war presents the evidence underlined for the international relations of today. The complex internal factors coming from the ideological, economic and political differences between the United States and the Soviet Union are the main focus of my investigation. These differences were intensified as WWII ended as well as with the economic competition for world leadership. As this question is related more to analysis than to reports, the use of primary as well as secondary sources through speeches and interpretations via informative books will be employed. For the fulfilling nature of this question, I will analyze the differing dynamics between the two most powerful countries of the late 20th century. This investigation makes the developing relationship between these countries the focal point, thus supplying me with suitable research gear for the emergent essay. B.Summary of Evidence In the years that marked the Cold War, a new standard towards world leadership was formed. The intricate and vital aspect of the dispute between the US and the USSR in the concept of ideology begins with their cultural differences. The main difference in ideals lies with the manner in which the nation is administered. The conflict was vastly involved with the spectrum of mindset between the two regimes. Both peoples found no content in discussing matters where their ways were seemed as irrational. The United States held a government of democracy, where the people had the solemn right to vote for their leader.[1] They are able to vote for leaders they want who can rise from any political party. The opposite stood for the Soviet Union, their administration was led by one ruler, all powerful and undisputed. He was given the role of dictator, and the government was fully communist, hostility began to grow between them.[2] Men are chosen as leaders of the U.S. by democratic elections. Jos eph Stalin ruled until 1953 when he passed away, at which time Nikita Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin won a struggle against Stalins successor, Georgi Malenkov, and chief of secret police Lavrenti Beria.[3] Bulganin became the one with power, but Khrushchev, in power of the Communist Party, soon became the dominant figure, he received power as the new dictator of the USSR.[4] By 1964, the Soviet Union was beginning to be led by a society of strict conservatives.[5] Finally, as the last man to rule the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev is partially credited for ending the cold war.[6] The diverse governmental basis for these nations gave but disagreement to work with. These ideologies made the growing tension justified for both.[7] With the newfound race to economic leadership, the US and the USSR attempted to push the other from the major roles of the world. The economic dissimilarities arose from their fiscal processes.[8] The US has a system named capitalism. People in the United States can own properties and businesses; their circumstances were subject to their own legitimacy.[9] Under Communism, all industries and businesses were owned and administered by the nation.[10] The profit was to fit the necessities of the society and no the individual as it was in the US.[11] This difference tied into politics, whoever owned the public market and dominated the commercial and industrial origin of the world had a bigger chance at influencing with their ideals.[12] The United States needed to prevent socialism from spreading at any cost; having an economic advantage wa s the best strategy. The internal dynamics of the two nations differs in theory and in the belief that each rightfully had world supremacy. Their emergent relationship was based more on their respective political institutions and their needs than any other factor. Capitalism versus communism grew as a theme of conflict. Especially after WWII Stalin was determined to make USSR secure in the future from foreign attacks.[13] President Truman believed that Communists, apart from taking control over Eastern Europe, would try to extend their rule over Western Europe. The Truman Doctrine of 1947, commonly known as the cause of the Marshall Plan, claimed that the United States would grant aid only to non-Communist realms.[14] At this point, the nations had declared a stale cold war against each others interests. Believing in impartiality through the use of strength, Communism has created a mark of complete governmental control, which has risen in popularity worldwide for some time. [15] C.Evaluation of Sources The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union 1917-1991, composed by Ronald E. Powaski in 1998 consists of insightful chapters detailing discussions on the different possibilities that arose about the origins of the Cold War and clarifying the different paths taken during the cold war. The Cold War was written with the aim or purpose to answer the very scorching questions that to this day challenge many successful historians and researches: the true factors of conflict between the two countries in the cold war and the basis of its abrupt end. The advantages and values subsist in the capability of the author to combine the related educated opinions of many regarded expert historians into a mission statement for the conclusion on my topics calling. The source is valuable to my investigation because it delivers detailed background on what separated the interests of the two nations mentioned. Also, it contains formal information on alliances, plans of actions, globalization, and key points in Russias history that makes important ends meet for my research. This sources limitation lies in that its high concentration on American views gives nothing but clear point facts on Russia instead of its own analysis of the topic. In order to have a sense of completion, a factual version that supports itself on the view of Russia and its leader was needed. The Personality Cult and its Consequences: Special Report to the 20th congress of the communist party of the Soviet Union is a speech given on February 25, 1956 by Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev regarded as the secret speech due to the discretion at a closed session within the party congress. Its purpose perseveres to criticize Joseph Stalins regime in order to present a better and reformed version of the communist party. The speechs values to my investigation are objective of Khrushchevs words by intensifying the conflict between the real definitions of the meaning of communism, the renewal of the partys resolution and role worldwide. I will further know about the specific factors of communism that frustrated the United States to the point it did. The speech is limited in that although it represents the resurgence of communism, it acts mainly for the better ment of Khrushchevs political profile and for impair of former Soviet leaders which give the speech a biased tone and limitation. Furthermore, it also attempted to lead the party to a Leninist ideological overview which became an important shifting point from the old ways of the party. This attempts to change the focus of my research a bit and reallocates me into a completely new subject matter: the era of battle for power in Russia; in relation to the internal dynamics of the nation. D. Evaluation of Section B Both states sought to reiterate as leading roles in the common matters of the world. In essence, the two nations felt themselves in the pivotal responsibility of speaking out for their respective forms of government. As both powers emerged through the ranks of leadership, what came after WWII was the struggle for Europe. A new rivalry was developing not necessarily between their nations but with the nations regimes: Capitalism vs. Communism.[16] The United States felt the air of democracy threatened by the influence of the Soviet Union on various nations. In 1946 and 1947 the USSR conveyed Communist regimes to nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Poland.[17] The United States responded by issuing the Truman Doctrine which encouraged anti-communist nations with economic aid. After the severe defeat Germany faced, the allies could not come to an agreement on the political and economic structure it should take. This division showed the ideological drift between the Soviet and We stern regimes. In order to prevent an economic ruin, the US came up with the Marshall Plan: an economic aid program meant to give the opportunity of reconstruction to Western European economies. Both the US and the USSR stood by to aid nations in need of economic revival with one condition: the rendition of their political structures. The battle for Europe continued as it also intensified in other parts of the world.[18] Within the internal dynamics of the ideological reach between both nations, there lay a continual need for political absolution. As in section B, their respective leaders focused superiority and intelligence in a war constituted by strategic diplomatic moves. As each nation attempted to become the stronger state, not only did they clash politically but there was also an economic race beginning between them. A mutual need for economic expansion gave way to a space race and nuclear arms race.[19] This rivalry again sustained itself on the grounds of dispersing the idea of international command. Key words spoken by Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev in his empowering speeches held still in the soviet declaration of international control and realized long awaited feelings of Russian merit. Strong words such as in his speech at the 20th congress of the communist party, which intensified Russian-American relations. After failed negotiations, during Kennedys presidency in the US, there were seve ral arms control agreements. The competition reflected in the distinct battle for international recognition with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Communist coalition of Warsaw Treaty Organization to counter against NATO. It was clear that US and USSR were more advance than any of the other nations in relation to their military power and resources, according to the stern damage others suffered. The dissimilarities between the leaders of these nations only worked to deepen the conflict, each straining to restrain the spread of the enemy structure. A competition for power stood before all else. The evidence which presented the differences in section B suggests that this was a war between world influences and character. The dispute which confounded most of the second half of the twentieth century in relation to economic and political differences suggested that these nations fought for more than recognition, they sought to be the infiltrator of other economies from which they hoped to benefit.[20] These differences make it clear that the main point of both nations was to have control over the international community: politically, and economically. The social sciences would back the belief that it was more of a struggle for the better advance militarization in hopes to force international command. E.Conclusion The cold war emerged as a product of the competitive, intricate technological and political reforms. The significant differences all lied in the political spectrum that surrounded each nation, along with their international aspirations which in turn is what afflicted one another. Beginning with their respective forms of government in an arising in political rivalry, the United States and the U.S.S.R attempted to dismantle each others economic influence on the international community. The significant differences ranged in all aspects of society, politics, and economics in the era. The main factor was in essence their respective political systems, which based itself as a ground for competition for international manipulation. Their drive for international command was also based on the level of military power displayed, in relation to the technological arms race that was developing. In all, the internal dynamics concerning the imminent disastrous differences between the worlds superpowe rs conceal in awe a mere exhibition of supremacy in the changing world. [1] William Dudley, The Cold War: Opposing Viewpoints(San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1992), p. 24 [2] Dudley, p. 41 [3] Abbot Gleason, Totalitarianism: the inner history of the Cold War(New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 215 [4] Gleason, p. 215 [5] James Warren, Cold War: the American crusade against world Communism, 1945-1991(New York: Lothrop, Lee Shepard Books, 1996), p.56 [6] Warren, p.68 [7] Ronald Powaski, The Cold War: the United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991(New York: Oxford Universiry Press, 1998), p. 315 [8] Gleason, p.133 [9] Dudley, p.87 [10] Thomas T. Hammond, Witnesses to the Origins of the Cold War(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982.), p. 255 [11] Warren, p.116 [12] Warren, p.223 [13] George Edward Stanley, America and the Cold War 1949-1966(Milwaukee, WI: World Almanac, 2005), p. 147 [14] Gleason, p.189 [15] Stanley, p.242 [16] Warren, p.119 [17] Dudley, p. 76 [18] Dudley, p. 54 [19] Powaski, , p. 209 [20] Dudley, p. 268

Contrast the Characters of Agamemnon and Jason Essay

Both Agamemnon and Jason share intrinsic similarities in that they are both the tragic heroes of their plays: Aeschylus’ ‘Agamemnon’ and Euripides’ ‘Medea’ respectively. However, they do not share the same fate. Agamemnon is killed for what he has done, whereas those close to Jason emotionally and politically are killed to spite Jason. Both characters are detested by their wives, but for different reasons. Agamemnon has sacrificed his daughter and Jason has left his wife to marry entirely for personal gain. Agamemnon’s motives were that he had to fulfil his oath to help the husband of Helen should she ever leave/be taken. His motives were better than Jason’s, who left his wife for his own gain. Medea had two sons so he could not justify leaving her because of childlessness. However, Jason has not killed anyone, which Agamemnon has. Also, leaving a wife would not have been uncommon, and so it is not as significant as it would be had the events taken place today. Both characters thank the gods for their successes. When Agamemnon first arrives on stage he thanks the gods for his victory and safe return home. When Medea challenges Jason and attacks him for what he has done to her, despite all she has done to help him, he claims that although she did do some things, the one who helped him the most was Aphrodite. Both Jason and Agamemnon are either not arrogant or stupid enough not to thank the gods for their achievements. All four parties, Jason, Agamemnon, Medea and Clytemnestra have deceived their counterpart at some point. Agamemnon sends for Iphigenia without telling her or Clytemnestra what he plans to do. Jason does not tell Medea about his marriage to Glauce until after it has happened. Medea has to lure Jason into a false sense of security and so apologises to him, telling him he is right and she wrong and that she was angry. This prevents him from suspecting her. Clytemnestra deceives Agamemnon by welcoming him home. Even Agamemnon thinks she is exaggerating, saying that she is â€Å"grovelling† and that the â€Å"speech to suit (his) absence, (was) much too long†. Both Agamemnon and Jason are insensitive. Neither refers to his wife by name. Agamemnon only refers to Clytemnestra as â€Å"Leda’s daughter†. They expect everything they have done to their wives to be ignored and everything to be left without any mention of what they have done. Jason goes as far as saying that Medea should be thanking him when she confronts him. He says that she lives in Greece, rather than â€Å"an uncivilised country†, and had also â€Å"won renown.† In saying that he would rather not have â€Å"gold in (his) house) or the skill to sing a song lovelier than Orpheus sang† unless a famous name came with it, he reveals a part of his character. He wants to be famous; he wants his name to be known, at the expense of other things. Medea has noticed this. During her argument with Jason she says that â€Å"it was marriage to a foreigner that you would detract from that great name of yours†. Jason also shows his insensitivity by claiming that he married Glauce entirely out of his wanting to look after Medea and their sons. He claims that he did this so that they could â€Å"live comfortably and not go without anything.† If there were any good intentions of Jason, he then loses any chance of Medea genuinely agreeing and calming down when he says that he can â€Å"ensure (his) prosperity by â€Å"joining (their) two families†. This shows that he is prepared to use his family in order to preserve his comfort and wealth, and indicates that Jason can be selfish. The greeting of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra is ironic. Among the first things she says to him is that â€Å"(their) child is gone† and that â€Å"by all rights (their) child should be (there)†. She means Iphigenia of course, but covers this up by quickly adding after a pause, â€Å"†¦Orestes†. Later on in the same speech she simply says the sentence â€Å"Our child is gone.† She hints about her anger but covers them up, Agamemnon not specifically referring to them. The sympathies of the chorus change in both plays. In Medea, the chorus of Corinthian women strongly supports Medea at the beginning of the play, sympathising with her. However, they begin to pity Jason and no longer support Medea when Medea says she is going to kill her own children to spite Jason. In Agamemnon, the chorus is made up of old men who are too old to fight in Troy. They, if grudgingly, admire Clytemnestra. They respect her plan with the beacons so she would know when Troy had fallen, saying after she told them it was her that it was â€Å"spoken like a man†. However, they lose this respect when they find out that Clytemnestra has killed Agamemnon, their king who they admire for destroying Troy. Because of the action of Jason and Agamemnon, many innocent people are killed. In ‘Agamemnon’, Cassandra is killed by Clytemnestra, despite the fact that Cassandra is a captive and had nothing to do with the death of Iphigenia. In ‘Medea’, Glauce, Creon and Jason and Medea’s sons are killed by Medea. These innocent victims in both plays are certainly not deserving of what happens to them. Because of what Jason and Agamemnon have done to hurt their wives, five people have been needlessly killed. Both Agamemnon and Jason care about their children. In ‘Agamemnon’, Clytemnestra says to Agamemnon, â€Å"you seem startled†, upon hearing the news that Orestes is gone. Additionally, in Euripides ‘Iphigenia in Aulis’, Agamemnon tries to send a message to Iphigenia to tell her to return home. When the message fails to get through, he tells Menelaus that he â€Å"will not kill (his) daughter.† After being persuaded to change his mind, realising he has no choice, he is still pained to do it, saying that her â€Å"hand’s touch brings swift tears flooding from (his) eyes.† Jason, after hearing the news that his sons are dead and during his confrontation with Medea he reveals how he longs â€Å"to clasp them, to kiss (their) dear lips†. What have Medea and Clytemnestra sacrificed? Clytemnestra has lost a daughter, and this is her sole motivation for killing Agamemnon. Medea, however, has betrayed her family, left her home and killed her own brother to help Jason in every way she can. Jason has abandoned her after she has had two sons when she is in a foreign land with no friends or family to fall back on entirely for his own personal gain. She has then been told she has to leave the country, and she has been forced to flee to another foreign country at some point. Medea is more justified in wanting revenge. She is a far worse position than Clytemnestra, who still lives in her home with friends and family close by in the palace at Mycenae and has a new husband. Medea has also been very poorly thanked for her role in making sure Jason escapes Colchis with the Golden Fleece.

College Rhetorical Analysis Essay

In this lengthy article â€Å"Guns Don’t Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do,† that was published in the Townhall Daily, the author, Ann Coulter, argues about a major prevailing issue today, gun control. She believes the problem isn’t the guns themselves, but the mentally disturbed people. Coulter credits the declining mental health system as the main setback. She supports her argument by providing tragic examples from mass shootings that took place in the past. One example was the 2011 shooting that took place in Tucson, Arizona where the shopping mall shooter, Jared Loughner was so obviously disturbed that he stated â€Å"If I stay long enough to make the yearbook, I will be voted the Most Likely to Commit Murder.† She also explains the most recent shooting that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. The shooter, Adam Lanza, first shot his mother on the morning of December 14, 2012 because she supposedly was trying to have him committed to a mental institution, which is what triggered his rage. After he cold-bloodedly killed his mother, Lanza progressed on to Sandy Hook Elementary and proceeded to murder twenty children and six administrators. Coulter is a conservative columnist and political commentator who has mostly written about government and legal issues. A number of her articles are targeting a particular audience. For example, liberals, Barack Obama, the National Rifle Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) just to name a few. Seven of Coulter’s best works are on the New York Times bestsellers list. Similar to this article, some of her previous works are written about gun control issues and targeted toward Obama and the Senate Democrats. Obviously, this is not the first time the issue has come up that Coulter has written about it. Some of her best works on gun control include â€Å"Ending Gun Violence Requires Commitment, Not All of it Voluntary,† â€Å"Negro’s with Guns,† and her most current article â€Å"Guns Don’t Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do.† What motivated Coulter to write this article were the many cases of mentally disturbed people carrying out mass shootings and the world glorifying the murderers with press, while the NRA was taking the blame. She states, â€Å"Innumerable studies have found a correlation between severe mental illness and violent behavior.† She provides evidence from these studies with statistics. For example, â€Å"Thirty one to sixty one percent of all homicides committed by disturbed individuals occur during their first psychotic episode.† She adds, â€Å"Which is why mass murderers often have no criminal record. There is no time to wait with the mentally ill.† Coulters purpose for writing this argument is to persuade her audience that closer tabs need to be kept on people who are suspected as being the least bit mentally disturbed. She believes if it is made easier to emit people into mental institutions, there would be less violence. Coulter also argues that if one is suspected as being mentally disturbed, it should be simple for them to be evaluated by a psychologist. Coulter’s intended audience is the general population, Barack Obama, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Throughout various parts of her argument she pleads to individuals working in the mental health field to put more effort in separating mentally disturbed people from civil society. During a time like today, where mass shootings have happened within the last few months, are people more prone to pay attention to gun control issues. Especially on the forum that this article is published on. Most people that comment on â€Å"Guns Don’t Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do† are supporting Coulter’s argument. This argument first appeared on January 16, 2013 after Coulter did some researching about mass shootings i n the past. It responds to the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Coulter states, â€Å"Enough is enough, the public needs to know and understand the danger behind mentally ill individuals.† Her main claim is that there aren’t enough precautions being taken when it comes to suspecting someone of being mentally disturbed. There are several reasons given in support for her claim. Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under consistent treatment but the college was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws such as HIPPA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Another example is when one of Loughner’s (Tucson, Arizona shooting) teachers, Ben McCahee, filed numerous complaints to the school against him, hoping to have him removed from class. McCahee stated, â€Å"When I turned my back to write o n the board, I would always turn back around quickly to see if he had a gun.† Coulter goes on to say, â€Å"Committing Loughner to a mental institution would have required a court order stating that he was a danger to himself and society.† Ann Coulter adds to the examples when she informs the audience of James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter. He was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater. After Holmes made threats against a professor, he was asked to leave the campus, but he wasn’t committed. Coulter claims â€Å"People knew he was deeply troubled and just pushed him into society to cause havoc elsewhere.† Finally, when talking about Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, she states â€Å"Connecticut’s laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Lanza’s mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried.† The article, â€Å"Guns Don’t Kill, the Mentally Ill Do† was found on a website as an essay. It is a lengthy article that includes an intro, a thesis, support paragraphs, and a closing paragraph reproving the thesis. Coulter represents herself as a respected columnist who is very educated on laws, especially regarding civil rights. â€Å"A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. She is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.† Ann Coulter is a very trusted columnist. She uses facts based on mass shootings in the past and provides evidence by using statistics and quotations from insiders. Although Coulter doesn’t invoke an emotional response, she bases much of her article on morality. â€Å"Guns Don’t Kill, Mentally Ill Do† is a satirical piece due to her ridicule to the ACLU throughout her argument. In conclusion, Coulter argues that there is much more precautionary steps that can be taken when someone is suspected of being mentally ill. She closes the argument by stating â€Å"It is nearly impossible to have mentally disturbed people separated from society because the ACLU has decided that being psychotic is a civil right.† She adds, â€Å"Consequently, whenever a psychopath with a million gigantic warning signs commits a shocking murder, the knee jerk reaction is to place yet more control on guns. By now, guns are the most heavily regulated product in America. It hasn’t worked. There are still subway tracks, machetes, fists and bombs.† For example, the most deadly massacre at a school in United States history was at an elementary school in Michigan in 1927. It was committed with a bomb, by a mentally disturbed man.

Is The Greatest Joy A Christian Parent - 972 Words

Many parents strive to see their child succeed in school, sports, social life, and in an occupation. Parents pour time, money, love, and nurture into their child to raise them well and to see them succeed. Many parents want the absolute best for their children, and are willing to make big sacrifices for them. It brings parents great joy to see their child have good friends, excel in sports, graduate from high school or college, get married, and have a family of their own. For Christians, it is important to raise a child to love and honor God. I believe the greatest joy a Christian parent is able to have is when their child proclaims that they love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. I believe 3 John 1:4 speaks to this well â€Å"I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.† In addition to raising a child to love and serve the Lord, it is important to know that (according to Piaget), children naturally construct a view of th e world and (according to Vygotsky), what parents can do to help children mentally grow. Piaget believed that children undergo different stages of cognitive growth as they age. The first stage a child goes through, according to Piaget, is the sensorimotor stage. Piaget believed that during a child’s first two years, their mission is to make sense of the world. The only way a child under two years of age is capable of doing that is through his/her senses. It is common for children in the sensorimotor stage toShow MoreRelatedDifferent Beliefs Associated With Christianity999 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"Christ Jesus died on the cross for us.† I grew up in a Christian household. I’m very blessed and grateful that my parents introduced me to Jesus at a young age. Even though I didn’t really understand it all I know it was vitally important to who I am today. My parents always set a good example of how to always show love and care. As a child we went to a local church and I attended the kid’s programs. I also attended a private Christian school all the way up to the 5th grade when I transferredRead MoreA Brief Biography of C.S. Lewis827 Words   |  3 PagesC.S. Lewis is one of the greatest authors in history. His books are still widely available and sold to many interested readers. In Lewis’ childhood, he experienced a tragedy that affected his belief in god; in his middle life, he mainly focused on college and his studies, but his father’s death played a role in Lewis later becoming a Christian. In Lewis’ later life, he married one of his own fans. Clive’s passion for writing began when he was a small child, and it continued to grow as he furtheredRead MoreTeaching With A Reformed Worldview1159 Words   |  5 Pageswith a Reformed worldview mean to you? Teaching with a reformed worldview means that I am sharing God’s love to children. As a Christian teacher, I find a great joy sharing stories about Jesus and talking about God to the young children. I learned so much by working with children and I often think about how my faith should resemble children s faith towards God. Christian Education provides opportunity to show the beauty of the world that we are living and the pleasure of exploring the creation ofRead MoreOur Belief Systems And Values966 Words   |  4 Pagesbeliefs depends on different factors. Most often, people are influenced from other people’s teaching. Sometimes a person’s environment can be a big reason on a person’s beliefs. Our parents have provided us the biggest influence of our lives. The majority of people today acquired their religious beliefs from their parents or relatives. Religion is part of human tradition which has been passed down from generations. I did not choose my religion. I was baptized as a Catholic at a young age. I spentRead More`` Pax Romana `` A Time Of The Great Civilizations Of Our Past1226 Words   |  5 Pagesof Rome remained connected with their roots. Patriotism remained a huge virtue among the people of Rome, they remained very connected to their government. Family life continued to remain important to the people of Rome and it was encouraged that parents have many kids. When the Roman government was at peace the people were in love with their government. To quote Aelius Aristides in his writings on â€Å"The Blessing of Pax Romana† he says: â€Å"Let us pray that all the gods and their children grant that thisRead MoreEssay about John Miltons Paradise Lost as Christian Epic1147 Words   |  5 PagesParadise Lost as Christian Epic John Miltons great epic poem, Paradise Lost, was written between the 1640s and 1665 in England, at a time of rapid change in the western world. Milton, a Puritan, clung to traditional Christian beliefs throughout his epic, but he also combined signs of the changing modern era with ancient epic style to craft a masterpiece. He chose as the subject of his great work the fall of man, from Genesis, which was a very popular story to discuss and retell at the timeRead MoreThe Greatest Composer Ever By Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart795 Words   |  4 PagesConcerto all share a common trait. If you said Ludwig van Beethoven, you would be correct. One of the greatest composer ever, only to be rivaled by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He happened to be deaf when he created many of his famous works. Today, I am going to tell you about his childhood, early life, then to his later stages in life where he was deaf. But it was when he became deaf, he produced his greatest works of music. Ludwig was baptized on December 17, 1770 in Bonn Germany. Many believe that heRead MoreThe Case Against Perfection : Ethics And The Problems That Arise From It1175 Words   |  5 Pages270 Term Paper The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop intoRead MoreJesus For As Long As I1556 Words   |  7 Pageswe were growing up for number of reasons, and yet both Mum and Dad were strong in their faith. As a family we attended the Wanganui City Corps until early 2001, when Mum and Dad decided to leave the Army, and we moved to the Hosanna Christian Centre. Hosanna Christian Centre was a Pentecostal charismatic church. During our time at this Church, I was baptised, and had also had an encounter with the Holy Spirit. The encounter seems a long time ago, but every week I remembered praying to God, and askingRead MoreDescribing Catholic Lent Essay examples1027 Words   |  5 PagesCatholic Lent At this time of the year, back home in Ecuador, parents are planning vacations to go enjoy holly week with their families. As a family, we usually spend these days enjoying each other’s company at the beaches nearby our city. Being born and raced in Ecuador, a country with a majority of catholic population, I have observed that for the parishioners the path to holly week is very serious. To learn about the importance and rituals that happen during this time called lent, I have asked