You may do as many of the questions as you wish. All the questions pertain to
the attached essay.
All work will be submitted online, as attachments to email.
Keep in mind that this is a course project. You can not possibly complete this in a few days
at the end of the course.
Also keep in mind that you will need to proceed in chronological order. In other words,
don''t even think about doing question two until you have successfully answered question one!
You may work collaboratively, but each person must submit an individual copy.
You may revise your answers as often as you wish during the semester, but all work must
be submitted but the end of the semester.
No revisions after the semester has ended.
All previous work must be included along with each resubmission.
A total of 200 points are available as noted by each question.
What is the overall conclusion of the assigned editorial?
Submit CPFH Question #1
Briefly summarize the arguments in the editorial and show how they are linked together.
Be sure to identify all the statements as premises or conclusions and all the enthymematic
Discuss the truth-value of each one of the statements in the arguments summarized in the
Discuss whether or not there are any fallacies committed in the article.
Re-express the deductive arguments (if any) as categorical syllogisms (sorites, if necessary).
Show whether or not they are valid.
Symbolize the deductive arguments (if any). Show whether or not they are valid.
this is example of editoral
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 3, 1999; Page A27
You cannot blame the judge for becoming cranky, as when he denounced a particular pedagogic device in the Bedford Central school district as "terminally dumb." Still, one does not usually come across such dicta in judicial rulings, so consider the concatenation of foolishness that made Judge Charles Brieant waspish, and occasionally foolish himself.
In Bedford Central, in suburban Westchester County north of New York City, some Roman Catholic parents became understandably exasperated but excessively litigious about the nonsense infesting their children''s education. So they went to court with 15 examples of what they called the "Bedford Program" to promote "Satanism and occultism, pagan religions
and a New Age Spirituality."
The parents said the schools were violating their parental and privacy rights, and both of the First Amendment''s religion
clauses, one proscribing establishment of religion
, the other protecting free exercise of religion
. They also wanted -- here their truculence is justified -- the court to apply "the same Draconian limitations imposed by the federal courts on Judeo-Christian religious practice in the public schools to Eastern religions
and religious-type practices."
Judge Brieant, waist deep in such legal swamps as the definition of religion
and the scope of academic freedom, decided that there was no Bedford Program but that many"random acts initiated by individual schoolteachers" might constitute a "Bedford Attitude." Indeed.
He gave short shrift to most complaints, such as that about "Magic: The Gathering," a math-oriented card game (manufactured in California -- "naturally," says Brieant, not missing an opportunity to editorialize). The cards used by elementary and middle school pupils have illustrations of zombies, goblins, vampires, a skull, a whirling dervish, a wall of bones. But the games were played by voluntary clubs before or after school and, Brieant says, "no reasonable person could regard sponsoring this game as a teaching of religion
But what would a reasonable person make of Ganesha? As part of an "international enrichment" week, some students studied the culture of India -- making batiks and paisley designs, cooking Indian foods. And they were planning to make models of Ganesha, an elephant-headed Hindu god.
Brieant spotted "subtle coercive pressure" in the plan to make images of Ganesha. "While reading the Ganesha story can be part of a neutral secular curriculum, this court fails to find any educational justification for telling young impressionable students to construct images of a known religious god."
So, acting as education czar, Brieant laid down the law -- or his whim, which here is much the same thing -- about what has "educational justification." And making the models would have the "appearance" of "endorsing" Ganesha, and hence could "establish" religion
Brieant found no constitutional violation in the yoga exercises taught to one class by the turbaned Sikh Khalsa (his trademark name is "the Yoga Guy"). Or in another classroom guest, "the Rock Hound," saying that some people believe crystals have magical powers.
Or in the "meditation program" in which children were asked to imagine that "their bodies were filling with blue liquid." Or in the "peer facilitator" program where young students met with older students to discuss sex, drugs, rock-and-roll and Monica Lewinsky.
Or in the cemetery visit where, among the things Brieant considers "terminally dumb," there was an adult waving a stick to magically ward off animal attacks. Or in the classroom appearance by the Rev. Nancy Weber, whom Brieant, throwing a rhetorical elbow, calls "a self-proclaimed psychic, although her psychic powers did not extend to predicting the date on which the trial testimony would be concluded."
However, Brieant had constitutional worries about Worry Dolls, made of toothpicks and wire and sold at the school store. Store personnel told some children that if placed under their pillows at night, the dolls would "chase away" bad dreams. Brieant said this "prefers superstition over religion
" and thus violates the First Amendment. Really.
Brieant was quite cross about various "truly bizarre" accompaniments of Earth Day, including a lot of enviro-gush about our kinship with beasts and trees, and a prayer of semi-apology to Mother Earth for removing a plant from one''s garden. Acting as thought cop, Brieant held that a teacher''s assertion that Earth is overpopulated "violated the school district''s rule on academic freedom," which says: "Indoctrination of any matter of faith or opinion will not be tolerated." In Bedford Central, academic freedom is to be protected by prohibiting academics from expressing opinions.
What is tolerated is a judge issuing capricious fiats because Bedford Central tolerated the leakage of silliness into schools, which provoked reciprocal silliness from parents.
? Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
Something about Judge Brieant
This essay was located and contributed by one of your classmates: Dennis Okamuro
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS: Self-help Group or Religion
By Tanya L. Phillips
On July 30, 2001, Paul Cox?s conviction for a double murder was overturned by Charles L. Brieant, U.S.D.J. for the Southern District of New York in White Plains1 because the prosecution obtained evidence against Mr. Cox after he confessed to members of Alcoholics Anonymous (hereinafter "A.A.") in a meeting.2 Judge Brieant ruled that conversations between members of A.A. have the same privileges as contacts between clerics and parishioners.3 Judge Brieant relied on several decisions made by the United States District Court for the Second Circuit4 and the New York Court of Appeals.5 These cases held that in Establishment Clause6 cases, A.A. is a religion7 and the following of the Twelve Step program used in A.A. constitutes religious activity as well as religious proselytization.8
Mr. Cox was sentenced to two consecutive terms of between eight years and four months and twenty-five years for the murder of two doctors, Dr. Laksman Rao Chervu and his wife, Dr. Shanta Chervu.9 The murders occurred on December 30, 1988.10 On November 11, 1990, Mr. Cox joined A.A.?s Harbor Island Chapter.11 During his completion of the Twelve Steps,12 which is a tool used by A.A. to facilitate recovery from alcoholism, he admitted to at least eight A.A. members that he "believed" he committed the murders.13
The police only began to consider Mr. Cox as a suspect in these murders in late 1992 to early 1993, after a female member of Mr. Cox?s A.A. group confided in her psychologist that Mr. Cox had committed the murders.14 The psychologist obtained an attorney for this woman and, along with the attorney, he advised her to provide this information to the appropriate authorities.15 The police then questioned all the members who had attended the meeting where Mr. Cox had confessed, and they all corroborated her story.16
At the trial, Mr. Cox admitted to committing the crime, but claimed that the murders occurred during a temporary blackout induced by alcohol.17 According to trial testimony, Mr. Cox claimed he had accidentally stumbled upon the Chervus? home and mistakenly believed that they were his parents.18 After hearing this testimony, as well as evidence obtained by the police from A.A. members, the jury found Mr. Cox guilty. Mr. Cox?s attorney then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Judge Brieant.19 Judge Brieant ruled that statements made to members of A.A. have the same privileges as contacts between clerics and parishioners.20 Pursuant to that ruling, all evidence obtained as a result of Mr. Cox?s statements at the meeting were ruled to have been obtained without probable cause, and as such, were thrown out.21
Alcoholics Anonymous was established in 1935 in Akron, Ohio as a self-help group to help alcoholics become sober and learn to function without alcohol.22 It was not classified by its founders as a religion
was promoted within A.A. Members were, and still are, encouraged to worship at their own churches to aid their recovery.23
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled in Warner v. Orange County, that ordering an atheist to attend A.A. meetings as part of his/her punishment violates his or her First Amendment rights.24 In Warner, the defendant did not object in a timely manner to the probation sentence requiring him to attend A.A. meetings because he was unaware of the religious nature of A.A.25 Even though he had previously been exposed to an A.A. meeting prior to sentencing, the defendant was told A.A. was not religious, only "spiritual."26 For this reason he did not object to attending A.A. until after the opportunity to do so had passed.27 The Court allowed his Constitutional claim wherein he alleged that the sentence violated his First Amendment rights because he was an atheist.28 The court ultimately decided that his failure to object to his sentence in a timely manner, did not constitute a waiver or forfeiture of his claim, and ruled in his favor.29
In Griffin v. Coughlin, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that an atheist or agnostic inmate may not be deprived of eligibility for family visitation privileges for refusing to participate in the only alcohol and/or drug rehabilitation program at the correctional facility if the program adopts the "religious-oriented practices and precepts of Alcoholics Anonymous."30 This Court ruled that membership in A.A. requires individual engagement in religious activities as well as religious proselytization.31 Once it is demonstrated that the practices of A.A. involve religious exercise, it is unavoidable when a compulsory program similar to A.A. is used by the State in correctional facilities, to find that compulsory use of that program violates the Establishment Clause.32
Based on these two cases, Warner and Griffin, Judge Brieant overturned Mr. Cox?s conviction.33 Mr. Cox was not released, however, because Judge Brieant stayed his ruling pending appellate finality.34 Legal experts contend that if Judge Brieant?s decision survives the pending appeal, it will most likely have little or no effect outside of New York.35
Even though A.A. began as a self-help organization, it has recently become labeled as a religion
by New York courts. These courts compare the Twelve Steps to Recovery used by A.A. to religious activity for purposes of First Amendment and Establishment Clause violations. As illustrated in Cox, judges are overturning murder convictions based on A.A.?s classification as a religion
1 Cox v. Miller, No. 01 Civ. 3751, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *1, *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2001).
2 Daniel J. Wakin, Judge Bars Statements Made in A.A., N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 2, 2001, B1. See infra note 21.
3 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *1. Judge Brieant ruled these conversations were privileged pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. ? 4505 (2001). Id. at *8. "Unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege, a clergyman or other minister of any religion
or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner shall not be allowed [to] disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as spiritual advisor." N.Y. C.P.L.R. ? 4505 (2001). See Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *8.
4 Warner v. Orange County, 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1997), aff?d 173 F.3d 120, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).
5 Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d 674, 683 (1996).
6 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. I.
7 Warner, 173 F.3d at 122.
8 Griffin, 88 N.Y.2d at 683.
9 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *1-4.
10 Daniel Wise, Verdict Overturned in Doctors? Slaying: Statements at Alcoholics Anonymous Shielded, N.Y. LAW JOURNAL, Aug. 2, 2001, 1.
11 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *4.
12 The Twelve Steps of Recovery are as follows:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol ? that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Make a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Alcoholics Anonymous, The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, at http://www.aa.org/english/E_FactFile/M-24_d6.html (last visited Sept. 30, 2001). Judge Brieant also notes in Cox that besides the many religious references in A.A. meetings, they are ended by reciting the Lord?s Prayer. Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *14.
13 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *5-6.
14 Wise, supra note 10; Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *6.
15 Wise, supra note 10.
16 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *7. The events surrounding how the police obtained information about this crime also raises questions concerning the psychologists duty of confidentiality to his patient. Id.
17 Wise, supra note 10.
18 Id. Mr. Cox lived in the Chevrus? house until he was seven-years-old when he moved with his parents less then a mile away. Id.
19 Cox, 2001, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *1.
20 N.Y. C.P.L.R. ? 4505 (2001).
21 Cox, 2001, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *1. Cox claimed that his handprint and fingerprints found at the crime scene were "the fruits of an arrest unsupported by probable cause and that their admission were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at *2. Further, statements to other members of A.A. were confidential communications which the police used to establish probable cause in order to arrest him and take his fingerprints. Id. Judge Brieant thought this violated Mr. Cox?s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id.
22 Alcoholics Anonymous, Historical Data: The Birth of A.A. and Its Growth in U.S./Canada, at http://www.aa.org/english/E_FactFile/M-24_d14.html (last visited on Sept. 30, 2001). In Cox, Judge Brieant recognized that when A.A. was founded they did not hold themselves out to be a religion
. Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *5. He also pointed out the strict confidentiality that A.A. insures its members. Id. at *7. See also, Alcoholics Anonymous, Anonymity Letter to Media, at http://www.aa.org/english/E_AnoLet_d1.html (last visited on Sept. 30, 2001).
23 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455, at *6.
24 Warner v. Orange County, 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1997), aff''d, 173 F.3d 120, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).
25 Warner, 173 F.3d at 121.
28 Id. at 120-21.
29 Id. at 121. The Court agreed with this argument and stated, "Warner''s failure to object to or appeal his sentence did not constitute consent to the sentence or a waiver or forfeiture of his constitutional claim." Id. The court affirmed the lower courts decision to award the defendant $1.00 in damages. Warner, 173 F.3d at 121.
30 Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d 674, 677 (1996). In this opinion the court supports A.A. and specifically says that they do not imply that the State correctional authorities should discontinue using programs similar to A.A. Id. The court suggests that the program should be on a voluntary basis. Id. The court also encourages the State correctional authorities to devise a new program for alcohol and drug addiction. Id. This alternative would offer a secular alternative to A.A. practices and would allow the State to maintain its neutrality and satisfy the Establishment Clause. Id.
31 Id. at 683. The opinions reads as follows:
. . .doctrinally and as actually practiced in the 12-step methodology, adherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization. Followers are urged to accept the existence of God as a Supreme Being, Creator, Father of Light and Spirit of the Universe. In ?working? the 12-steps, participants become actively involved in seeking such a God through prayer, confessing wrongs and asking for removal of shortcomings. These expressions and practices constitute, as a matter of law, religious exercise for Establishment Clause purposes, no less then the nondenominational prayer, . . . ?a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such prayer has always been religious.?
Id. citing Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962).
32 Griffin, 88 N.Y.2d at 686.
33 Cox, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11455 at *13.
34 Id. at *15.
35 Wakin, supra note 2.
rule to write:
William Safire''s Rules for Writers:
Remember to never split an infinitive.
The passive voice should never be used.
Do not put statements in the negative form.
Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great
deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
A writer must not shift your point of view.
And don''t start a sentence with a conjunction.
Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.
Don''t overuse exclamation marks!!
Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences,
as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
Always pick on the correct idiom.
The adverb always follows the verb.
Last but not least, avoid clich?s like the plague; seek viable alternatives.
okay, that is all the information my professor give me
please follow my instructor
first, you need to answer what is editoral... i already give you my professor example.
second, I give you the essay example , please read before start
third, please answer all the question to get 200 points.
four, please email me as 14..
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]