| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "LIBERALISM SHARIA LAW": |
|
|
Liberalism and Sharia Law, 2005.
An examination of the Ontario government's decision to not use religious law as a basis for family law arbitration.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the province of Ontario was recently the site for a significant struggle between the values of secular and religious cultures when it was proposed that Islamic sharia law join Catholicism and Judaism as a basis for family law arbitration. The paper examines how, in September 2005, the McGuinty government, after a long public debate, decided that neither Islamic sharia nor any other religion would be used as the basis for arbitration under Ontario law.
| |
|
Why the Rejection of Sharia Law in Ontario is Unjust, 2005.
An review of the debate surrounding Sharia Law in Canada.
5,400 words (approx. 21.6 pages), 15 sources, AU$ 309.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the history of Sharia Law and how it has both helped and hindered Muslim women over time. It also reviews the debate over Sharia and looks at what Sharia reveals about the limits of Canadian tolerance and multiculturalism. The constitutional debate that was sparked by the Sharia controversy is discussed and how the sometimes obstreperous debate also led to the airing of a number of arguments against the introduction of Sharia, as well as the counter arguments, which called into question the veracity of some of these views.
From the Paper
"The recent Ontario Government decision to forbid the proposed use of Sharia law in that province sparked considerable debate. Women's groups felt that Sharia law was an abrogation of the constitutional freedoms of Muslim women. Other groups felt that the imposition of Sharia law might transmit the wrong message to radical Islamic fundamentalists interested in sweeping away the equality of the sexes. Finally, still other Muslim groups felt that not only had their constitutional right to religious expression and freedom been trampled upon, but they were the victims of an odious double standard whereby other religious groups were permitted to adjudicate domestic matters.."
| |
|
The ban of Sharia Law, 2005.
An analysis of the decision to ban sharia law in Ontario.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the effects of the decision in Ontario to ban sharia law (Islamic family law). The paper discusses the possible move to end all religious-based family arbitration in Ontario in an effort to maintain equality. The paper examines the effect this decision will have on Jewish and Christian groups, as well as Muslim leaders.
From the Paper
"Analysis of a Current Issue: No Sharia Law in Ontario Statement of the Issue On September 12, 2005, Premier McGuinty of Ontario ended months of public debate by announcing that "there will be no sharia law in Ontario" (Freeze and Howlett). The proposal to allow Islamic sharia law as a basis for family law arbitrations, which is currently permitted for Jewish and Christian faiths, created controversy given the reputation of Islamic law as sexist and anti-women's rights. In order to maintain equality, McGuinty promised legislation ending all religious-based family arbitrations in Ontario; a move that upset many Jewish and Christian groups, along with Muslim religious leaders."
| |
|
Sharia Law and Women, 2002.
A paper on the status of women in Islamic countries who follow the laws of Sharia.
1,151 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 12 sources, MLA, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the move towards more extreme acceptance of the Sharia laws for women in Islam. The paper explains that the Sharia are based on three sources, the Koran, the Sunna and the works of Muslim scholars from the first two centuries of Islam. The paper continues by explaining how these laws affect women, including their dress, marriage rights, legal obligations and punishments. The writer believes that many countries are moving towards a more extreme interpretation of the Sharia which has created a serious human rights problem for women in these regions.
From the Paper
"In spite of various attempts to promote a discussion between the different cultures in the West and Islamic countries, specifically related to the implementation of Sharia, jurisdiction remains a Byzantine mystery. (Merriweather and Tucker 1999) There are different interpretations and applications of Sharia in the four different schools of Sunni law. These four schools are Hanafis, Malkis, Shafi?is and Hanbalis."
| |
|
Sharia Law in Ontario, 2006.
A look at the conflict between Canada's official policy of multiculturalism and the introduction of Islamic Sharia in Toronto.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Canada is a unique society. Its population is made up of many diverse people, who live together under a common legal system. At the same time, Canada is the only country in the world with an official policy of multiculturalism. This reflects a desire to accommodate and respect diversity. Yet, is it really possible to at the same time have a common legal system, and also accommodate diversity? This paper discusses the contradictions and problems inherent in this situation that were highlighted by the recent controversy over the introduction of Islamic Sharia, or religious, law in Toronto.
| |
|
Liberalism and Neo-liberalism, 2005.
This paper discusses theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay, the writer examines theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in international politics. The writer discusses neo-liberalism as based in liberal democracy. The writer identifies limits of both theories. Further, the writer discusses major problems and limitations with each theory.
From the Paper
"According to sociologists, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first liberalism and later neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches. All such theories in the context of international relations are designed to solve the problems and puzzles of state behavior by offering a causal account of a particular outcome or pattern of behavior in ... "
| |
|
Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, and International Politics, 2005.
An overview of the relationship between liberal and neo-liberal theories and international politics.
861 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 4 sources, APA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
According to sociologists, since the 1970s, market-based economic policies have been institutionalized as a nearly global policy paradigm embodying first, liberalism, and later, neo-liberalism. The purpose of this report is to discuss the theories of liberalism and neo-liberalism in studying international politics and to identify the limitations of these approaches.
From the Paper
"In neoliberalism, which developed in the final decades of the twentieth century, a set of economic principles became part of the accepted framework for thinking about and acting upon both the economy and the relations of states to one another. Neoliberalism assumed that a positive outcome both economically and politically would be generated through a wave of reforms ? privatizations, dismantling of social welfare programs, the retreat of the state from economic regulation, tax cuts, and the opening of national boundaries."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,108 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, which discusses their experiences attending a series of parent workshops given by child psychologist, Dr. Ginott. It looks at how its approach to parenting appears to be very simplistic in nature: do not control your children, but rather respect them for their individuality and uniqueness. It discusses how punishment is not an effective tool for establishing a trusting relationship, nor is a power trip, or being too protective or defensive. It shows how an adversarial relationship with a child will normally escalate or deteriorate as he/she gets older and becomes more defensive and less intimidated.
From the Paper
"Similarly, a child?s autonomy need not threaten a parent. Dr. Ginott saids, ?We help most by not helping.? How many parents are afraid of what will happen if their children fail? If their school project is not perfect or if their hair is sticking up or they wear clothes that are wrinkled? The problem is that the parents? self-esteem is so wrapped up in their children?s success or failure that it is taken as a personal affront. If the son a daughter does not make the team or get invited to a party, it is as if the parent did not make the grade. The child who is better prepared for the future is the one who has to remember to return his/her books to the library, finish a homework assignment or even makes the same mistake over again."
| |
|
?Liberated Parents, Liberated Children?, 2004.
A review of the parenting book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how authors Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish wrote their counter-cultural book, "Liberated Parents, Liberated Children: Your Guide to a Happier Family", regarding tips and tactics for parents to use as they raised children before the term ?counter-cultural? had become politically correct. It looks at how, in 1974, when the majority of children were being raised under the questionable, permissive advice of Dr. Spock, these authors focused on another aspect of child rearing. It looks at how they were significantly influenced by child psychologist Haim Ginott ,who believed that it was the emotional well-being of the child that would guide his actions.
From the Paper
"This differentiation between giving of ourselves to our children, and giving ourselves over to our children is the delicate line which Mazlish and Faber walk throughout their book as they discuss skills for parents to learn to build emotionally balanced and self-secure children. The approach which encourages parents to remain in their authority role in the child?s life, as well as equips the parent to connect with the child?s feeling is the element of this book which sets it apart from other works. Dr. Spock taught parents to reason with their children rather than correct them. By doing so, the well intentioned doctor instructed parents to abdicate an important role in their children?s development, which is the role of authority to which the child is accountable."
| |
|
Liberalism: Past and Present, 2004.
Examines a 1764 pamphlet on the ideas of liberalism and shows how these ideas differ from the concept of liberalism today.
2,800 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 1 source, APA, AU$ 120.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Liberalism has always encompassed the basic premise that individuals are fundamentally free. The political concept of liberalism has gone through some changes over the centuries, but the philosophical concept of liberalism has remained mostly unaltered. The paper shows that the ways in which liberal ideas were put into practice during the infancy of American civilization are illustrated through a widely acclaimed pamphlet written by Governor Stephen Hopkins and published by William Goddard, entitled ?The Rights of Colonies Examined.? This pamphlet was put into publication on December 22, 1764, and consecutive editions ran in 1765 and 1766. The paper explains that the pamphlet was written in response to the imposed Revenue Act of 1764, as well as a proposed Stamp Act, which would have only caused undue economic burdens on the American colonies. The paper shows, therefore, that the liberalism expressed at this point of history is different from contemporary liberalism, both politically and practically.
From the Paper
"The pamphlet argued that the equal privileges and rights held by those in America are held as ?inherent indefeasible rights?, and as free-born subjects, are naturally entitled to rights outlined in the British Constitution. However, the author suggested that the liberty situation among the American colonies seems to be changing for the worst. It was explained how the British ministry, for some unknown reason, had passed an act that limited and hindered trade of the American colonies, and also resolved that taxes, including a duty on stamps, was necessary. This was seen as undermining the principles of liberty the colonies, as well as the British constitution, were built upon."
| |
|
Liberalism: Great or Horrible, 2006.
A critique on liberalism based on the teachings of religion and the doctrines of Karl Marx.
2,248 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 2 sources, APA, AU$ 100.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that liberalism is a subject on which people have varying views and one which some philosophers and interest groups support. The paper then continues and discusses how other thinkers and individuals find liberalism to be lacking. This is either because liberalism, in their opinion, is flawed or they simply find that liberalism does not meet their personal needs. The paper specifically discusses Karl Marx's critique on liberalism, explaining that it is based on his understanding of the position of the economically deprived. Moreover, the paper compares Marx's views on liberalism with those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, as well as the views on liberalism that might be held by a religious person. The paper concludes that liberalism seems to be a good system of government for the present time, and while liberalism may not always be the best system of government, it seems be the best option for present day society.
From the Paper
" Marx believes that these fears move the wheels of society. This view varies from Hobbes, who believes that humans' fear and vulnerability is what makes all of us equal. Marx also firmly believes that in the modes of production there are many inequalities. Marx attests that inequalities are due to fact that the individual is kept un-free in capitalistic, money-driven societies. "This realm of natural necessity expands with his development, because his needs do too; but the productive forces to satisfy these expand at the same time". In this type of system Marx believes there is no need for humans to possess any kind of individuality, and that all creative forces are quashed. Marx again traces this back to the idea that capitalism has no need for the masses to possess any kind of individuality. Instead, he asserts that capitalism not only causes, but also encourages, the masses to be constantly producing. Marx gives an example of the concept of mass production; the example he offers is the assembly line. Marx also believes that the Capitalist's main goal is to take as much surplus value from labor as they possible can. Marx basically does not find liberalism to be a good system because he does not agree with the capitalistic system and he does not think that work defines human beings. He asserts that what one does to economically support him- or herself and family should not define the individual as a person, but the mere fact of being an individual human being should be what defines each member of society separately and uniquely. This is because Marx believes that individuals are not free and do not choose their jobs. This means that individuals are defined by not-choosing. Also, jobs are just a means to an economic end, and human creativity should instead be the end. In a capitalist government, the state enslaves the individual to his or her job and controls the person through it."
| |
|
1960s Liberalism, 2007.
A discussion on liberalism in the 1960s, focusing on the Civil Rights Movement.
2,100 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 4 sources, APA, AU$ 94.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines how modern liberalism reached a peak in the 1960s United States, when the Great Society program, initiated by President Johnson, resulted in a number of significant reforms. The paper discusses these reforms, particularly in the areas of civil rights and social welfare. The paper analyzes how, since the mid-1970s, however, there has been a definitive move away from liberalism and towards conservatism in the American society. The essay discusses reasons for this change.
Outline:
Introduction
The Philosophy of the 1960s' Liberalism & its Objectives
Accomplishments of 1960s Liberalism
Reasons for the Conservative Backlash
Conclusion
References
From the Paper
"In the recent history of the United States, liberalism had its heyday in the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement and feelings against social injustice in the American society culminated in the 'Great Society' program of LBJ that set the ambitious goals of eliminating poverty and racial injustice by launching major initiatives in the areas of education, health, urban problems, transportation, consumer protection, and the environment. Other spin-offs of the liberal era were the flowering of movement for Women's Liberation and the gay rights. From the mid-seventies onward, however, liberalism has gradually been overshadowed by a growing conservative tide in the US society to an extent that many observers have pronounced it 'dead and buried.'"
| |
|
Fundamentalism as a Response to Liberalism, 2006.
This paper compares and contrasts fundamentalism and liberalism.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 167.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper, based on Macedo, refers to Rorty and others, to explain present antipathy between liberalism and fundamentalism. The writer points out that liberalism has usually found its solution in all matters of religion in toleration, but fails to recognize that liberalism represents a kind of fundamentalism. The writer makes reference to Fromm and uses an example from Martin Luther King Jr. Further, the writer describes kinds of fundamentalism and what they may indicate of liberalism's failings.
From the Paper
"Liberalism has results other than the growing freedom or happiness posited by Utilitarian and later thought. Fundamentalism, as discussed by Macedo among others, indicates liberalism's failings when approaching human anxieties that may be expressed in a 'return to the past' as held up by fundamentalism. Macedo states that religious toleration, at first, does not seem to have much to do with contemporary political philosophy as it expects a firm separation of the religious and the secular. However, large questions facing political philosophy in the present happen to have to do with matters of not just religion but religious fundamentalism."
| |
|
American Liberalism, 2002.
Examines idea of Liberalism in American politics from 1776 to 1850 which stemmed from Federalist views and ultimately contributed partially to the Civil War.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Liberalism in America has both waxed and waned, but by the 1850's the idea of a large central government dictating the behavior of states and individuals was abhorrent to at least 50% of the states. When America began, while there was one voice for the creation of an independent nation, there were two distinct voices claiming legitimacy for the form which that new nation would take. The Republicans believed that the best form was an essentially toothless national government with very limited powers other than those of creating laws, forming the military, managing money and negotiating treaties. The Federalists believed that a strong central government with broad powers that would supercede states' rights was the proper course. Liberalism emerged from the Federalist view - the idea that the Federal Government could and should, provide for an individual-level of influence and benefit. Liberalism, then, was the politics of managing the lives of the citizens in the manner that the central government perceived would provide the greatest benefit. This concept has been part of the American political scene since then, in various forms, but while it was a movement in the first 75-years of the nation's history, a central distrust of large centralized governments stemming from the anti-English and anti-Monarchy sentiments. Liberalism was, in part, cause for the Civil War.
| |
|
Liberalism vs. Marxism, 2005.
This paper discusses theoretical differences between Liberalism and Marxism on the question of state formation, its function and especially its future, the withering away of the "state".
4,625 words (approx. 18.5 pages), 19 sources, APA, AU$ 172.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Marxist theory of the state is not only consistent with the understanding of society but also consistent with the historical facts, which reveals that the state is exploitative and infused with acute class bias, serving a particular end. The author points out that Liberalism falls short because it is an effort of the ruling class to replace the truth with lies and hide unpleasantness by portraying the state to be a need of society when it is really the need of only a certain class. The paper concludes that the reality of the state is only understood when it is analyzed through the lens of history, which is what Marxism does; a stateless society is not a fairy tale but a reality that existed in the past and will in the future, when it no longer serves one class. Chart. Many quotes.
Table of Contents
Liberalism
Marxism
Liberalism and the Development of the Social Contract Theory:
How does the State Wither Away According to Marx?
From the Paper
"Having turned the whole relation as it was understood upside down, Marx put forth that the civil society is "the real bedrock, real stage of history" . The state, envisioned to be a glorious classless entity, is in reality a political formation resulting from class struggles that are continuously developing in the heart of civil society. It is the "organ of a given system of production based upon a predominant form of property ownership, which invests the state with a specific class bias" . Thus, it is really the instrument, the organized political expression of the ruling economic class in the economy. Consequently, Marxism asserts that it is not the final stage in the process of human evolution or "an absolute and eternal being" , but a part of a stage bound to disappear as historical conditions change."
| |
|
Karl Marx and His Challenge of Liberalism, 2008.
An examination of Karl Marx's challenge to liberalism in "The Communist Manifesto."
1,831 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, AU$ 84.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Karl Marx challenged liberalism in works such as "The Communist Manifesto", in which he condemned capitalism and predicted that the exploited working classes of capitalistic societies would become alienated and overthrow the system of capitalism. The paper explains that Marx was convinced that once liberalism was discredited and capitalism was overthrown, there would be a brief period of rule by the dictatorship of the proletariat and then the classless society of communism would emerge. The paper also discusses how Marx believed that working class Germans should be the chief focus of his revolutionary efforts because the political consciousness of the proletariat in Germany was more developed than in any other country in Europe. The paper then examines liberalism and its impact on society, in order to fully analyze Marx's challenges to liberalism.
From the Paper
"Marx believed that many political, economic, and social changes would be necessary in the aftermath of a proletarian revolution, for in his view, the only way the proletariat could free itself from exploitation was to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat would have to destroy every remnant of bourgeois liberal culture because this culture perpetuated their misery. Family, religion, the worship of personalities, morality, and the legal system would all have to be abolished. According to Marx, the result of this abolishment would be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all.""
|
|
|
