Church of Scientology History, about the church its views, conflicts, Research Paper

Church of Scientology History, about the church its views, conflicts, problems and issues, and present day - Research Paper Example Thor hitting his enemies with his hammer, they were no longer afraid of it. It is rather surprising that later in history another type of religion appeared that dealt with much more complex issues, such as Christianity. However, in the previous century, the world witnessed various religions that were different from everything that was known before. This paper will explore the major tenets of Scientology, including some criticism that is aimed at it. To begin, one should point out that it is rather difficult to find one specific word that would describe Scientology. In some countries, for example in the United States it is legally recognized as a religion and as such is exempt from paying taxes. This is particularly important since it reflects the full acknowledgement as a spiritual teaching that is equal to such world religions as Christianity and Islam. On another hand, in some countries Scientology is viewed as a commercial organization and is treated accordingly. The justification for such approach comes for the peculiarities of some of its practices when people are able to receive counseling or knowledge for a fixed fee. Finally, some countries, like France, see Scientology as nothing but a cult (Kent,1999). It must be noted that the origins of Scientology is in the works of L. Ron Hubbard. At first, this person developed Dianetics: a teaching according to which people were able to get rid of the past that was supposedly holding them back (Horwitz, 1997, p. 88). Such approach toward personal evolution reflects the widely accepted trends of the 1950s when emotions were rejected and rationality was thought to dominate the world. However, as this practice was developed, some people noted that they were able to get in touch with their previous lives and reincarnation became of the most discussed themes. Unlike other people who would quickly dismiss it, Hubbard saw the potential in this

Management of human resource Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Management of human resource - Assignment Example This will result to errors in assessment. The last factor could be the changing job circumstances that may shift the goal post that were being used in the assessment (Hosie, 2006). Proper communication of the results and findings is a way that an individual can apply to bride the gap between the expectation and the actual outcome (Hosie, 2006). Another way that can be applied to cover this difference is through problem solving, which will eliminate all forms of errors, and wastages in the operations. Errors contribute to a decrease in performance, and therefore, avoiding them would be worthwhile. A person who is being rated can also work on interpersonal relationships that will foster teamwork and cooperation among the fellow workers (Chingos, 2002). The person assessing the rating should reconcile the difference by promoting the leadership spirit among the workers (Chingos, 2002). This will encourage continuous self-evaluation in the as an employee performs the tasks that are assigned to them, and enjoy more job satisfaction. The person should also acquire a better understanding of the multisource method to avoid ant y possible mistakes. The method that he chooses to use should be relevant to the nature of the business operations (Chingos,

The Stranger, Albert Camus

The Stranger, Albert Camus The Stranger, Albert Camus reader gluing book is all about an inane activities of Meursault the protagonist. The setting of this book is in Algiers; in the beginning of this wonderful novel we encounter the death of Maeursaults mother in Marengo. The author of this book wrote it in the first person style thus allowing the reader to view Meursault to be the sole individual that propels all the unfolding in the novel. For this matter, the author relays sequence of events that invokes Meursault to shoot a friend, he is imprisoned and his eventual death. With regard to all that Meursault does and does not do convicts the reader to call him an anti-hero. This paper seeks to discuss the anti-hero theme in The Stranger as written by Albert Camus. Death of Meursaults Mother Part one of the book describes Meursault as a person of indifferent towards emotion and interaction with others. When he receives the news of his mothers death he is not even carried away with emotions as one who has lost an important person in his life, (Bloom 20). In addition he only focuses on the physical and practical details surrounding the death of his mother. He is also depicted by the author as one who loves weather and other beautiful sceneries. In relation to this, he does not feel anything; neither grief nor sadness during his mothers funeral procession, (Camus 70). He also beliefs that, the world is meaningless and purposeless; the feelings of an anti-hero person and therefore, Meursault fulfills the anti-hero theme. The unique character of Meursault to certain events compels the reader to claim that Meursault is an anti-hero. For instance, before the death of his mother Meursault was looking forward to spending the weekend with Marie. After getting the information that his mother is dead, he appears heartless, doesnt express any grief or even get concerned, in fact he goes for swimming in a public beach spending good time with Marie. He doesnt seam affected by the death of his mother, he does stand with solidarity for his mother a complete character of anti-hero person. Meursaults conversation with his boss and other co-workers with regard to the death of his mother is cleverly avoided by Meursault. Furthermore, he changes the subject after giving a very short response. As much as his work mates express concern about the death of Meursaults mother, Meursault himself is adamant and does feel anything he continues working as usual. Meursault has a different personality which completely contrasts that of a focused and a determined person, (Enotes 5). He displays traits of a failure in life throughout the book. Lust and Lack of emotions Albert portrays Meursault as someone who is lustrous and having no feelings or passion. When he goes swimming with Marie we are told that he was intensely aroused at any moment he sees her. Consequently, after swimming, they all hurry to Meursaults apartment, spend the night together till the next day, (McCarthy 40). When Marie asks him if he really loved her, he replied that it doesnt mean anything and therefore, he doesnt think so. With regard to this event, Marie perceived Meursault as her hero who could eventually marry her but it turned out that he was not. Meursault is a person who lacks any ambition to accomplish anything substantial in life. For instance, when he is offered a position in a new office to be opened by his boss in Paris, Meursault replies that it is all the same to him. In addition when Marie asks Meursault if he wants to merry her, he says that it doesnt make any deference meaning that he has no feelings for her, (Sagi 20). Meursault is a non performer and therefore, an anti-hero character. Meursault is also portrayed as one who cannot make a distinction between two conflicting situations; unable to decide. For instance when he is given a gun by Raymond he has no capacity to neither to shoot nor not shoo. He is unable to make out the difference that exists between the two alternatives. When he murdered an Arab does not affect him in any way, it is inevitable that Meursault doesnt know the order and meaning of life. His acts are irrational completely describing somebody who is unable to accomplish a meaningful act given that Meursaults killing of the Arab was an act out of no reason, (Schwerner 25). These are actions of an anti-hero person. Arrest and Execution Part two of The Stranger begins with the arresting of Meursault for killing the Arab. When the court appoints a lawyer to investigate about Meursault, he establishes that Meursault is insensitive. When he is also taken to the examining magistrate, the magistrate concluded that Meursault has a hardened and irrevocable soul. It was also established that Meursault never believed in God and he never knew what caused to act the way he acted. Heroes believe in God and have a clear self understanding, but with this man Meursault, everything is different. He is an anti-hero and doesnt understand what he does with his life, (Showalter 15). When Marie visits Meursault in jail, she encourages him to have hope because she believes he will be acquitted and that they will get married as soon as he is out of prison. On the other hand Meursault is interested in mournful prisoners sitting besides him. When Marie leaves, Meursault sends a letter to her informing her that the authorities will not allow her to visit Meursault anymore. This indicates that Meursault is hopeless and does not know the meaning of life which a recipe of all heroes who have ever lived. Meursault confinement and imprisonment does not incite any guilt or regret over his actions, he only focuses on hi practical and physical situation rather than the emotional elements. He longs for nature, ocean, sex, and cigarettes rather than his freedom. As a hero one should think of how to get out of the prison and not issues that cannot him get acquitted. It is only in prison that Meursault starts to know about himself as to how he can adjust and live in any environment, (Sparknotes 3). Heroic minds have a vision of what living conditions they need, and strives to achieve the perceived condition, Meursault is not one of them, he has an anti-heroic minds. During Meursaults trials he is surprised to see people parked in the courtroom. Furthermore he passively observed the judgments leveled against him. Without even thinking of how he might help himself out of the prison or to get acquitted, he begins to ponder the fact of his inevitable death. In fact, he concludes that there is difference between dying soon by being executed and dying decades later of a natural death. This kind of thinking is inclined to failures in life, somebody who dont have hope and therefore no meaning for him to live. He is not a hero and therefore he can not live to the fact that one day he can have a better life full of meaning and hope, (Warsh 27). Conclusion In conclusion, Camus managed to display the anti-hero them in the book The Stranger. Meursault specifically was used to display different situation in which human beings are unable to think rationally and make rational decisions. The behavior and characters attached to Meursault are evident enough that a person can deviate from the true line of life of being determined, hopeful and ready to confront any situation for him come out successful. It is true that we have people who completely lack emotions and feelings and this is so strange as human life is concerned hence The stranger.

jack landon :: essays research papers fc

The idea of peaceful rebellion through nature is the basis for many books. Kipling was one of the first one to do it through many of his novels, but Jack London got a lot deeper into that concept. He was born in 1876 in San Francisco, an illegitimate child born to a single woman, but his mother did marry a man named John London, and named her son John London. This family moved a lot, but ended up in San Francisco again where John London, now known as Jack London worked in the bay patrol. Jack was one of the first ones to go to Alaska in the time of gold rush, he did not get rich with gold, but he recorded the Alaskan life and put it in his books. The series of books about Alaskan life are some of his most known works, such as "The Son of the Wolf" and White Fang, in which Jack London portrays the similar themes of the hard life in Alaska, the learning experience of men and animals, and the lifelong fight for survival. Oh what a hard life it was in Alaska. But why would anyone go there if it was so hard, one might ask. (Glass, 529) Well it was the gold rush of eighteen ninety eight, many looked north for a way to get rich easy, some looked for adventures, but there were not many of those. Jack London portrays the hard lives of the adventurers who went to the Klondike River valley for gold, but got a lot more than they burgeoned for. In one of the stories, from a collection called "The Son of the Wolf", Jack London described a mad hunt for gold. A person enters the yet innocent soil, near a stream, and as soon as he does, starts digging hungrily for gold. He finds some, but not even enough to keep, so he throws it away. He works without food for many hours, so engulfed by his task, that he doesn't even see that it's dark. This continues for several days, until he finds a lot of gold, by then the valley looks line a minefield. While digging he is shot in the back by a thief, but so overtaken by greed, he manages to beat his assassin down and kill him. And what's ironic, he wouldn't even touch a deer, but as his treasure is threatened to be taken away from him, he kills a person.

Gun Violence Essay

The issue of gun ownership and gun violence is highly controversial and has become highly controversial since the recent multiple massacres/shootings in schools and theatres. Controversy ensues between individual beliefs of who can own guns and how to control gun violence. The recent massacres/shootings bring into stark, shocking reality that gun ownership isn’t as controlled as it should, leading to gun violence. As quoted from Steve Mostyn, a Texas trial lawyer, â€Å"Lemme tell you†¦I own thirty-five guns. You know I like to shoot. Last week I went to a local gun store near my house and bought three thousand rounds of ammunition†¦The same month†¦he sold an old rusted Jet Ski trailer for $200. The buyer showed up, hooked the trailer to his truck, and drove away. A few days later, the man asked Mostyn to meet him at the local DMV so they could fill out some paperwork necessary to transfer ownership of the trailer.† Steve continues, â€Å"So I had to go downtown and take the time to fill out a bunch of forms about an old trailer†¦You know how much paperwork I had to do to buy three thousand rounds of ammo? Nothing. (pg 25)† Steve, who supports tighter background checks when buying guns and ammunition, brings to light the reality that guns are being sold with a seemingly careless attitude. One side of the issue believes that gun violence is to blame on video games, the media, and weak federal gun prosecutions. The other side of the issue believes that gun violence is to blame on weak/no background checks when buying guns. These background checks include checks of serious previous and/or current mental health issues. The NRA (National Rifle Association) believes that gun violence is mainly a result of the media, video games, and weak federal gun prosecutions. Gabrielle and Mark, the authors of the book, are just one voice amongst many Americans who believe  weak/no background checks are the cause of gun violence. Honestly, I agree with both sides. I believe that video games, weak federal gun prosecutions, and weak/no background checks are to blame for gun violence. I don’t think the media has a large influence on gun violence. America’s long-standing traditions and mottos of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include a footnote of gun ownership. I think that some-most Americans take the definition of protecting these American ideals too far with gun violence. Every American has a right to concealed carry, open carry, and gun ownership for the protection of individuals, families, and the home. To go out a massacre humans because of mental instability and inappropriate contextual belief of American values is wrong. My belief, along with other citizen’s beliefs, is important in the issue of gun violence/gun ownership because it is a controversial issue that rests largely in each American citizen’s hands. The government and legal officials’ roles is to help ensure that whatever decision is taken in this issue is enforced.

Land Law Essay

Proprietary estoppel protects a person who has a non contractual agreement over land but they have suffered a detriment due to them acting upon a reliance based on an assurance made by the claimant. There has been much discussion in recent case law and academic commentaries as to the elements which make up the nature of proprietary estoppel. Unconscionaibility is a major point for discussion in deciding whether it should be treated as a separate element or if it is linked into the three main elements. This essay will consider and discuss the nature of proprietary estoppel and the two views on unconscionaibility; whether there will always be unconscionaibility if there has been a non-performance of an assurance causing the claimant to suffer a detriment based on the assurance which they relied on or if unconscionaibility should be proven as a separate element in each case. The starting point of proprietary estoppel was in the case of Willmott v Barber (1880) where five criteria were laid down, which had to be satisfied by a person claiming proprietary estoppel and the courts applied these criteria to a wide range of proprietary estoppel claims. However these criteria were criticised for being too strict leading to the broader approach established in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co Ltd (1982) where Oliver J stated: ‘whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment’. Although the approach became broader there still remained essential elements which must be satisfied for a successful claim. The more modern approach towards proprietary estoppel is based on three main elements, firstly an assurance of land or property being made to the claimant, the claimant relying on the assurance which has been made and finally the claimant suffering a detriment as a consequence of relying on the assurance made. The main point for discussion and questioning in proprietary estoppel is the role of unconscionaibility and whether it should be treated as a fourth element which too must be satisfied in order for a claim to be successful or if unconscionaibility is interlinked with the other elements of proprietary estoppel. Proprietary estoppel acts as ‘a sword and a shield’ and can be used in one of two ways. ‘Put positively, the reason why it is possible to use proprietary estoppel to generate a property interest in a favour of a claimant despite the absence of the normal formality rules is because of the need to prevent unconscionable conduct. This is why unconscionaibility is the foundation of estoppel. It is the antidote to the otherwise fatal absence of formality. ’ This is one of the views on unconscionaibility which suggest that unconscionaibility is at the heart of proprietary estoppel rather than a separate element of it. The first element of proprietary estoppel is encouragement where the claimant’s belief that they would have some rights over land or property has been encouraged by the promisor and this could have been done actively or passively. Active encouragement is seen in common expectation cases where the claimant has been actively persuaded through an express representation as in Inwards v Baker (1965) where a son was actively encouraged to build on his fathers land in the expectation that it would be his in the future. Common expectation cases are dealt with more generously by judges, compared to passive cases, as the promisor has lead the claimant to have a reasonable belief that they would acquire the land therefore leading them to rely upon that assurance causing them to suffer a detriment. It would be seen as unconscionable in a common expectation case for the claimant to have been encouraged to suffer a detriment for the promisor to then go back on their assurance, meaning that unconscionaibility is instantly a running theme in the elements as it can be seen at the first instance and should therefore not be treated as a separate element. The encouragement could also be passive, for example a land owner standing by watching someone build on their land knowing that somebody is acting under a mistaken belief. The nature of a passive expectation made to the claimant can be distinguished in commercial and domestic cases as was seen in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd (2008) where the House of Lords established that the expectation of an interest in land should not be vague in a commercial situation. The expectation should be for ‘a certain interest in land’ for proprietary estoppel purposes which was not the expectation held by Cobbe therefore the expectation was held to be too vague. Lord Scott stated ‘Unconscionaibility in my opinion plays a very important part in the doctrine of equitable estoppel, in unifying and confirming, as it were, the other elements. If the other elements appear to be present but the result does not shock the conscience of the court, the analysis needs to be looked at again. This statement shows how case law endorses the unconscionaibility approach as being interlinked with the other elements of proprietary estoppel however if all of the elements are not satisfied there can not be a claim for proprietary estoppel as is the case here. In domestic (family) cases, the nature of the expectation doesn’t have to be so specific as long as there is an interest or right in land that would amount to a significant expectation. The assura nce made must be clear enough so that claimant is found to have relied upon. Lord Walker stated in the case of Thorner v Major (2009) â€Å"There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive and uncontroversial†¦the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance† One view on unconscionaibility stated that ‘Once there has been detrimental reliance on an assurance, it is unconscionable to withdraw it’ therefore if it cannot be proven that an assurance existed then it wont be unconscionable for it to be withdrawn showing that unconscionaibility is a running theme within proprietary estoppel rather than a separate element. One difficulty in deciding these kinds of cases is that although an assurance has been made to the claimant in the way of a will, the claimant is also aware th at the will could be revoked at any time therefore the question to be asked is whether their reliance based on the assurance was adequate. The second element of proprietary estoppel is reliance where the claimant must have been encouraged to rely on the promisor’s assurance which has caused them to suffer a detrimental loss by changing their position and there must be a sufficient causal link between this in that the encouragement must have caused the detriment suffered. Reliance can not be treated as an element alone it has to have caused a change in the position of the claimant, if no detriment has been suffered then there can be no claim for proprietary estoppel. There are several ways in which the courts can show how the claimant was influenced to rely on the encouragement; firstly is by clearly showing that there has been a change in position by the claimants positive act, for example the claimant spending money on the land or making property improvements based on the assurance that it will become theirs, causing them to suffer a detriment. Where the claimant has acted in a way different to what he would had the assurance not been made nd relied on this can also show how the encouragement has influenced the reliance causing a detriment as in Jones (AE) v Jones (FW) (1977) where a son acted on the assurance of property becoming his left his job and house to live with his father, however had the assurance not had been made he would not have done this leading to the detriment that he suffered. There can be a presumption made that the claimant relied on the assurances given to them based on there conduct and in these cases the burden is put onto the other party to prove that the claimant did not rely on the promises made and this is hard to prove as it is a subjective matter based on the claimants state of mind. This was the case in Greasley v Cooke (1980) where the defendant did not have to prove that she relied on assurances as it was presumed from her conduct. The final element of proprietary estoppel is that the person must have suffered a detriment due to the reliance on the assurance which has caused a change in their position. The detriment suffered can be in many forms not just that of financial detriment although it must be substantial in making it unconscionable for the land owner to withdraw their promise of land to the claimant. Walton v Walton (1994) shows where financial detriment wasn’t the main detriment suffered, the claimant had suffered a personal detriment as he had spent years of his life relying on the assurance made to him that the farm would one day be his, and he couldn’t get those years of his life back. Public policy in formalities of contracts plays a major part in the deciding claims for proprietary estoppel. Section 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Previsions) Act 1989 states that (1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document, or where contracts are exchanged, in each. This act stops informalities in land transfers where a claimant would be expected to sign up a contract but hasn’t done so, as in Cobbe, and this is where they would turn to proprietary estoppel to try and show that the detriment which they have suffered is due to the unconsionability of the removal of the assurance which they had originally relied on. Proprietary estoppel acts as a way around formalities and a form of protection for those who have not followed contractual formalities in the transfer of land. Why should people be able to use proprietary estoppel to make a claim for land where they have followed formalities and drawn up a contract as in Cobbe, it can be seen that it is not unconscionable for the promisor to withdraw as there is no contractual agreement. However in domestic cases where there wouldn’t always be an expectation of a legal contract to be drawn up proprietary estoppel can stop unfair decisions being made due to the lack of formalities where it would be unconscionable for the defendant to suffer a detriment due to an assurance on which they have relied. There are clearly two competing arguments against proprietary estoppel, the first being that ‘once there has been detrimental reliance on an assurance, it is unconscionable to withdraw it. Indicating that unconscionaibility is a function of the three elements. If unconscionaibility was seen as a separate element then it would be pointless in having formalities as it wouldn’t matter whether it was unconscionable or not as long as the other elements had been satisfied. The second view on unconscionaibility is that of it being a separate fourth element and in some circumstance this can be seen as being successful for example in commercial cases where the first three elements of proprietary estoppel have been established but it would be unconscionable for the claimant to benefit due to the lack of formalities and contractual agreement.