Unit v assignment template dialoguetimothy we had another

1. Unit V Assignment Template
Dialogue:
Timothy: We had another rough week with our fundraising
efforts. It seems like no one wants to contribute to our non-
profit. We will either have to close down our non-profit or
increase our fundraising efforts significantly. Since we are not
significantly increasing our fundraising, we will have to close
down our non-profit.
Felicia: Yeah, things are not looking good for us, but Timothy, I
am not sure that this is an either-or situation. There are other
possibilities besides the two that you presented. It is possible,
for example, that we can increase our fundraising a little more
(and thus not significantly) without having to completely close
down our wonderful tutoring non-profit. We just need enough
money to continue to pay our tutors who are doing a great job in
offering tutoring to students who cannot afford expensive math
and science tutoring.
Amanda: That’s true, Felicia, but we need some smart
fundraising ideas. I think advertising our fundraising dinners on
social media sites is a good idea. We should advertise on those
sites. It is a good idea because millions of companies are
advertising on social media sites.
Felicia: Amanda, you are absolutely right! Advertising our
fundraising dinners on social media sites is a good idea, but it is
not a good idea because it is popular. Sometimes, things that are
popular are not necessarily good.
Timothy: That sounds great! Does anyone have any other
ideas?

2. Amanda: Well...for 30 years now we have advertised in our
local newspaper. It has been a strong tradition since our
founder, Jason Smith, started Smith Tutoring 40 years ago.
Since it has been a tradition, I think we should keep advertising
in our local newspaper.
Felicia: I disagree, Amanda. Just because something is tradition
does not mean it is good. Besides, people do not buy the
newspaper as much as they used to, and that is because of the
internet. Our local newspaper has seen a significant drop in
readership.
Amanda: I see your point Amanda. How about this? How about
we go to the advertising firm that is right next door, Smart Ads.
They are a very successful advertising company as a whole. I
have seen their ads. Since they are a great advertising company
as whole, I bet their individual employees are also great. We
can go in there first thing tomorrow and talk to one of their
employees because they will be phenomenal.
Timothy: That sounds like a great idea! It might not be the case
that every employee is great just because the company is great.
What is good about a group is not also good about the
individual member of that group, but I think we should
definitely go and talk to someone there.
Amanda: Sounds good to me!
Felicia: Me too!
Fallacy:
Conclusion:

3. Premise(s):
How it is corrected:
Lyceum Address
As one of Abraham Lincoln's earliest published speeches, this
address has been much scrutinized and debated by historians,
who see broad implications for his later public policies. Lincoln
was 28 years old at the time he gave this speech and had
recently moved from a struggling pioneer village to Springfield,
Illinois.
William Herndon, who would become Lincoln's law partner in
1844, describes the event this way: "we had a society in
Springfield, which contained and commanded all the culture and
talent of the place. Unlike the other one its meetings were
public, and reflected great credit on the community ... The
speech was brought out by the burning in St. Louis a few weeks
before, by a mob, of a negro. Lincoln took this incident as a sort
of text for his remarks ... The address was published in
the Sangamon Journal and created for the young orator a
reputation which soon extended beyond the limits of the locality

4. in which he lived."
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield,
Illinois
January 27, 1838
As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of
our political institutions, is selected.
(The following are excerpts from Lincoln’s speech)
When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or
burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion
usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to
hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer
as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the
mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some
of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the
innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations
of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the
ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the
walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of
individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this
even, is not the full extent of the evil.--By such examples, by
instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the
lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice;
and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment,
they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.--Having ever
regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a
jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing
so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand,
good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the
laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their
blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property
destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered;
their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that
forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and
disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection;
and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they

5. have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this
mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the
land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly
of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down
and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever
this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious
portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of
hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob
provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot
editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and
with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By
such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more
or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends,
or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their
friendship effectual. At such a time and under such
circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be
wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn
that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the
fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.
……………….
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws,
let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor
that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal
provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I
do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be
repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force,
for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So
also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal
provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but,
till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of
abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is,
the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the
protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and

6. therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in
neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary,
justifiable, or excusable.
Excerpts from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a
Birmingham jail, 1963:
1. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is
here.
2. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all
communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not
be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an
inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of
destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial
"outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United
States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its
bounds.
3. Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with
leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of
the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--
for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. As
the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the
victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed,
returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences,
our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep
disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to
prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very
bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of
the local and the national community. Mindful of the
difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self
purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence,
and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept

7. blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal
of jail?"
4. Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one
determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man
made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.
An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral
law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust
law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural
law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law
that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation
statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and
damages the personality. Hence segregation is not only
politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is
morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is
separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's
tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible
sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954
decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can
urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are
morally wrong.
5. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust
laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power
majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not
make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the
same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a
minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is
sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is
unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being
denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the
law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up
that state's segregation laws was democratically elected?
Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to
prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are
some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a
majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can
any law enacted under such circumstances be considered

8. democratically structured?
6. Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its
application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of
parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in
having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But
such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain
segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege
of peaceful assembly and protest
7. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point
out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as
would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One
who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with
a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual
who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who
willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse
the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality
expressing the highest respect for law.
8. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil
disobedience. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians,
who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain
of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of
the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality
today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own
nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil
disobedience.
9. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in
Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom
fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and
comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had
I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and
comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist
country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are
suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's
antireligious laws.
10. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The
yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is

9. what has happened to the American Negro. If one recognizes
this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one
should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking
place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent
frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let
him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on
freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his
repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they
will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a
fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your
discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and
healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of
nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed
extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being
categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the
matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the
label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down
like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was
not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my
body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an
extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me
God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my
days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham
Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free."
And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident,
that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not
whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we
will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be
extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension
of justice? Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in
dire need of creative extremists
I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that
circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of

10. you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a
fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that
the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the
deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear
drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow
the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our
great nation with all their scintillating beauty.
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther
King, Jr.
Published in:
King, Martin Luther Jr.
Questions to consider:
a. In paragraph #2 explain Dr. King’s statement regarding
injustice.
b. In paragraph #3 compare Dr. King’s statement to that
expressed by Patrick Henry’s (Give me liberty or give me death)
statement during the American Revolution.
c. Review paragraphs #4-7 concerning just vs. unjust laws. Do
you agree with Dr. King’s reasoning for obeying certain laws
but disobeying others? Explain. To what is Dr. King referring to
in paragraph #4 when he cites the 1954 Supreme Court
decision?
d. In paragraph #8 Dr. King references the 1773 Boston Tea
Party. Why is he using this incident in American history in his
discussion of civil disobedience in 1960’s Birmingham?
e. In paragraph #10 Dr. King invokes Lincoln and Jefferson as
extremists. Do you agree/disagree with this characterization of
them by Dr. King? Explain.
f. Finally, in paragraph #10 Dr. King foresees a more
‘globalization’ of extremism when he states the world is in need
of extremism. Was he correct? Explain.