people who have committed felonies are not permitted to serve on juries in many states.Also, in Tennessee and Arkansas. there are laws barring atheists from serving on juries and other public service positions. Sometimes,felons are denied the right to vote.Are these restrictions reasonable or discriminatory? why/why not? Are there other categories or actions that should also bar people from participating in "being the neighbors who judge and resolve disputes" across America? Use examples from history,literature,personal experience,community service,biographies,or science.
If all you do is post your entire assignment, with no evidence of thinking on your part, nothing will happen since no one here will do your work for you.
But if you are specific about what you don't understand about the assignment or exactly what help you need, someone might be able to assist you. Ask specific questions!
i need some explanations please
The question is asking you to evaluate the ethics behind the topic. WHat do you think when you read that topic?
Does it work, is it fair etc.
Explanations of what?
Use this site if you need definitions:
http://www.answers.com
The Arkansas and Tennessee laws you mention are clearly not just discriminatory, but also unconstitutional. I am surprised they have not been challenged.
I suggest you review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
to assist with your SAT essay.
It is much more than the predominate Bible belt states of Arkansas and Tennessee.
http://www.atheistwa.org/Reports/statediscrimination.html
Determining whether these restrictions are reasonable or discriminatory is a complex and subjective matter, as it often depends on individual perspectives, societal values, and legal considerations. However, I can provide some analysis and examples to help you understand different viewpoints on the matter.
1. Restrictions on felons serving on juries:
The rationale behind restricting felons from serving on juries is often based on concerns about impartiality and trustworthiness. Critics argue that those who have committed serious crimes may have biases or personal experiences that could affect their ability to judge a case objectively. On the other hand, proponents of allowing felons to serve on juries argue for inclusivity and ensuring a diverse range of perspectives in the decision-making process.
Example: In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution allows states to restrict felons' rights, including the right to serve on juries. Advocates for reform argue that denying felons the ability to participate on juries perpetuates inequality and adversely affects minority communities disproportionately.
2. Restrictions on atheists serving on juries and public service positions:
Laws that bar atheists from serving on juries or holding public service positions are often seen as discriminatory, as they infringe upon the principles of freedom of religion and non-discrimination. These restrictions are often based on the assumption that religious beliefs are necessary to ensure an individual's moral character or credibility. However, critics argue that one's religious beliefs should not determine their capability to fulfill civic responsibilities.
Example: The Tennessee law barring atheists from serving on juries was challenged in 2017, with the court ruling it unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court stated that excluding atheists from serving violated their rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.
Other considerations for participation in civic judgments:
There are ongoing debates about potential restrictions on participation in jury service or public positions beyond felonies and atheism. Some arguments in favor of additional restrictions may include concerns related to conflicts of interest, professional qualifications, health conditions, or severely biased viewpoints.
Example: People with severe mental health conditions might be seen as less capable of making sound judgments, while individuals with strong extremist ideologies might be viewed as posing a risk to impartial decision-making. However, any such restrictions would need to balance considerations of individual rights and the principles of democracy.
It is important to note that the examples and viewpoints provided are not exhaustive, and perspectives on these issues may vary greatly. Public discourse, legal analyses, and ongoing societal debates continue to shape the discussion around these restrictions.