Marketing Pl Essential Barbershop - 2613 Words

ESSENTIALS BARBERSHOP Marketing Plan Essential Barbershop Marketing Plan Contents I. Executive Summary 2 1.1 Mission Statement 2 II. Situation Analysis 2 2.1 Market Needs 2 2.2 SWOT Analysis 3 2.2 Competition 4 III. Market Customer analysis 5 3.1 Market Analysis 5 3.2 Customer Analysis 5 IV. Marketing Strategy 6 4.1 Objectives/Goals 6 4.2 Target Marketing 6 4.3 Advertising Promotion 7 4.1 Product Service Analysis 7 V. Financial Projections 8 5.1 Marketing Budget 8 5.2 Expense and Sales Forecast 9 VI. Implementation Plan 9 VIIII. Evaluation and control metrics 9 I. Executive Summary Essential Barbershop is conveniently located at 13000 City Station Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32218. We offer a vast amount of products and†¦show more content†¦2.1 Market Needs In order to appeal to the customers it is important to understand what they value as a necessity. Essential Barbershop intends on addressing those necessities so that our customer’s needs are met. ïÆ'Ëœ Economical Prices – We offer the cheapest haircuts within our 5 mile radius because customers are always looking for ways to save money on items. An average haircut in America is somewhat pricy at $28. Our prices are almost half of the national average and will be appealing to the surrounding customers. The estimated annual household income for the area around the barbershop is $52K with half of that population being married couples with dual income. Our prices help them save money while catering to the need of haircuts. The lower prices also help establish a customer base and as a start-up business it helps build customer capital. ïÆ'Ëœ Professional Services – Our barbers are trained, certified professionals and understand that their appearance, attitude, and work should be nothing less than professional at all times. A common assumption of lower priced items is a loss of quality and we aim to prove that opinion doesn’t apply at our barbershop because you receive the high quality at a low price. ïÆ'Ëœ Customer Service Comfort – Customer Service is listed as the last bullet but Is most important need to be addressed. It makes the difference in whether the customer returns to patronize, or spreads positive or negative feedback to potential customers.

Religion and Politics Essay - 2773 Words

Religion and Politics Historically, religion and politics have always played a very significant part in our everyday lives, dating back to the ancient pharaohs of Africa to our modern day society, religion have had a profound effect on our existence as a society. For a good example of how religion affects politics in our modern world we need not look very far but in our own backyard. The influence of Catholicism on Latin American politics, and the role religion plays on Middle Eastern politics have had a profound affect in those related societies. After examining the affects of religion into the above mentioned societies it is clear that the introduction of religion into politics has proven to be suppressive and†¦show more content†¦In Brazil its over 15 percent; in Guatemala its over 20 percent. In countries like Uruguay, its probably still below 5 percent. Protestantism, and especially Pentecostalism, is disproportionately associated with the poor, the less educated and the darker skin ned. Membership is predominantly female. And although it doesnt have the classic Protestant work ethic and operates in a very different economic context, there is significant evidence for individual economic improvement as disorganized lives become more organized and the capacity to survive increases markedly. Political involvement by Protestants is not recent. But since the 1980s, it has increased tremendously, especially with the involvement of Pentecostal denominations. Two Protestant presidents have governed Guatemala, and in some countries, such as Brazil, there have been large Protestant congressional caucuses. Over 20 political parties of Protestant inspiration have been founded in various countries, although none has achieved much success. Much Protestant political activity has been very conservative and/or oriented toward institutional aggrandizement, leading in some countries to a significant worsening of the public image of Protestants as a whole. On the other side of the planet with some similarities to Latin America in terms of the level of entrenchment or the marriage of religion and politics, the role that religion plays in politics isShow MoreRelatedReligion, Politics, And Politics Essay2149 Words   |  9 Pages Religion and politics have been inextricably intertwined since the creation of culture and civilization. However, the academic tradition often times has been to focus on the importance of placing religion and politics into two distinctly separate systems. I, however, argue that it isn t as black and white as that. In many of the readings we have been assigned this quarter thus far, religion and politics have gone hand in hand mutually benefiting one another. As shown in these readings, religionRead MoreReligion And Politics And Religion926 Words   |  4 PagesReligion and politics are two topics that should never be discussed. The reasoning behind this statement is because both are very controversial, especially religion. The term religion in itself does not have a proper definition because it varies based on what an individuals’ response the question of: what is religion? Throughout history, religions and belief systems have been associated with wars, persecution, diasporas, etc., which ultimately infers that religion is at the core of violence, hatredRead More Religion and Politics1957 Words   |  8 Pagesthe modern world. Where does Christianity fit in terms of one’s choice in elected officials? What about the Gospel of Jesus Christ in relation to one’s social circle, one’s choices in reading material, or one’s favorite bands? The tangled enigma of religion and society is pressingly relevant in this present age, but it has existed for millennia. Jesus himself famously grappled with the issue when dealing with both the Roman government (â€Å"give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s† (LukeRead MoreRegime, Religion and Politics670 Wor ds   |  3 PagesRegime, Religion and Politics For many years, religion has been peripheral to the concerns of political philosophers, but it actually means the connection between human beings and God or gods, or whatever they consider sacred. On the other hand, there is another crucial factor called â€Å"Democracy†, which is by far the most challenging form of the state - both for politicians and for individuals. The term â€Å"democracy† comes from Greek language and it means â€Å" rule by the people†. In this essay, IRead MoreReligion, Culture, And Politics942 Words   |  4 PagesAmerican life, culture and politics. Similarly, the fact that many people adhere to other faiths affects American life, culture, and politics as well. In general, religion plays a positive role within society, so long as it does not prohibit others from living how they want to live. As a child, being raised Catholic of course meant attending Church on Sunday, but it also meant many other things as well. Being raised Catholic meant learning as much as possible about my religion, going to confessionRead MoreThe Between Politics And Religion1423 Words   |  6 Pages1. Islam, as we saw early in this course, began with a fusion of religion and politics. How do the various approaches to Islam we ve studied—traditionalism as represented by the ‘ulama, Sufism, Islamism, and modernism—differ in conceiving of the relationship between the two? Does each necessarily have a vision of an Islamic engagement with politics and, if so, what does it look like? The interaction between politics and religion in the Islamic context is one that descends from the model of theRead MoreThe Tangling Of Religion And Politics1399 Words   |  6 PagesThe Tangling of Religion and Politics Religion and politics are quite mingled into society both in the developed countries as well as in developing countries. Religion and politics are two divisions of a single person. Religion speaks for a person’s moral values and beliefs and politics reaches out to one’s secular lifestyle. People involved in society may have deep rooted religious beliefs that control their behaviors and thought process and most times impact their political stance and ideologyRead MoreReligion Within Politics1358 Words   |  6 Pages Incorporation of Religion in Politics Arman Gevorgyan California State University, Sacramento  Hobbes and Locke had different, yet slightly similar, views on the relationship of religion within politics. While Locke’s essay portrayed himself to have more of a religious foundation in his doctrine, Hobbes did not speak of religion too often, and whenever religion was spoken, it was not very in the Leviathan. Hobbes used the forms of senses and imagination to discredit or to divert of supernaturalRead More Religion and Politics Essay1761 Words   |  8 PagesReligion and Politics Both liberals and conservatives have become quite adept at mixing religion and politics in our current society. One also continues to observe an ongoing practice of civil religion demonstrated by presidents and office-seekers on both the left and right. Generally, the leftist merger ofRead MoreA Study of Religion in Politics3234 Words   |  13 PagesPolicy, Elections, and People A Study of Religion in Politics Introduction Religion has always played a large role in politics. Religion has played a role in the division of parties, political policy, and in influencing voters to vote for a particular candidate. It is presumed that religion has existed since the beginning of time and that it stills holds a prominent position in what occurs in today’s society. Religion, no matter what belief a person may have, often regulates what a person believes

Anselms Ontological Argument and Gaunilos Response Essay Example For Students

Anselms Ontological Argument and Gaunilos Response Essay This essay aims to outline the Ontological Argument, proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, to prove the existence of God (in particular the Christian God). It also discusses Gaunilo’s objection to the ontological argument with the use of the â€Å"Lost Island† analogy. And finally offers an opinion as to whether or not Gaunilo’s objection successfully refutes Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s ontological argument, sourced from the â€Å"Proslogium† (with himself as the author), is a highly controversial argument that aims to prove the existence of God. This argument is an attempt of an a priori proof, that which uses purely uses intuition and reasoning alone (Oppy G. 1996). The argument (simplified) is as follows: ?One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived. ?We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone. ?If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a â€Å"being than which none greater can be conceived†. ?A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality. Failure to exists in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived. ?Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God. It is good to note, while tackling this argument, Anselm’s point of view in developing his argument. First, this, (the Proslogium in general), was written from a Christian perspective, wherein the author may have some form of ‘presupposed bias’ (for lack of a be tter term) towards the existence of the being in question. We will write a custom essay on Anselms Ontological Argument and Gaunilos Response specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Second, the author’s intention for developing such an argument was not for the purpose of convincing non-Christians of the truth of his beliefs, but rather for the purpose of existing believers seeking rationale for his or her faith (Deane S. 1962). It is unsurprising that this argument is highly controversial and receives as much criticism as it had and still does. Many philosophers including St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers have openly criticized this argument each with his own objections. Gaunilo’s objection is one of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm’s argument. Though Gaunilo believed that God exists he didn’t think that Anselm’s proof was valid (Bernard C. Stairs A. 2007). Using an analogy to a â€Å"Lost Island†, an island supposed to be the greatest or most perfect island conceivable, he claims that by using the logic of Anselm’s argument, we are then able to ‘prove’ the Lost Island’s existence, in which such an island is highly unlikely to exist. ? Exploring in more detail, a look at the objection may help, the objection goes as such: ? The lost island exists in the understanding but not in reality. ?Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. ?Existence in reality is conceivable. ?If the lost island did exist in reality, then it would be greater than it is. ?It is conceivable that there is an island greater than the lost island is. ?It is conceivable that there is an island greater than the island than which nothing greater can be conceived. ?This, however, is contradictory. Therefore: ?It must be false that the lost island exists in the understanding but not in reality. Lecture Notes) In a nutshell, the objection implies that if Anselm’s argument is sound, then it is also possible to prove existence for other things such as his perfect island which none greater can be conceived, thereby proving the existence of something that we may or may not necessarily believe to exist or have a logical way of existing. It does not, however, point out as to where the original argument is flawed, but simpl y uses other examples to show that it is somehow fallacious. ? .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .postImageUrl , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:hover , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:visited , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:active { border:0!important; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:active , .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u440155fe031339c52fd65e14d505dbfa:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Alexander The Great EssayThe question of whether or not Gaunilo’s objection successfully refutes Anselm’s argument remains relative and answers tend to be opinionated and dependent on the author of that particular answer. And as such, my opinion in the matter is that Gaunilo’s objection does not successfully refute Anselm’s argument, however, I also don’t find that Anselm’s argument would suffice as proof for the existence of God. A counterargument for Gaunilo’s objection is that of the island being something that is contingent. It has been argued by Anselm, as a response to Gaunilo, that for the ontological argument to work, the definitions must make sense. A being than which none can be greater poses the idea that it MUST exist in order to fulfil its description of being a being than which none greater can be conceived. However, the idea of the â€Å"perfect island† (or any contingent thing for that matter) does not necessarily have to exist. The problem is that when we talk about any of these things, we’re talking about something that’s inherently limited and, perhaps, inherently imperfect (Bernard C. Stairs A. 2007). Gaunilo’s objection, on the other hand, successfully shows that there is a flaw in trying to ‘reason out’ existence (or at least in this form of argument anyway). The argument is often criticized as fallacious falling under the category of being a ‘bare assertion fallacy’, a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. I find that this is true from the opening premise of the invitation to â€Å"imagine a being than which no greater being can be conceived†; from this premise alone, the term â€Å"being† already presupposes an idea of existence before existence is proven. Simply put, the argument seems to say â€Å"I have to exist† (Premise), therefore â€Å"I exist†. (Conclusion) ? On a final note, I think that Anselm’s response of necessary existence proved that Gaunilo’s objection does in fact fail to refute his argument. But, in spite of being able to debunk Gaunilo’s objection (in my opinion anyway), it still doesn’t help in gaining validity for his argument in proving the existence of God. References: Anselm and Gaunilo, Proslogian, in Timothy A. Robinson (ed. ) God, 2nd edition, Hackett Publishing Company, 2002. - Aquinas, T. , Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 2, Article 1. - Bernard, C. Stairs, A. (2007), A Thinkers Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, Pearson Longman. - Sidney N. Deane, ed (1962). Proslogion. St. Anselm: Basic Writings. trans. by Sidney D. Deane. Chicago: Open Court. - Oppy, G. (1996), Ontological Arguments and Belief in God.

The Role of Founding Fathers in American Society and Religion

The debates of whether faith groups and institutions should/should not be allowed to actively participate in the ongoing construction of the America’s public sphere continue to have a strong effect on the realities of a contemporary living in this country.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Role of Founding Fathers in American Society and Religion specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More One of the main aspects of these debates is that, while striving to promote their point of view on the concerned subject matter, the proponents of both diametrically opposite approaches often make references to what used to be the opinions of the Founding Fathers, in this respect. As a result, Founding Fathers are being often regarded as both: the opponents of the idea that religion should be incorporated into the country’s public life, as its integral component, and this idea’s advocates. This, of course, contribut es substantially to the fact that, as of today, American citizens remain rather divided in their opinions as to what kind of a role should religion play in the society. However, while indulging in the earlier mentioned debates, the proponents of both approaches seem to remain unaware that, during the course of the last century, the American society has undergone a dramatic transformation. This is why, as of today, the validity of the Founding Fathers’ insights, in regards to the issue of religion, cannot be discussed outside of what accounts for the qualitative aspects of the era of post-modernity. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the above-suggestion at length, while arguing that the constitutional principle of the separation between Church and State remains thoroughly valid and that the so-called ‘people of faith’ will be much better off not meddling in the country’s public affairs. The main argument, to which religious Americans refer, whil e trying to prove the legitimacy of their claim that they should be allowed to exert a strong influence on the process of a political/social decision-making in America, is that the First Amendment to the U.S.Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Constitution clearly entitles Americans with the right to practice their religious beliefs freely, â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (First Amendment, 2013, para. 1). The same Amendment also guarantees that, regardless of what happened to be the specifics of people’s religious affiliation, they will not be discriminated against. Another common argument, brought forward by religious citizens, in defense of their claim that they have the right to influence the government’s functioning, is that initially, the overwhelming majority of early Ameri can settlers consisted of bible-thumping Protestants. Even the majority of liberally minded Founding Fathers and most prominent American intellectuals, affiliated with them, were formally religious. For example, as Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur pointed out, â€Å"As Christians†¦ our thoughts are left to God† (1781, para. 7). Nevertheless, it often skips the religious people’s attention that back in the early days of America, the measure of one’s religious faithfulness used to be considered reflective of the extent of his or her existential industriousness. The reason for this is simple – Protestants do not really need God as their ultimate benefactor, but rather as some distant authority that does not intervene in their lives actively. This is the reason why Protestants believe that it is when they are being fully self-reliant that makes God to love them – hence, allowing believers to enjoy a financial prosperity. This explains why, as opposed to what it is being the case with Catholics, who tend to rely on ‘God’s graces’, while dealing with life-challenges, many Protestants find it intellectually repulsive to even annoy God with excessive prayers. According to Emerson, â€Å"Prayer looks abroad and asks for some foreign addition to come through some foreign virtue, and loses itself in endless mazes of natural and supernatural, and mediatorial and miraculous† (1841, para. 42). Thus, it appears that even the America’s early intellectuals, whose writings contributed immensely towards setting this country on the path of a rapid socio-cultural and technological development, did not have any illusions as to the counter-beneficiary essence of the religious believers’ primary activity – a prayer.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Role of Founding Fathers in American Society and Religion specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page L earn More In the previously quoted article, de Crevecoeur suggested that, â€Å"The rewards of his (American citizen’s) industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labor; his labor is founded on the basis of nature, SELF-INTEREST†¦ Religion demands but little of him; a small voluntary salary to the minister†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (para. 4). Therefore, there can be only a few doubts that, even as early as during the course of the 18th century, the American society had been already de facto secularized. This simply could not be otherwise, because as sociologists are being well aware of, the actual strength of people’s sense of religiosity negatively relates to the quality of their living standards. In plain words – the more enjoyable happened to be one’s life, the less likely he or she would be willing to contemplate on the issue of divinity, and vice versa. Because, upon having arrived to the New World, European settlers realized that the whole une xplored and resource-rich continent was at their disposal, there is nothing too odd about the fact that, as compared to the living standards in Europe, the living standards in America were much higher – even as far back as a few centuries ago. Therefore, contrary to what the country’s religious citizens believe, the America’s greatness has been predetermined by the objective laws of history, which have nothing to do with the notion of a religious faith. The same laws presupposed the eventual emergence of the theory of a ‘social contract’ (initially articulated by John Locke), which even today remains a discursive foundation, upon which the America’s continual prosperity firmly rests. According to the theory’s foremost provision, all the citizens are absolutely equal, in the social sense of this word, â€Å"Creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties , should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection† (Locke, 1689, papa. 2).Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Apparently, as they were becoming ever more intellectually enlightened, it was only natural for Americans to come to the eventual realization of the fact that there can be no rationale in providing some of the society’s members with special rights and privileges while denying the same opportunity to others. Yet, it is specifically the religious people’s belief in their ‘specialness’, which constitutes their main psychological trait, as individuals – this is especially being the case with the affiliates of monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. For example, even today it represents a commonplace among religious Jews and fundamentalist Christians to think of themselves as ‘chosen people’, who can justify even the most despicable behavior, on the part, by saying ‘God wills it’. What it means is that people’s right to enjoy the freedom of religious expression and their right to take an active pa rt in the society’s functioning are mutually incompatible. The reason for this is simple – the society’s continual stability is ensured by people’s willingness to enter into ‘social contracts’ with each other, which in turn presupposes a certain degree of an intellectual flexibility, on their part. However, as we well know, strongly religious people can be referred to as anything but intellectually flexible. Therefore, after having been allowed to form political parties, as the part of taking a practical advantage of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, religious individuals will inevitably concern themselves with trying to limit the rights of others. The suggestion that faith groups should be in the position of influencing the government/society will also appear discursively inconsistent, once we take into consideration the qualitative dynamics within the American society. After all, it does not account for any secret that, as of today, this society is becoming increasingly multicultural – the process that has direct implications, in regards to how the society’s members go about practicing their religions, because one’s sense of religiosity cannot be discussed outside for what accounts for the concerned individual’s ethno-cultural affiliation. For example, the majority of practicing Christians in the U.S. are Whites. This partially explains why, despite the fact many American Christians remain thoroughly convinced that they act in exact accordance with how Jesus would like them to, this is far from being the actual case – the genetically predetermined workings of the White people’s mentality cause their religious longings to be artificial to an extent. This is exactly the reason why American Christians consist of predominantly older people, who attend Church once per week, while trying not to asleep there during the sermon. Therefore, there is nothing odd about the claims that, as of today, the religion of Christianity in America is effectively ‘dying’. However, the same cannot be said about the religion of Islam, for example – the bulk of American Muslims accounts for comparatively young people, who bend down on their knees and pray Allah five times per day, regardless of where the ‘prayer time’ finds them. What it means is that in the future, it is specifically the representatives of the world’s ‘alive’ monotheistic religions (such as Islam), the population of which in America grows rather rapidly due to the institutialization of the ‘celebration of diversity’ policy, that will strive to influence the society more than the representatives of any other religions. Therefore, the government’s hypothetical decision to allow faith groups to take an active part in influencing the process of the country’s domestic policies being designed will create objective preconditions for America to be set on the path of Islamization – just as it happened in Britain a few decades ago. Then, it will be only the matter of time, before Muslim believers would begin demanding the incorporation of the Sharia Laws, as the integral part of the America’s legal system – hence, causing this country to put away with the ideals of democracy, once and for all. Given the fact that America currently remains in the state of a ‘cold war’ with the Muslim world, the faith groups’ claims that they should be allowed to have their voices heard in the public sphere can be well-referred to, as such that correlate well with the agenda of the agents of foreign influence in the country. Therefore, there is nothing ‘unconstitutional’ about the government’s strive to limit the scope of socio-political influence, on the part of faith groups – by acting in such a manner, the government is being driven by the considerations of nati onal security. This once again points out to the fact that under no circumstances may the principle of the separation between Church and State be claimed counterproductive by religious citizens, whose primary agenda is being concerned with nothing less than reversing the course of the historical progress backward. The final argument against ‘sacralization’, which can be brought forward by those citizens that understand the whole scope of threats, associated with allowing faith groups to influence the society’s functioning, rests on the assumption that responsible policy-makers must be capable of coming up with discursively justified/wise decisions, which will prove beneficial to the society’s functioning in the long run. The fact that, as practice shows, the government’s wise decisions rarely enjoy popularity among ordinary citizens, should not be affecting the policy-makers’ ability to act wisely. The reason for this is that, as Socrates poi nted out in the famous dialogue ‘Crito’, â€Å"By acting under the advice of those who have no understanding, we destroy that which is improved by health and is deteriorated by disease† (Plato, 46b-49a). In light of the recent discoveries in the fields of physics, biology and psychology, and also in light of what we know about the bloody history of monotheistic religions, one’s strong affiliation with a particular religious faith cannot be referred to as anything, but the indication that the concerned individual never ‘grew up’, while continuing to remain cognitively infantile. In fact, this would be the best-case scenario, as one’s serious belief in the religious fables about talking donkeys, women’s impregnation by ‘holy ghosts’ and the sun standing still in the sky can be well regarded as the proof of the individual’s mental inadequacy. We certainly do not allow violently minded lunatics, endowed with the M essianic complex, to roam free out on the street, as it would endanger the society’s healthy members. Why should be religious fanatics treated differently – not to mention allowing them to form political parties? Whatever the politically incorrect it may sound, but religion does deserve to be deemed in terms of a ‘mind disease’ – one should only attend the gathering of Christian ‘snake-handlers’ or Pentecostals, for example, in order to confirm the full legitimacy of this statement. Therefore, it will only be natural limiting the scope of religious citizens’ rights – just as it is being the case with people who undergo a psychiatric treatment. This would benefit religious individuals in more ways than just one, even though that, while remaining in the state of a religious arrogance, they may not like it. I believe that the deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the idea that faith groups should not be allowed to gai n influence in the society, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. By not attempting to gain such an influence, the members of these groups would be acting in full accordance with the religion’s main theological postulate that the secular world is not worthy for believers to focus their attention upon and that they should be concerned with trying to come to the ‘kingdom of heaven’, as their foremost priority in life. References de Crevecoeur, H. (1781). Letter III. What is an American. Web. Emerson, R. (1841). Self-reliance. Web. First Amendment. (2013). Web. Locke, J. (1689). Second treatise of civil government: Chapter 2. Web. Plato. Crito. Web. This essay on The Role of Founding Fathers in American Society and Religion was written and submitted by user Johnathan Knight to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.