I liked this passage because they acknowledge the struggle between black people even though this is about feminism. They are acknowledging the differences between theirs and the ones in the past. The past feminism movements were for white women and wouldn't benefit people of color. These women realize that so they are in solidarity with black men. They are in the struggle against racism with black men but also face sexism alone. Why did they mention this solidarity in a statement about feminism?

This passage caught my eye right away because I instantly thought of the separation of church and state. This isn't necessarily the same thing but I think it's alike in the way that you separate the two for the greater good. Malcolm X is saying to put their religions to the side because they are very different and it will get in the way. His religion is personal but this issue affects everyone. We put aside our differences and we'll succeed in focusing on our issue and enemy. Why does his religion matter?

This caught my attention right away because when I think of government, I think of politics. I never thought of the two separately and never thought they could be separate. I'm interested to see how you speak of government without mentioning any of those things. What universal principles are they and who decides what they are?

This is an interesting argument because the law went through the complete process without any problems but now it's unjust all because one judge changed his mind. That could be a good argument but it can easily be counter argued because so many laws have but that doesn't mean they were right. The law went through the process but that doesn't mean someone can't analyze it and see a problem with it afterwards. Why does he think just because it went through the process it can't be unjust?

This interesting because Fredrick Douglass isn't interested in going over the common arguments made about slavery. It would be a insult to everyone's intelligence to keep repeating the things we already know. I think he wants to take this argument further and bring the perspective of a slave. Every slave holder knows it's wrong but will try to use the constitution/declaration to justify themselves even though those very arguments were used to establish equality and liberty for all man. It's interesting how we all can interpret documents differently.

I think this is very interesting because often times people like like to look at the effect but not the cause. The African-American community doesn't want to protest to have acknowledge of their rights and that segregation isn't right but they have to do something to open the power structure's eyes to the injustices. The white power structure has done so many harsh and negative things towards African-Americans that they must fight back.

This is interesting to me because it's describing religion in such a negative way from my understanding. Religion humiliates and degrades ones soul is shocking because you would think religion is purifying and renewing ones soul. I think the man is nothing part is dramatized but there is no man higher than God. How does religion degrade one soul?

This interesting because Thoreau lets you know you right away what his belief is. I like the straight forwardness because you aren't questioning his opinion on the government. When I hear this quote it always makes me think of human nature. How would people act if they had no little or no government governing them? What would our country look like then?

This is interesting because the answer is simple but the action is not simple. Every American who loves liberty has broken a law. It's almost impossible to live your whole life without breaking a law. Then to never tolerate a violation is crazy because now we are responsible for everyone else's actions. Is there a true American who has never broke a law?

This is interesting because majority of the articles that we have read about government has mentioned human nature as a prominent factor to prevent abuse in government. This is saying that humans are naturally greedy once they reach a position of power so if they weren't government wouldn't be necessary. Why does human nature always have a negative association when it comes to the government?

This is interesting to me because the two things they all can agree on is liberty and equality. It reminds me of the prompt of is liberty and equality necessary in Democracy? They are trying to decide which form of government best suits them and it states that it must have liberty and equality. Their government eventually becomes a democracy which mean that, they are both necessary in democracy.It makes me wonder to what extent did they think liberty and equality were required? For example did they want political liberty and little economic liberty or everything equal across the board?

This is interesting to me because people always try to portray death as something to be feared when no one truly knows what happens after death. The fear of death didn't work against Socrates because he knew that only God knows which is better. Why is death so feared when people of God aren't supposed to fear death?

This one is interesting because the women are saying you'll give rights to foreigners before you'll give them to citizens on the basis of gender. The foreigners get this privilege just because they are a man which is a slap in the face to these women. I also thought it was interesting that they referred to Natives as ignorant/degraded when this was their land. They should have the rights to land that they occupied. I understand the point they were trying to make but this just undermines their own thing about equality to me. What make them ignorant and degraded men?

The reasons behind his opinion stood out to me because I believe he's saying they won't work because of human nature. I got that because he saying they will grow ambitious and I associate how humans are naturally power hungry. If I interpreted that right then it connects to all the other articles we have read when they say why we need laws/government and why we don't need a monarch. What does he mean by the assembly will grow ambitious?

This is intriguing to me because these colonies were bold enough to go against the British Crown when they had more power than them at the time. Great Britain was more established than the colonies so it just amazes me how bold the founding fathers were to go completely against that form of government. It was basically saying we are tried of you and your policies so, we are independent now. How did they figure that they had the right to overthrow the British Crown?

I think this is interesting because it's saying that freedom is wanted around the globe yet no one is close to receiving it. The countries are putting it off to the side like it isn't necessary in society. Freedom shouldn't be hunted, it should be a necessity. Why do countries think freedom is optional? How would freedom affect these countries?

This is interesting because if I was a guardian what I thought was reasonable, the heir probably wouldn't agree with me. Reasonable isn't good enough detail. I agree with Sofia's question of who determines what is reasonable because we all have different definitions and ideas.

He just listed two sides of the problem with one person speaking but still does it because it's the law. It's interesting because so many times have we seen people disagree with something but still go through with it because it's the law. The ancestors may have approved it but doesn't mean someone can't change things to fit the current situations. Why is disagreeing with a law or the ancestor's preference looked at as bad thing or something forbidden? Are we going to adapt with the times or just stay because of our ancestor's said so?

I find this passage interesting because he believes that one ruler is better than the people having a voice in the process like democracy. Often times one ruler tends to look for things that benefit them and give them more power than voting in the interests of their citizens. Are monarchies truly better than the other two? Does one ruler truly provide the best answers for their entire country?