A Comparison of Marxist and Functionalist Understanding of the Role of

A Comparison of Marxist and Functionalist Understanding of the Role of direction in Society Functionalist theories prehend the different parts of a high ball club each ingest their own role to play (their own execute), and work together smoothly in order to form a harmonious whole (macro). The metaphor often used to describe functionalism is that it views society as a body, with the different socialisation agents government, media, religion, the family, etc., and, of course, educationbeing exchangeable the different organs in a body, each contributing in a different way to keeping the entire body healthy. Functionalism assumes that the motley institutions of a society always operate so as to place upright that society as it is. If they didnt, the society would perish therefore, functionalism believes, its safe to assume that they do in any society one may encounter, for other the society would no longer be here for us to study. Functionalism is found on value consensus which provides stability and functional prerequisites. In Marxism it is based on capitalism. In capitalism, the minority course, the bourgeoisie or capitalist employers who own the bureau of production make their profits by exploiting the drive of the majority, the proletariat. As a result, work under capitalism is alienating, unsatisfying, poorly paid and something over which workers have no control over. This creates the potential for class conflict. The functions of education, in functionalisms perspective, for society as a whole are to meet the shared goals (value consensus) of society. Where as Marxists actualize education is based on class division and capitalis... ... the system helps the transmittance of societys value consensus prepare the young for bighearted roles, the cream of young people in terms of talents and abilities for appropriate roles in adult life. The provision of knowledge, skills and traini ng necessary for effective participation in the labour force. Which in essence is based a pun meritocracy, equal opportunities, locomote and sorting people in society, having the right skills for the job and value consensus. Where as in Marxism it has a huge impact on people with federal agency ideologies. And creates feudalism which then initially leads to capitalism which in quintessence creates class conflict. The biggest difference over all is that Functionalism wants societies to be harmonically were in Marxism it could never be achieved if everything was to be equal.

Conflict: Science against Religion Essay

Throughout the ages comprehension and righteousness exhaust struggled with unity a nonher. They twain argon constantly striving to gain the upper hand against the other. at heart this struggle both be trying to assert the f go that their ideas be accurate and how the others ideas are inaccurate. knowledge yearns to answer the questions of how things happen through the meat of solid facts. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to answer the question of why things come on and its thought process is grungeed in faith. whatever conceive that the cardinal cods are non in turmoil with one a nonher. This thought process is highly skewed because these devil precept systems contradict one another systematically and believers of each view then struggle to prove their perspective is correct. information and pietism, do not reserve the same viewpoints roughly the nature of the mankind or check up on about how truth is perceived or captive (Neese, 2001). These both ideol ogies are at war with one another. The issues among the two tummynot be lose or brushed under the rug because in that location are too many opposing aspects. Because of this there is no counsel for these two ideologies to co outlast harmoniously.When scholarship and religion have overlapping compositions that fire to answer the same questions, conflict occurs surrounded by believers of each system. A well behaved example of this overlap is the evolution theory. This theory has caused controversy from its beginnings in history. Evolution, as defined by Websters Dictionary, is a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are imputable to modifications in successive generations (Webster, 2012). The placement of this theory in high trail text books has been very controversial. Multiple court cases have been fought over the theory of evolution and its existence within public sch ools curriculum. there are cases date backside from 1968 up until present day arguing about whether this theory should be taught to students (Masamura & Mead, 2001).According to religion, graven image obtain all things. This is know as creationism. Within the creationism theory there is no margin for compromise. beau ideal made man and there is no other explanation in accordance with the creationism theory. The Theory of Evolution contradicts everything that religion is based on. The volume says that deity created the animals but he also created man. The tidings speaks nada of God creating animals and they evolving into mankind, so the idea that religious parties could agree with the evolutionary theory and accept it is ludicrous. unheeding of whether it is acknowledged or not, science is deeming what religion believes as a lie. thither is no way to avoid the turmoil that it causes by attempting to prove that God didnt make man but instead we evolved from animals. Debat es regarding where mankind comes from seems to nurture tempers and leads to arguments. History shows us that pack have not agreed upon these two opinions and it has led to judicial action because there could not be an stipulation made about the subjects.These are not issues of the past but are subdued currently raging throughout society even like a shot. It is wild to think that the theory of creationism and the theory of evolution do not plunder over into one another and create conflict. How could two views that are paired opposites possibly be agreed upon? It is a simple answer they can and leave alone not be agreed upon. Another argument that rages between science and religion is the argument about the approximate age of the humanity. acquirement believes that the Earth is billions of years old mean go, religious groups believe that the Earth is somewhat 10,000 years old. Scientists believe that the earth can be dated back over 4 billion years using a regularity of A rgon-Argon dating (Robins, 2006). On the other hand religious groups use the Bible as a reference to date the earth. experience signals that their method of dating is accurate and they have found fossils that are millions of year old soon enough, religion pleads that The Great Flood trapped carbon around the fossils and therefore would waste the carbon dating process that is typically used when dating fossils ( fogey, 2011). at that place are drastic differences between the timeline that science has created and the one religion uses. information relies on gathering evidence that allows a conclusion to be made about the Earths age meanwhile, religion relies upon the Bible and declares vigor can be questioned because the Bible is absolute. The argument regarding the age of the Earth is unquestionably a continuing issue. These two viewpoints have no common ground and testament continue to conflict one another. The question of why person is a homosexual has plagued debates fo r years. This argument is very emotional for a roundabout of people. Science and religion both have very opposing views of this topic. Some scientists believe that homoeroticism is linked to genetics and have been trying to reconcile the gene that causes soulfulnesss homosexuality (Abrams, 2007).Yet, religious sects believe that homosexuality is a choice. Science is trying to prove that people do not choose to be gay but instead are born(p) with the predisposition to like someone of the same g exterminateer. In religious groups this view is widely rejected because the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, and God would not make someone more prone to sin. The debate regarding the origins of why someone lives the homosexual lifestyle has not fully been pinpointed in science yet but this still doesnt calm the argument with religious groups. The squeeze over giving homosexuals the right to legally marry in the U.S. gives us a good example of how heated this debate actually is a nd how distant it is from being resolved. Several states have voted to allow gay marriage while the majority of states still have not latched on to the idea overdue to religious backgrounds within the communities. Not as widely discussed but still a conflicting issue for science and religion is the issue of death. The belief in the future, or lack thereof, is strongly debated among scientists and religious groups. Science does not prove or disprove the existence of anything occurring after death.Some scientists designate that the phenomenon of an out of body experience is simply the result of the brain continuing to work even though the body does not (Fitzpatrick, 2010). This discredits peoples stories of experiencing the hereafter and coming back from it. Religion gives a greater think in life and the ultimate goal is to spend eternity in the heavenly realm. By some scientists disregarding the possibility of a hereafter it adds to the tension that already exists between religio n and science. Since science leaves for the possibility that nothing exists after we die, it doesnt support the theory that religion does. In not supporting the idea of something existing after we die, it creates an invisible wall between science and religion and leaves room for argumentative discussions. One of the most overlooked conflicts between science and religion is the separation of the languages. There are multiple theories about how language developed and changed according to science.Most scientists will agree that they believe evolution played a large part in the diversity of languages. Science bases the evolution of multiple languages on people some changing their current dialect as they migrated to various regions. Many scientists believe that the first language was developed somewhere in Africa (Wade, 2011). Religion seeks a completely different approach to the development of the separate languages. Religion bases the changing of dialects to the event that occurred a t the tower of Babel, as recorded by the Bible. The Bible says that people were joining together to build a tower to tump over to heaven. God was displeased with this act so he separated the languages so the people could no longer understand one another thus, stopping their ability to work together to build the tower (Genesis 11, KJV). These two replication ideas both answer the question of how languages evolved but in two passing different ways. In no way are these two theologies coexist seeing that there are no equivalentities between their theories. People argue about the existing conflict between religion and science.Some argue for the presence of a conflict, while others argue that turmoil simply does not exist between the two. A man by the name of Stephen Jay Gould referred to the non-overlapping autocratic of science and religion, with the former describing reality what is and the latter dealing with values how we ought to act (Fish, 2010). Gould argued in his book, Rock of Ages, that science and religion can coexist because they pursue two separate spheres of the kind-hearted experience. According to Gould, science and God are inherently divided and thus can easily co-exist in the human belief system. Science, he argues, answers questions of fact, while religion covers questions of morality (Clark, n.d.). Many people have the same viewpoint as Gould or a similar one. This argument suggests that these two ideologies run parallel to one another, therefore there is no possible way for them to conflict. By making this kind of adduce it is saying that there is a limit to what science can check and theorize about.If science and religion do not overlap as Gould and many others suggest, then it would box these two ideologies in and limit their topics of discussion. In reality, this can never occur. You cannot limit the topics in which both science and religion have opinions about, because this would be the only way for these two to have no overla pping viewpoints. This argument defines science and religion as being two separate entities that do not cross over into one another. This is not reality however. Whether it be creation, sexual preference, death, or the separation of languages all of these things have obviously been delved into by both science and religion. The argument that these two approaches of ism exist parallel is unrealistic. If that were the case then that would mean that no topic discussed by science or religion has ever or will ever be of the same subject. As everyone knows, throughout history science and religion have undoubtedly had discussions about the same subject issuing thus, negating the whole basis for Goulds argument and others who believe as he does.If logic is used and we look at both of these ways of view we see the drastic difference in their opinions. This leads to a dialogue about who is right and who is wrong. There is no middle ground with these conflicting views. Science is based on ve rifiable facts, whereas religion rests on faith that is not amendable to verification (Dias, 2010). These two thought processes show no similarities therefore, they do not have common ground and cannot agree. The desire for knowledge will always be prevalent in the human race. With this obtained knowledge comes theory and with theory comes disputes. Here stems the disagreements between science and religion. The never ending dispute about whose viewpoint is right is raging as strong today as it has been in the past. The conflicts encountered within these two ideologies have no end in the foreseeable future.Their methodologies keep these two polar opposites continually disputing with one another. If there is a way for science and religion to harmoniously exist with one another, society has yet to find it. There are Utopian ideas that attempt to reconcile science and religions altercations but no attempt at calming this argument has been successful thus far. Albert Einstein said that science without religion is lame religion without science is blind, (Neese, 2001). His statement is rather deluxe and unfortunately we do not currently live in a world where this way of thinking is widespread. No matter how good it would be for these two groups to coexist, it will never happen due to their drastically different views. Maybe in time things will progress but as for now the two remain at war with one another.ReferencesAbrams, M. (2007). natural GAY?. Discover, 28 58-83. Retrieved Friday, August 10, 2012 fromEBSCOhost database.Clark, Josh. (n.d.) Can God and Science Co-exist? Retrieved from http//science.howstuff works.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/god-science-co-exist.htm. DIAS, P. (2010). Is Science Very Different from Religion? A Polanyian Perspective. Science & Christian Belief, 22(1), 43-55.Evolution. (2012). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http//www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution.Fish, J. M. (2010). Science VS Religion DEBATE. Humanist,70(4), 27-31. Fitzpatrick,L. (2010). Is There Such a Things as Life After Death?. Time. Retrieved fromhttp//www.Time.com.Fossil and Radiosiotope Dating. (2011). Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http//creationscience today.com/28-Carbon-14_Dating.htmlHelden, A.V. (1995). The Galileo Project. Retrieved from http//galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative _7.html.Masamura,M. , Mead, L. (2001). Ten Major Court Cases About Evolution and Creationism.Retrieved from http//ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-Creationism.Neese, L. H. (2001). SCIENCE vs. RELIGION The Challenge of Interpretation. USA Today Magazine, 130(2674), 70.Robins, M. (2006). How We Know Earths Age. Discover, 27(3), 22-23. Retrieved Friday,August 10, 2012 from EBSCOhost database.Wade, N. (2011). Phonetic Clues Hint Language is Africa Born. New York Times, Retrievedfrom http//newyorktimes.com.

“by the Waters of Babylon” vs Epic of Gilgamesh.

By the waters of Babylon Vs heroic of Gilgamesh. A herd of stories concerning religions and cultures have lot of similarities and differences, despite the fact that they argon not from the same era of time. earthly concern used these stories and publications to express their culture and religious views. By the waters of Babylon is very similar to the writings of the Mesopotamian writings in The heroical of Gilgamesh more specificlay The story of the flood and The Return.These similarities include cosmosy gods in both, a unique quality in the characters of both than send word include born(p) to greatness, people of both writings lead to their death themselves, magic and Gilgamesh Come home with lessons. etc In most of all ancient influences, in that location are characters in the stories, who are born to some kind of greatness, or we can say, a special type of person.In By the Waters of Babylon when earth-closet and his father goes to the dead places, pot, explains that only priest can arrive at coat and are deliberated to have special powers that no other(a) normal sympathetic being would have , and then he who touches the metal must be a priest or the son of a priest (Benet 75). This shows how is hindquarters born to greatness, being the son of a priest and can touch metal wherever he wants. The priests are believed to have special powers that no other normal human being would have.This compares to the Epic of Gilgamesh, when Author of Epic of Gilgamesh said Two thirds they made him god and one third man (Prologue). This shows how Gilgamesh was born to greatness by having 1/3 characteristics of man and 2/3 of god and this compares the born to greatness in both the writings . Some religions and cultures believe in one god monotheistic religions, and others believe in many gods polytheistic religions.In By the Waters of Babylon Benets important character, John, speaks of The set of the Gods, It is forbidden to cross the great river and loo k upon the place that was the Place of the Gods this is most strictly forbidden (75). When speaking of gods house means septuple gods, this shows that the religion in which John follows is polytheistic and worships many gods. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh speaks of the names of the gods, means a lot of gods ,There was Anu, lord of the firmament, their father, and warrior Enlil their counselor, Ninurta the helper, and Ennugi attestator over canals (N.K. Sandars 25). This shows that the Mesopotamians and people from By the Waters of Babylon were both polytheistic and believed in multiple gods. Almost in all writings there are lessons or message that characters learns in the end ,the same thing happened in our story, where ,Gilgamesh and John both learned lessons in the end of their voyage or journey . In By the waters of Babylon when john returns from the Place of Gods , that they are men who build the city, not dos or demons. John says They are men . I remember a dead mans fa ce (Benet 85).This shows how John came home with a message, about the ,City of the Gods, that it is really New York City, and the gods were actually humans, so they have nothing to fear. And on the other side, Gilgamesh also comes home with a lesson which is that immortality is not obtained by some boot or going on a journey just you can be in hearts of the tourists and explorers but making your name fame , which Gilgamesh does but making Uruks walls and being in the hearts of people forever. And so, with that it proves a lesson learned in both writings.

Potbelly’s Case Essay

1. spates schema in terms of growth and food market ar to provide great food and a lucky atmosphere. As far as their increase goes even their CEO Keil says that whatsoeverbody cigarette make and sell a sandwich. What strategy they use is by victimisation quality ingredients and a superior value. Their strategy towards the market is to provide a fun, unique experience to their customers. Their previous attempts as far as product goes was to sell antiques along with their sandwich shop, kind of the same approach as a cracker barrel. It seems the sandwiches become a more important affair of their revenue. The antiques became more of decoration then sale items. The past market was really small just having one sandwich shop owned by a couple. With the purchase of the shop they quickly started a chain of restaurants and realise opened a lot of places just recently.2. lots touch strategy seems to take over been starting small in one commonwealth while making a name for it self. In its first louver years all the locations opened were in Chicago, Illinois. After they had built a reputation they moved into Washington D.C. This seems to be an attempt to stay in major cities to increase their reputation. The nations capital is one of the some major spark off destinations for work. This way the businessmen of Chicago can total the sandwiches they love even away from home. The next year instead of branched out to the other major business travel cities, for example, New York, Atlanta, Dallas, and Los Angeles, Potbelly took the approach that many other custody take. There central location was Chicago, Illinois from there they spread into neighboring stirs, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Like mentioned earlier most chains take this approach until they are nationwide. A lot of grocery stores northerners are familiar with allow not be found as they honcho further south just as southerners will not give away the same stores they are used to shopp ing at when they head north.The next year it opened locations in some of those same states and spread to indium as well as another major business travel destination, Texas. In the more recent years they have built more locations in the already occupied states while spreading to neighboring state Ohio. From this point they have made a good name for themselves and have over 100 locations with the reputation the telephoner has I am current they will continue to spread their market. Their original locations are located in Northern Mid America, they did not start on one strand and try to spread to the other, this will help extremely with them being a nationwide chain and in the coming years will likely start seeing Potbellys as far eastmost as New York, as far south as Georgia, and western United States into the mid-western states.3. Potbellys environmental opportunities in the external environment would belike include their original location and how much easier it is to spread fr om the middle of the nation rather than the corner or coastline of the United States. The threats Potbellys would feeling more importantly is the competition. There are many well accomplished chains of sandwich shops in the United States including, Sub-way, Quiznos, Panera Bread, Jimmy Johns, and Schlotzskys Deli to name a few. When moving into a new market promotion is a key element as the market the company does not know the companies name and would rather go with what they know.Potbelly offers promotions and a great atmosphere that may be able to take some of these competitors business. Subway for example does not use quality ingredients, nor does it have any sort of favorable atmosphere for around the same price. It should be actually easy for Potbellys to take business away from them. For Potbellys to maintain its antique setup and friendly atmosphere they will require excellent management expanding into these new markets. I do not see any reason for Potbellys to change the ir strategy at this time. Changing the way they do business, either the looks of the restaurants or the friendly workers would take away from why people will choose them in the first place over their already known sandwich shops.

Dining in vs. Dinging Out

In changeive Speech Dining Out VS. Dining In door I. Attention getter/relevance The Price of fare has TRIPLED, Which results in the price of abstain food has double just form the past dickens years. II. ramp up Credibility I have gained knowledge and tips on how to save specie by cooking your meals at inhabitancy by doing so you flush toilet save everywhere a 1000$ a month. III. dissertation recital By the end of my presentation, you will have the knowledge to cutting off the represent of food and you will think twice before you visit your topical anaesthetic card-playing food restraint. IV.Preview The focus of my speech is to give you pointers on how to cut the cost of food, and getting a home cook meal in a pleasant amount of time. BODY I First (signpost), why is preparing food at home less expensive then dine bulge out. The cost of fast food has double in the past two years. A todays economy has changed, meaning that all(prenominal) living expenses like postulat e food and gas prices has gone up as well. b. Studies has shown that dining out three times a week for a family of four dejection cost up to 400$. c. Money can be rescue by cutting back up on dining out and fast food by simply cooking from home. I. 2.Second (signpost) the main reasons why batch dining out because of their busy life styles. a. There ar more adults that work everyplace 40 hours a week, or has resign back in school or some are doing both all while supporting there families. b. Most people way of thinking is its much easier to buy per pared food rather than slave over a hot stove daily. c. Little do they know its a lot of things you can cook from home with in convenient amount of time. Transition Lets review home cooked meals are cheaper than dining out every night. When you prepare your food from home, your relocked to save over a 1000$ monthly.There are meals that you can prepare at home in a convenient amount of time. II. Continue following format for remaind er of main points CONCLUSION I. Signal/summarize main points because of todays economy living expenses like rent food and gas prices has gone up. Preparing food at home less expensive then dining out. II. Thesis statement/Relate to introduction Now that you know more reading on how to save money and time by cooking a prepped meal at home, I hope that you take what you learned and cast it into use. I promise you want be sorry.

First Day of School Essay

Like you, Im going back to school tomorrow. irrelevant you, I am the professor. So I can tell you what at least one professor thinks round your concerns. First, thank you for thinking about being prepared for the first day of class. I always land that the students entertain not had time yet to get to the book store, so my first day plans do not require the book. Many of my colleagues, however, do use it the first day, and you are wise to study it with you. Yes, the books are massive (and expensive we male parentt like the cost any more(prenominal) than you do) but it will make you look involved and dedicated if you have it ready to go. About what time to arrive, again, as an instructor, I appreciate your not wanting to come late. I refuse to let students enter the populate after the lesson has started (but I am very flexible for the first a few(prenominal) days while everyone is still trying to find where the rooms are. plane I get lost once in a while.) That archeozoic arrival may give you the opportunity to talk with someone interest in the class, make new friends, and become more comfortable. For heavens sake, talk to people While you are waiting for the class to begin, dont be afraid to introduce yourself to other students and get comfortable. I usu all toldy arrive early so that I can get to know the students. I talk to them about things which have nothing to do with the lesson, simply because I like to know who they are. And this is the final point (thank trade good) The instructor is not your enemy. Instructors enjoy students, learn from them, and are glad to have them in class. We want you to learn, and we get our personal satisfaction when we see the unforesightful light go on over your head. Relax, because you will have all the support you ever wanted.