Could someone look over this paper real quick? 900 words. I need to have a thesis, intro, road map, and two points. I really just need someone to point out glaring issues but that's it. I'm going to post it in two halves back to back this is part one Should governments be allowed to restrict freedom of religion? Many think yes, not only to avoid an uprising from the country’s people but also to work together as a nation. If a nation’s government officials are elected based purely on their religious claims, or if they allow mistreatment of people with unique religious beliefs, should it still stand? What seems to us like a natural God-given right doesn’t come freely to all others, however.
To clarify, the United States of America is one of the only examples of countries that protect the religious freedoms of its citizens in history, and the Founding Fathers knew from experience that governmental control over religious affairs of its citizens was too easily abused for personal gain. It was a fundamental requirement for them to create a government that was based on the moral principles of Christianity, the religion of the majority, but allowed all citizens to be free to worship how they saw fit. There are several reasons why a neutral stance on religion should be taken by a government.
First, a state religion encourages a government to coerce behavior in its citizens and usurp power in the name of religion, whereas neutrality protects minorities from discrimination and persecution. Neutrality also allows for freedom of thought beyond basic religious beliefs. Some would argue that neutrality lets citizens feel entitled to rights that they don’t yet have, or that it can split up the nation between religions. Others maintain that, even though it has a chance of causing a political divide, there would be higher risks if neutrality wasn’t in place. For example, if no one was allowed to have freedom of belief the citizens would be frustrated, and while the citizens would have direct conflict with the government, the citizens would agree and protest for each other as they have the same goals. However, a closer look at the issue will reveal that, a government that claims a state religion bases all of its decisions on the tenets of that religion. It favors members of its religion and discriminates against those outside of the state religion. A government that claims a state religion bases all of its decisions on the tenets of that religion. It favors members of its religion and discriminates against those outside of the state religion. Augustine of Assis believed the purpose of government was limited to coercion and punishment, “Augustine’s view, in short, was that government and law exist as a punishment and corrective for sin, a punishment which mankind, through the actions of Adam and Eve, had 2 brought upon itself. Political man is fallen, man.” (Raeder p 57) Augustine believed that there was a minimum agreement of right and wrong between those who were redeemed and those who were still living in a fallen state. That minimum should be maintained by the government through coercion and punishment. But beyond that minimum, Augustine felt that governmental power would only corrupt. If the state wasn’t religiously neutral, then the government elective offices could be corrupted by the power to coerce behavior beyond the minimum consensus. (look for part two)

What excerpt from a student essay maintains the most objective tone

Memories of a memory have you ever witnessed something amazing, shocking or surprising and found when describing the event that your story seems to change the more you tell it? have you ever experienced a time when you couldn't really describe something you saw in a way that others could understand? if so, you may understand why some experts think eyewitness testimony is unreliable as evidence in scientific inquiries and trials. new insights into human memory suggest human memories are really a mixture of many non-factual things. first, memory is vague. imagine your room at home or a classroom you see every day. most likely, you could describe the room very generally. you could name the color of the walls, the floors, the decorations. but the image you describe will never be as specific or detailed as if you were looking at the actual room. memory tends to save a blurry image of what we have seen rather than specific details. so when a witness tries to identify someone, her brain may recall that the person was tall, but not be able to say how tall when faced with several tall people. there are lots of different kinds of "tall." second, memory uses general knowledge to fill in gaps. our brains reconstruct events and scenes when we remember something. to do this, our brains use other memories and other stories when there are gaps. for example, one day at a library you go to quite frequently, you witness an argument between a library patron and one of the librarians. later, when telling a friend about the event, your brain may remember a familiar librarian behind the desk rather than the actual participant simply because it is recreating a familiar scene. in effect, your brain is combining memories to you tell the story. third, your memory changes over time. it also changes the more you retell the story. documented cases have shown eyewitnesses adding detail to testimony that could not have been known at the time of the event. research has also shown that the more a witness's account is told, the less accurate it is. you may have noticed this yourself. the next time you are retelling a story, notice what you add, or what your brain wants to add, to the account. you may also notice that you drop certain details from previous tellings of the story. with individual memories all jumbled up with each other, it is hard to believe we ever know anything to be true. did you really break your mother's favorite vase when you were three? was that really your father throwing rocks into the river with you when you were seven? the human brain may be quite remarkable indeed. when it comes to memory, however, we may want to start carrying video cameras if we want to record the true picture. part a and part b below contain one fill-in-the-blank to be used for all three question responses. your complete response must be in the format a, b, c including the letter choice, commas, and a space after the commas. part a: which of the following best explains why memories from childhood are unreliable? fill in blank 1 using a, b, or c. our brains add details and general knowledge to childhood memories. our brains are not as reliable as video cameras are. our brains create new stories to make the past more interesting. part b select one quotation from the text that supports your answer to part a. add your selection to blank 1 using e, f, or g. but the image you describe will never be as specific or detailed as if you were looking at the actual room. when a witness tries to identify someone, her brain may recall that the person was tall, but not be able to say how tall. to do this, our brains use other memories and other stories when there are gaps. select one quotation from the text that supports your answer to part a. add your selection to blank 1 using h, i, or j. documented cases have shown eyewitnesses adding detail to testimony that could not have been known at the time of the event. with individual memories all jumbled up with each other, it is hard to believe we ever know anything to be true. when it comes to memory, however, we may want to start carrying video cameras if we want to record the true picture answer for blank 1:

You were given an exceptional iq so obviously you made valedictorian to change the tone of the sentence from resentful to complimentary, without changing the central meaning, which word most needs to be replaced? o a. exceptional o b. valedictorian o c. given o d. obviously