“Barn Burning” is one of William Faulkner’s many southern stories. It is a tale of a southern boy forced into role by society. “Barn Burning” takes place after the civil war in the late nineteenth century. It primarily involves the conflicts of a father and his son. The father lives a rebellious life style and finds himself in outrages and in return sets things on fire. The son, Sarty, is trying to overcome what’s in his blood and is in constant struggle with family ties and morality. Although the story centers on the feelings and thoughts of Abner’s youngest son Sarty, the economic implications of his entire family play a vital role in justifying his father’s behavior, which is the pivotal reason for Sarty’s controversial feelings on which the whole story is based. William Faulkner captures the life of the south during the depression in this story. The dramatic conflict can be seen in William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” through the setting, characters, and symbols.

Along with many of Faulkner’s short stories, “Barn Burning” is set in the imaginary Mississippi county of Yoknapatawpha (Akers and Moore 9). The stories main setting are at first the justice court, then of course on the road, and at last Major de Spains plantation. As the story opens, the ten-year old boy, Sartoris Snopes, sits in a courtroom listening as his father is accused of burning a neighbor’s barn. So, at the start of the story one may see that the father may be a bit of a rebel or he could just be being wrongfully accused for something he did not do. After being found guilty and in return being banned from the county, the family hits the roads again in their wagon not knowing where they will end up. Abner’s behavior makes him unwanted in any community so he is constantly moving his family from place to place. The family has become so used to this nomadic life, that they have few memories of a stable place to call home. This causes them to know life under the stars as well as they do under a roof. The lines, “ The wagon went on. He did not know where they were going. None of them ever did or ever asked, because it was always somewhere, always a house of sorts waiting on them a day or two days or even three days away” (Faulkner 239). This line suggests the life they live, which in fact is not a stable one. A few days later the family arrives at Major de Spains plantation. This luxurious plantation would be the next place for Abner Snopes to work as a tenant and a sharecropper for work. The significance of this beautiful mansion and its vivid description in the story from Sarty’s point of view, allows things to be seen from his perspective. The description of the house helps frame the main conflict that Sarty has with his father. Sarty states, “Hits big as a courthouse he thought quietly, with a surge of peace and joy whose reason he could not have thought into words, being to young for that…” (Faulkner 261). Seeing the house causes his feelings of happiness flow from him, and he feels that nothing his father could do could destroy this beautiful place he sees. Sarty thinks to himself, “Maybe he will feel it too. Maybe it will even change him now from what he couldn’t help but be” (Faulkner 261). The home is like a hope for the family, for the father to turn his life around and change his ways (Haisty 170). “In the context of ‘Barn Burning’ de Spain might be said to stand for social and aesthetic order, the two things which Sarty has been deprived of all his life” (“Barn Burning,” par. 21).

The three characters of importance to the controversy of the story are Abner Snopes, the antagonist, Colonel Satoris Snopes, the protagonist, and Lennie Snopes, the wife of her husband and mother to her children. When finding out the meaning behind the title of the story, the article “Barn Burning” states that, “The barn-burning of the story’s title refers to Snope’s habit of setting fire to the property of those who (in his eyes) slight him” (par. 9). Faulkner does a magnificent job allowing the readers to see the evil in Abner Snopes. Abner appears to have some type of complex with society and his madness expresses itself through dominance, destruction, and wrath. He is a man of dominance, as seen through the way he treats his family, with harsh words and sometimes, brutal force. His actions show his lack of knowledge and his immaturity. When Abner becomes angry, rather than searching for a reasonable answer for his problem, he resorts to rashly destroying the property of whomever he thinks has wronged him. Abner’s wife, on the other hand, shows signs of having feelings and caring for others throughout the story. At the beginning of the story the readers are told that she is sitting on the wagon crying. Mrs. Snopes is sobbing because of the wretchedness of her life and the cruelty of her husband. She knows that what her husband does is wrong and uncivilized but she is a women in fear of her husband and does not stand up for herself. Faulkner allows the readers to see the enlightened side of the mother, in order to see where Sarty’s intelligence might have spawned from, because it was indeed not from his father. The last character of great significance is Sarty. He is at a time period in his life where he is noticing his father’s wrong doings and becoming judgmental as to whether or not that is the life he wants to live. When the father saw that Sarty would have turned him in at court, he states “You’re getting to be a man. You got to learn. You got to learn to stick to your own blood or you ain’t going to have any blood to stick to you” (Faulkner 260). This is the struggle that Sarty deals with throughout the story. He doesn’t know whether he should go against his family in what he thinks is right or stick to his blood and be a part of something he disagrees with. Sarty is confused on how he should view life. He tends to hide his feelings by denying the facts, “Enemy! Enemy! he thought; for a moment he could not even see, could not even see that the Justice’s face was kindly not discern that his voice was troubled when he spoke to the man named Harris…” (Faulkner 257). Sarty knows that his father’s acts are wrong, but still sees the people against his father as enemies. After the court session when some person twice his size called his father a “barn burner”, his reactions are to stand up for his father and fight him back. Although the Sarty gets beat up by the boy, he still made an attempt to act as if he went along with his father’s actions.

Young Sarty Snopes describes his own inner conflict as “the being pulled two ways like between two teams of horses.” On one side is “the old fierce pull of blood”—family loyalty. On the other are truth and justice. The pull of family ties is strong, but Sarty is old enough to have started to realize that what his father does is wrong. (Haisty 169)

The use of symbols in the story allows one to better understand the battle of this family. The main symbol is the fire, which is used in two ways. The side of Abner that thinks he can destroy anything to make things better relates perfectly to fire. Fire destroys anything in its way, and has respect for nothing. It will not stop until it is forced to quit. Just like fire, Abner does not respect boundaries. He stops at nothing and respects no ones property. The scene in which the family moves to the next town, after being kicked out of their last one, offers a tremendous understanding into the state of Abner’s anger. Due to the extreme cold Abner builds a small, contained fire. Faulkner describes this fire as a “small fire, neat, niggard, almost, a shrewd fire, such fires were his father’s habit and custom always, even in freezing weather” (259). From this, one understands Abner’s deeper relation to the fire, its potential and its power. He respects it, and as a result of this respect, he uses it as his greatest weapon. In this sense, his relation to fire demonstrates his relation to his own anger, and the immense power that his anger has over him. Rather than venting his adverse feelings, Abner holds them in, as he contains the small campfire, until he can lash out with the full force of his hatred. The irony is that the story begins with a fire, showing the father in control, yet in the end the father is no longer in control and because of his outrage he finally meets his match. Along with the fire as being a primary symbol in the story, so is the beautiful plantation. It is described as a white luxurious place. It symbolically does foretell the hope and one day the pure life that Sarty will live to see. The house opens up the eyes of Sarty and in the end closes the eyes of Abner. If Abner would have saw the house for what it was worth, maybe he too would have learned from it. Another symbol is the black jacket that Abner so proudly wears. One would know from reading short stories that black indicates death and wickedness. The evilness that reeks within Abner is seen throughout the story and as far as death, it will soon be known for him. Faulkner describes him as “a shape black, flat, and bloodless as though cut from tin in the iron folds of the frock-coat which had not been made for him, the voice harsh like tin and without heat like tin” (260). The last symbol is the mother’s dowry, which is used as a metaphor of her life. “The clock inlaid with mother-of-pearl, which would not run, stopped at some fourteen minutes past two o’clock of a dead and forgotten day and time, which had been his mother’s dowry” (Faulkner 258). The broken piece of furniture serves as a metaphor for Mrs. Snopes life, which came to a stop, spiritually, when she bound her fortune, for whatever reason, to Ab Snopes (“Barn Burning,” par. 15).

Throughout the story of “Barn Burning,” William Faulkner continually foretells the conflict through the setting, characters, and symbols. The story’s emotional turns are clearly defined by Sarty’s thoughts and Ab’s reactions. Sarty’s dilemma and Ab’s frustrations grab the reader, serving up a series of emotionally laden dilemmas. At the end of the story, Sarty makes a life long decision knowing he will never be able to turn home and that it will bring his family down once and for all. This decision is hard for a boy to make, but Sarty is able to see that he is nothing like his father, and the route he wants to travel in the world is nothing like his father’s path (Bernardo, par. 3). “Barn Burning” is the struggle this family faces of life and death and the conflicts between the father and son. In a way, Faulkner writes as a moralist.

Additionally, the underlying issue of inclusive language is at the forefront of many discussions regarding the translations of the Bible. Discussion of the various translations, the controversies over the use of inclusive language and the affect the interpretations have on theology are relevant to understanding the Bible.

Throughout history the Bible has been translated into other languages so that people could have the scriptures in their own tongue. During the third century B.C. the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament completed by 70 men in 70 days (Bender, 3). The first English Bibles were made from the Vulgate translation (Bender, 3). Vulgate means “common or popular” and is a translation of the entire Bible into Latin by Jerome about 400 AD. In an attempt to make the Bible accessible to common people who didn’t understand Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, John Wycliff, an English priest, produced one of the first English Bible translations before he died in 1384. He was cast out of the church and his translation was condemned because he had made the Bible available to Englishmen in their own languages (Davis, xxii). Another translator was Priest William Tyndale. He believed that the Bible should be read by everyone and translated the Bible into English. Church officials did not approve of this translation and as a result forced Tyndale to leave England and his translations were ordered burned and labeled untrue. He was arrested and imprisoned for doing a Biblical translation. In October 1536 Tyndale was executed and burned. Today, Tyndale is known as “The Father of the English Bible” (Davis, xxii).

The translations of the Bible are numerous and allows each person an opportunity to find one that best fits their reading style or abilities. The King James Version involved fifty-four scholars, working four years (Bender, 3). In 1885, a committee of fifty-one British and thirty-two American scholars did a revision of the King James Authorized Version. In 1901 Americans of the committee published the American Standard Version, which has been considered a very accurate translation (Bender, 4). The Bible was updated in 1971 and again in 1995, giving us the New American Standard Version of the Bible (Davis, 20). Other translations include The New International Version, which was translated during 1970 by a committee of evangelicals. It is considered accurate and has gained with acceptance among evangelicals today. The New King James Version is a modernized translation using the same manuscript as the King James Authorized Version. The New Century Version has published two editions, one for children, called The International Children’s Bible, and one for adults, called The New Century Version. These came out in 1991 and emphasize simplicity and clarity of expression (Bender, 4). Another translation, The New Living Translation, is a thought-for-thought easy to understand translation of the Bible based on the most reliable editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The most recent translation, The English Standard Version (ESV), is an essentially literal translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the exact wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer (Bender, 4).

King James initiated the translation of making one translation out of many good ones. History tells us that a man by the name of John Reynolds proposed to make a new translation at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 (Lewis, 28). King James was intrigued and agreed that it should be done. Therefore, by 1611 the revision was ready for the public. The King contributed no funding for the production, however, the Bible became known as the King James Bible (Lewis, 29). The King James Version withstood much criticism at the outset and eventually went through fifteen printings in the first 15 years (Lewis, 32). Over time the challenges to the King James Version lessened. It is interesting to note that printing the Bible outside of England was not permitted until after America had broken away from British rule (Lewis, 33). The American Standard Version resulted from a revision project that was completed in 1885 (Lewis, 69). A motion for revision was presented in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in February 1870 resulting in a committee made up of Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians (Lewis, 69). At the outset, the revisers envisioned a minimal task in order to bring the English Bible into agreement with the original texts. However, the project ended with 5,788 changes in the underlying Greek text of the New Testament (Lewis, 70). This version was also an attempt to put the Bible into English that could be understood. American scholars were brought in to the project in July 1870. Nine denominations were represented in the American group. The group organized and began work in October 1872. The goal was to make a good translation still better, more accurate and self-consistent (Lewis, 71). “As compared with the KJV, the ASV represents definite improvement in text, in interpretation, in wording, and in typographical form (Lewis, 79).” However, the American Standard Version was made just before significant manuscripts were discovered of both Old and New Testament material (Lewis, 86). Therefore, it became out of date before it could replace the King James Version in popularity. History was moving at a fast pace during this time period. Homes were lighted by gas and kerosene lamps, and electricity was not generally available. The telephone was invented but not widely used, few people had radios, and no one had television. Trains were available, but most people used the horse and buggy to get around. The American Standard Version, therefore, represented the best scholarship and biblical learning at its time. Approximately twenty-five years later the Revised Standard Version was available. The ASV was renewed in 1928 by the International Council of Religious Education (Lewis, 107). After two years of review by committee scholars, it was decided to make the revisions. The revisers were instructed to stay as close as possible to the Tyndale-King James tradition while accessing modern knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning (Lewis, 107). The Revised Standard Version marked the end of one time period and beginning of another. Following this publication, the era of multiple translations began flooding the market, competing against one another (Lewis, 128).

The New English Bible was published in March 1970 and was the product of a cooperative effort of the Protestant churches in the British Isles (Lewis, 129). It took twenty-four years to complete and begin with a proposal from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1946 (Lewis, 130). Like other translations, invitations were issued to different denominations and to the British and Scottish Bible Societies; Roman Catholic scholars were invited as observers (Lewis, 130). Translating the Bible is a tedious job requiring each translator to draft individual books and submit them to a panel of translators to review verse by verse. The difference in the NEB translations was that the goal was to prepare a completely new translation “of the best available Greek text into the current speech of our time” (Lewis, 130). The RSV claimed to be a revision of the Tyndale-King James-American Version line of Bibles; the NEB was to be independent of earlier translations. (Lewis, 130). The key to the popularity of the New English Bible is its readability.

Another translation of the Bible is the New American Standard Bible, prepared by fifty-eight scholars in 1963 (Lewis, 165). The complete Bible was presented in 1970. “The Foundation claims that it is the fastest-selling Bible in America today” (Lewis, 165). Although it holds this claim, there are some challenges to this translation. There are inconsistencies in the New American Standard Bible with regard to the Greek and Hebrew structure (Lewis, 197). The translation is criticized for not following translation procedures. The New American Bible is an effort to produce a new translation for American Catholics (Lewis, 215). It is the result of twenty-five years of work by fifty scholars, most of them Catholics. The NAB should be thought of as a new edition of the Confraternity Version of the Bible (Lewis, 216). This is the most readable translation into English that Catholic scholars have produced. This translation is important for the Catholic religion because is a more readable Bible. “Its impact upon popular American Catholic thought will be immeasurable. With the NAB, Bible reading for Catholics now becomes a viable option” (Lewis, 228).

The Living Bible Paraphrased is the result of sixteen years of work by Kenneth N. Taylor. He initiated his work on this Bible in 1954 when he began paraphrasing the Bible with his children during family devotions (Lewis, 237). The importance of this translation is the ease in readability. It is not recommended for serious Biblical study, but has it merits for allowing the regular person to read about God in a translation that they can understand. Another Bible that follows this same path is The Good News Bible for Modern Man. It was prepared in two and a half years by Robert G. Bratcher with the aid of the Translations Department and members of the Translations Committee of the American Bible Society (Lewis, 261). It was the first translation of the New Testament into English and was completed in 1966. The significance of this translation is that it successfully conveys the general message of the Bible to people who may have never read the Bible at all. The vocabulary is simplified and structured so that comprehension is easy. This translation says what the Bible is understood to say (Lewis, 291).

Another translation of the Bible is the Jerusalem Bible edited by Alexander Jones of Christ’s College in Liverpool, England (Lewis, 199). Twenty-seven other contributors involved in the project assisted him. This is another Roman Catholic publication and evidences the rebirth of interest in biblical studies by the Catholic religion. For the first time, a translation was completed that was made from the original languages instead of from the Latin Vulgate (Lewis, 199). The Jerusalem Bible offered the Catholic religious person a readable English Bible with an annotation system that would aid in understanding it. It is interesting to note that the first edition was completed in 1966, had over 2,000 pages, weighed five pounds, and cost more than $16.00 (Lewis, 200). The significance the Jerusalem Bible lies in the fact that it is the first contribution toward a common religious terminology.

Finally, The New International Version (NIV) is the latest addition to the many translations of the Bible today. “The New Testament was issued in 1973, with the name changed from the earlier projected name of A Contemporary Translation to The New International Version” (Lewis, 293). It is designed for both young and old, for study or general reading, and presents the Bible in an easily understood fashion. The NIV is a combination of traditional interpretations, modern translations, and innovative renderings (Lewis, 309). The goal of this translation was to “do for our time what the King James Version did for its day” (Lewis, 328).
Translations of the Bible from the King James Version to the New International Version all represent times in our history. A translation becomes outdated from the moment it is completed as new information is uncovered, new insights into the languages during Biblical times are learned, and new data concerning biblical history is uncovered. There will always be challenges to each new translation. Today the issues and times that confront translators reflect controversies over the use of inclusive language. No theological issue has stirred the interest of evangelicals as this one has. The issue of inclusive language is really about style, word-for-word translation versus phrase-for-phrase translation. The question relating to the issue of inclusive language is whether or not it should be translated exactly the same way as it originally appeared (Kohlenberger, 1). A clear, non-biblical, example of a word that is the same but has many different meanings depending on the context of its use if with the word “trunk”. For instance, trunk can mean the trunk of a car, and elephant trunk, a suitcase, the middle of a person, or a tree. There is no “literal” meaning of the word, on the contextual meaning (Kohlenberger, 2). Therefore, the meaning of the word is dependent on the context that it is used in the sentence. The same is true for many words used in translating the Bible. In some respects the Bible is very clear whereas other references are less clear. The extent to which they should be generalized to both sexes depends on examination of the context. Some translators follow a moderately inclusive approach and are not suggesting that all gender differences be erased in church and family or in promoting women’s ordination, etc. (Kohlenberger, 3). However, they feel that a moderately inclusive approach is best because it is the best method for conveying the meaning of scripture (Kohlenberger, 3). Those that support the inclusive language feel that it meets a need in the Christian community to reword the scripture so that it is not gender-specific. Others feel that it is tampering with the role relationships to make any alteration in the wording of the Bible. There are numerous verses that address the roles of men and women and to alter them in any way is detrimental to the meaning of the scripture and the structure that God set for men and women. Passages in the Bible that reflect the roles of men and women can be found in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 7 and 11, 1 Timothy 3, Ephesians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:18-19, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 3: 1-7 (King James Version). The argument for or against depends on which group you are talking with. The use of gender-specific language in modern translation follows patterns established in the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, and historic English versions (Kohlenberger, 5). It is a fact, however, that people in the 20’s and 30’s do not hear things the way previous generations have heard them. Words of yesterday have very different meanings today. The point is, as language changes, we must also respond, however, not in such a way as to miscommunicate God’s word in the translations. The supporters of inclusive language state that as languages transform, writers must go to the original texts and reshape the translation so that people do not misinterpret the Bible. They argue that the King James Version cannot be heard today the way it was heard in 1611. An example can be found in James 2:2-3, KJV, “…And ye have respect to him that wearith the gay clothing…” Today the meaning of “gay” clothing brings a totally different picture from what was intended in the original translations in 1611. This is one example of the argument for using inclusive language where all might agree to alter the wording. It is a debate that will not go away or be resolved with ease. The times that we live in are geared to an all inclusive, all accepting society. The Bible makes definite stands on issues that would not be politically correct today and in these issues is where the controversy is critical. Additionally, English translations of the Bible are an ongoing process that began long before the King James Version.

In conclusion, the Bible has been translated throughout history so that people could have scriptures in their own language to study for themselves. Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired work of the Holy Spirit in which God guided men to write His actual words. There are numerous translations today for the causal reader to those that chose to seriously study the Bible. The importance of readability is without dispute. This discussion has been directed toward charting the many translations of the Bible, addressing the controversies regarding the use of inclusive language and comparing the many types of Bibles that are currently available. Each translator is charged with interpreting the text of the Hebrew and Greek Bible so that the reader has as accurate a translation as possible but presented in such a way that it can be easily comprehended. The average man in the pew at church would not have the background to successfully challenge one translation over another as far as its accuracy. That must be left to the scholars and experts. The goal toward which these great translators aimed has been achieved. No longer is the Bible locked from the common man who has no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Because of the many translations, it is now an openly obtainable book, available in supermarkets, and written in such a way to communicate God’s Word.

The daily tasks of working and meeting the demands of job obligation can leave a college student exhausted. There are a limited number of students who work full time jobs and attend college full time. Others, still work late and get up in the wee hours of the morning trying to fit all of the required tasks of school and work into one day. Students often find themselves more exhausted when they are trying to schedule tasks, because there just does not seem to be enough time in one day. Putting in long hours and worrying about class schedules adds stress to a student life.

The college student who has children is faced with guilt about not being able to spend time with the children. The children has great demands on time. They need help with their homework, or need dinner and to be tucked in bed at a certain time. The thought of not being able to keep up with the demands of the children is very stressful and can be depressing to both the child and parent. In other words everyone suffers because you are unable to fulfill all the obligations that you have taken on.

College students finds very little time to enjoy extracurricular activities. Even if they attend any major school functions, games, or dating , they will regret not getting the term paper done that was due the following day or week. Many students begin to feel pressure that often leads to depression and social isolation. The fear of being a failure and not measuring up to someone’s expectations adds more pressure to the sleep-deprived, stressed out student.

College students are often left with no personal time, and must learn to manage job and family. College has many rewards if you do not get burned out and give up too soon. The pressure and time managing can all be worked out with patience and lots of understanding from family and friends.

The Fast food industry has had a tremendous outbreak of popularity since they first came into existence. In the course of two years 25,000 fast food restaurants were built. That is an amazing number. McDonalds itself spends over half a BILLION dollars a year promoting their “culture” of eating. No company could have that much advertising money unless it was extremely popular. That is where our problem starts. The popularity of fast food has come from being a small problem to being a worldwide problem. No matter what continent you are on chances are you will find at least 1 fast food restaurant because of the never fading popularity of fast food.

Many studies have been performed having to do with McDonalds because of how popular it is. Most people would probably guess that almost everyone knows what Christianity is. However, McDonalds is more widely known. In a study done with children, the researchers found that the Golden Arch, found on McDonalds signs, was more recognized then the Christian cross. McDonalds has also created a mascot. His name is Ronald McDonald. I would be very surprised if I walked into a room of 20 American children and found that none of them know whom Ronald McDonald is or what the Golden Arch symbolizes. 96% of children know who Ronald McDonald is. That SECONDS him to Santa Clause whether they believe in him or not. McDonalds is known to most every American child.

Kids today eat too much as it is, and a lot of what they eat isn’t healthy. The large amount of advertisement from McDonalds contributes to this. If children know so much about McDonalds, you would guess that they would have eaten there. Surveys that have been taken say that most people eat McDonalds at least once a month. A study that was performed said that immigrant children coming to America, even with all their poverty and lack of good health care, are healthier then the everyday American child. Instead of eating processed foods, they eat more fruits, vegetables, and grains. Of course over time, every immigrant child will be sucked up into the contagious American way, and develop our unhealthy eating habits. The amount of obese children has increased by 50% in the last 20 years.

Almost everyone knows that fast food is bad for you. With the media highlighting every bad thing in the world it is hard to not know that. Most of us do not realize that it is not only bad for our health, but a threat to it as well. Some may know about the calories in it, which in just one meal can be enough for the day.

Very few may even know about the bad meat. So they think I wont eat the hamburger, I’ll have French fries instead. I know I used to think that, but the French fries are worse, because of the “partially hydrogenated” oils they are cooked in. Amazing isn’t it? There is virtually no way to make fast food good for you.

Ok, now I would guess your wondering what in the food is bad for you, so I will tell you that it is the trans fats. To most of you that word probably means nothing. It didn’t mean anything to me before I found out what it is. There are two types of fats: Trans fats and the essential fatty acids. The essential part of “essential fatty acids” implies that you need them. Trans fats are the bad fats. A lot of this information has been centered on McDonalds because McDonalds is the largest source of these fatal fats. Now, I know you can tell me well they changed their fries to being “cholesterol free”, but in the reality of that, in terms of your health, that means nothing. The cholesterol rating has nothing to do with whether or not they are good for you. It is all about what they are cooked in: the oils. Oils are “partially hydrogenated”. This tells us that they contain these potent Fatty acids. Most of us don’t know what “partially hydrogenated” means. That’s why we allow this to pass when we are reading labels. Trans fats are in many things whether we know that they are there or not.

What are trans fats? Trans fats were made in 1911 when Procter and Gamble made Crisco. Saying that something is “partially hydrogenated” means that hydrogen was added to a polyunsaturated fat.

Manufacturers did this to increase the shelf life of their products. When you do this the fat becomes more solidified allowing it to keep longer. However, it also keeps longer in our bodies. This causes blockages in our arteries. These blockages can eventually lead to heart attacks and various other things. Trans fats are really bad, solid fats that can seriously harm us.

Most children do not get enough EFA’s, essential fatty acids. These acids help us in so many ways. They are the fat that we need to live on. They are necessary for hemoglobin production, circulation, cell membrane, immune function, and brain development. Lacking them can cause heart, mental, skin, and other disorders. This shows that it is “essential” to have essential fatty acids. EFA’s are important to us because they keep us living and if children are lacking them it will lead to big problems.

Trans fats are in almost everything you can buy at fast food restaurants making them highly dangerous. We all need to do something to help this. This world has a rising amount of the popular fast food restaurants, which contain foods packed with trans fats, and do not contain enough essential fatty acids (EFA’s). The popularity of fast food restaurants many never change. Therefore we should attempt to make our fast food restaurants healthier. That doesn’t mean make the French fries cholesterol free! That means change how things are cooked and what they are cooked in. By changing what they are cooked in we can get rid of many of the trans fats, and possibly add some EFA’s. In that way we would make the food healthier decreasing obesity levels, and hopefully change the amounts of trans fats in most foods. Trans fats are virtually taking over not only the fast food restaurants, but also the world.

The Egyptian government was a theocracy. The Pharaoh was the leader of the people and must obey the laws of the Gods for the benefit of his people. Some rulers claimed to be divinities. His behavior set a guideline to benefit his people. Proper ethical and moral behavior prepared them for an abundance in the next life. The Egyptians believed that they had to pass a test of one of their Gods to be reborn into the after life. The spirit had to pass judgment and prove that the soul was free from sin, there was confession and then the heart was weighed against the feather of Maat, goddess of truth. If the scale balanced he or she would be admitted to the afterlife, if not they would be devoured into death. Egyptians would spend their whole life preparing for death. They lived a good clean life, and built elaborate tombs called pyramids to be buried in when they died. Everything of value would be buried in these tombs with them, even their slaves because they believed that these material things would pass with them. The Egyptians would build temples to worship their Gods.

Just as it was in antiquity, today people are still worshiping a God of some kind. Spirituality has withstood the test of time. It is such an important part of our lives. We have built temples to worship our God in. We have churches, or synagogues, or cathedrals, some sort of building for every different type of faith. People of all walks of life look to a higher power for guidance. If there was nothing to strive for we would wander aimlessly in the world, and we would be without order. If we didn’t have anything to work for there would be no meaning to life. People have to have something to believe in. This has been proven by the fact that throughout time, from the very beginning, there has been worship of some form, and it is still with us today.
In the Christian faith we believe that our God created the heavens and the earth. He created mankind to live on the earth with all other living creatures that are beneath our level of intelligence. We follow a book as our guide, and we communicate with him by prayer. The Bible tells us that God sent us his son to die for us so that we may have an ever lasting life. We have only to believe in our God and accept him as our savior and we will have eternal life in a place where there is no evil or suffering . We ask that he come into our heart and be our savior and we will have a spiritual relationship with him. He has said that if we do this all of our sins will be forgiven and we will enter into his kingdom when we die. There are no rituals that we must do, and it is free. It doesn’t cost a thing because our God sent his son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross and wash away our sins. When Jesus left us to go back up to heaven, he left with us a Holy Spirit to be the presence and power of God. We live by the guidance of this Holy Spirit and by the gifts the Holy Spirit has given us. We are not forced to do anything in this relationship, we are just asked just cooperate.

When we die, we will go to heaven where our God has prepared a home for us. A place where there is no sickness, and no strife, hunger or pain. We will continue to worship God for eternity.

In the three examples, I have presented the similarities in spirituality. There are numerous other types of worship out there from all different cultures, to numerous to mention. We all have the same idea. We all have the need to believe in something greater than ourselves, we all worship a higher power and look to them for guidance in our world. All of mankind have a common goal and that is to worship a God that will lead us and lift us up to a place where we want to be. A God that will give us love, peace, hope, and faith. This gives us something to believe in, a guideline to follow. We all see where we are going and it is open for every one to join in. When Jesus comes we will all be united in a kingdom with one God and this will complete the cycle.

There are a huge number of fields of science. Some of them include astronomy, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, meteorology, physics, psychology, zoology, geology, computer science and many more. And these many fields continue to develop and discover new things everyday. The scientists who work and apply themselves in these fields work in a variety of places such as universities, hospitals, business industries, government agencies, independent research organizations and scientific associations. Science is important for many reasons. It is important because it helps and drives the development of technology. Through science we progress and develop new ideas and thoughts. It is important because it improves the quality of life.

Through science we are able to discover new medicines and cures and other things like transportation. It is important because it helps you make informed opinions and ethical educated decisions about scientific and other issues. It is important because it helps you understand how the world operates. With science you are able to answer questions about the world, how things work and why. And it is also important because it helps us react to our surroundings safely. These reasons help enforce the importance of science and explain why learning science is important.

My understanding of science is that it is an attempt to understand the nature of existence. And although one might not be interested in science, or keen on learning it. There is no harm in enriching your knowledge and providing yourself with necessary useful information.
“It is through science, that we have become.” Fahd Altobaishi.

In the text, there are many different ways that race and class interact. Generally, the blacks were the poor slaves. They had no freedom and could not advance economically due to the lack of education. The fact that they were forbidden education kept them superior to whites. The whites were much better off economically than whites. They had more money and more power over blacks. The education they were provided allowed them to advance in society. The society in the text believes that blacks do not deserve the same opportunities as whites. Education has an important role in society and can affect who you become. The different treatment received by blacks and whites lead to this gap in society. Despite this gap in society due to education, race and class structure interacted in many ways.

The interaction of Frederick Douglass, the slave, and the poor white boy is just one way they interacted. Unlike most whites, this young boy had very little money and was unable to feed himself. Frederick Douglass had a better like than most slaves, and even some white people, but he wanted to gain knowledge to further advance in society. Even though this poor white boy had no money or food, he still had the opportunity to get an education and eventually advance in society. Even blacks that had more money than most whites could not get an education. Frederick Douglass would give food to the poor white boy in exchange for knowledge that he could not get anywhere else. The poor white boy would tell him words that Frederick Douglass could not otherwise read. This shows how a poor white was still seen higher in society than a black male that had money and was well fed.

There was also interaction between the slave and the master. The master was white and naturally had supreme power over the slave. The slave was black who was destined for a life of serving whites. The whites did not allow the advancement of blacks in society. They wanted to keep the blacks inferior. This shows how race affects your place in society, and despite that, blacks and whites manage to interact in society.

The differences between blacks and whites lead to they different places in class structure. The lack of education that blacks were given kept them at the bottom of the class structure. Whites were given education, and therefore were higher in the class structure. Even though blacks and whites held different places in class structure due to slavery, they still managed to interact in society.

The fast food community does not realize what they are eating and what health problems can arise from eating fast food. According to Andrew Martin of the Washington Bureau, “Hardee’s restaurants recently scrapped almost its entire menu to focus on hefty sandwiches called Thickburgers–including the Double Bacon Cheese Thickburgers, weighing in at two-thirds of a pound and 1,148 calories.” (“Obesity” 1) Fast food companies do not warn fast food eaters of the many calories that are in just one hamburger. In a recent lawsuit against Burger King, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and KFC, a 56-year-old New York maintenance worker named Caesar Barber argued that “because of eating fast food five times a week the high fat, grease, and salt he became sick with obesity, high-blood pressure, two heart attacks, and diabetes” (“Food” 1).

Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, says “fast food is in the same league with cigarettes” (“Food“ 2). Meaning that once people start eating fast food, it is hard to stop. On the other hand, Walter Olsen, a legal advisor for the fast food company executives, says “Most people are aware that eating double cheeseburgers is not the same as celery” (“Food” 2). Fast food companies blame the eater for not having boundaries when eating their food (“Food” 2).

High fats in fast food causes problems for obesity in Americans also. Sodas at a fast food restaurant are easy to pick up on the go because have lids, they are inexpensive, and they taste good. According to Sally Fallon, “each can of [regular] soda contains the equivalent of ten teaspoons of sugar…” and shocking enough “diet sodas are sweetened with aspartame, a substance that causes blindness and obesity in laboratory rats” (“We Are” 5). Water sounds like a better option between these two choices. When a restaurant advertises that a product is made from natural ingredients, this does not make it a healthier item on the menu (“We Are” 6). Fallon suggests just because a fast food item has the words “natural” or “artificial” on it does not mean that it is healthy or not. Fallon added that “these flavors contain compounds, such as MSG, that can be toxic, especially in a body that is poorly nourished” (“We Are” 7).

People everywhere have heard this question after every order at the drive though window at you local fast food restaurant: “ would you like to super-size that order?” or “go large for only $0.39 more?”. Obviously, super-sizing an order will have that much more calories and high fat, which will help in the growing epidemic of obesity even more. “In a recent survey by Sandelman & Associates, nearly two-thirds of respondents believed the quantity and nutritional value of fast food contributed in some way to the nation’s obesity problems” (Martin, Chicago Tribune 2). The founder of the super-size idea is David Wallestein, a theater executive, who wanted his costumers to but more popcorn in his theater realized that most people did not want to seem greedy and buy two bags at once so making it bigger would make them buy more popcorn (“Obesity” 3). Fast food companies caught on quick and decided that serving larger amounts would be more profitable because savings on packaging materials would help to profit them (3). Food is cheap compared to the cost of the packaging materials (3).

One of the most important reasons to me which led me to my opinion of abortion is the question of what if the mother of the child is not capable of looking after the child and caring for it, or cannot afford expenses of having a baby. I believe that abortion should be allowed in this case because if the child cannot be cared for perhaps because of a lack of money then it may be neglected or if it is born into a deprived family it may be resented because of the amount of care it needs which could lead to abuse.

In addition, the next most important question, which led me to form my opinion, is, what if a baby is going to be born with a fatal birth defect? In cases such as this, then what is the point of going through the pain of pregnancy? I believe that if a child will be born with down syndrome or any other comparable condition, its is still a person and has a right to life, it may not be the “perfect” child, and also may be more difficult to care for but it is still a child and this is part of the risk of pregnancy. If the child’s birth could be a threat to the life of mother or child though, then I think that abortion should be an option.

Also, if abortion is banned women would risk their lives going for “back street abortions”; which could prove very dangerous for potential mothers, because of the risk due to the lack of medical qualifications of the people carrying out this procedure, which could be very basic.

On the other hand, the ‘Pro-life’ lobby does have good arguments also. If a child is unwanted it could be put up for adoption; although admittedly in later life the person may want to find their real parents which I think any child has a right to do; but adoption is admittedly a much more palatable option than getting rid of the child completely. This gives the child a life and where there’s life there’s hope.
Also, every life has potential for greatness; so should we risk the loss of this? Everyone has a right to a life and happiness and should we control who does and who doesn’t have this opportunity?

I don’t have arguments to be used against these points. They are valid points, but I still feel that the positive benefits of having abortion as an option out-weigh the bad, and out-weigh the good points of not having abortion.

The most important reason to me, that led me to my opinion of abortion is, what if a woman was made pregnant through rape? In cases such as this should a woman have to carry a child that was caused through no fault of their own? Is it fair for the woman to go through the pain of pregnancy because of a horrific assault that will live with her for the rest of her life? Is it fair on the child to be a product of such a dreadful act?
I think abortion should be an option in this type of case. It would be horrible for the woman to give birth to an unwanted child, and for the child to grow up knowing he or she was the product of a brutal assault. No woman therefore should have to carry such an unwanted child.

In conclusion to the points I have made for and against abortion then, I do not think that abortion should be banned. I think it should be an option for all women so long as they have a reason for doing so; but I do agree that after the 24th week of pregnancy, when the foetus starts to develop and look more like a baby, abortion should not be allowed. Although I do also worry that, who are we to take away life from someone? Despite this though I think abortion should be an option and it should really be up to the patient whether they wish to make this choice or not.

Throughout the play, the leading character of Hamlet behaves in a misogynistic manner towards the women in his life. However, many things he says in passing also involve misogynistic content. Hamlet appears to have a slight obsession with women being promiscuous to the point that he includes this in his analogies. “Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words.” (Act II, sc. Ii, l.583). Even though Hamlet could have easily used another analogy in it’s place, he seemed to feel the need to mention ‘whores’ there. In discussion with Ophelia, Hamlet mentions how he believes that women are two-faced. “God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another.” (Act III, sc. i, l.144-150). Although Hamlet believes that Ophelia is deceitful, it is the word “yourselves” that proves to be misogynistic. Hamlet is referring to the actions of all women, not just Ophelia or his mother. Hamlet also believes that all women are out only to deceive men like himself. “It is but foolery but it is such a kind of gain-giving as would perhaps trouble a woman.” (Act V, sc. ii, l.206-207). He refers to ‘gain-giving’ as meaning a feeling of anxiety or misgiving, which he is associating with women. It is proved several times in the play that Hamlet has a high disrespect for all women that he continually mentions in casual conversation.

After the death of his father, and his mother’s hasty remarriage, to his uncle, Hamlet begins to show feelings of hatred and contempt towards his mother. Many of the things he says about her, or in reference to her could easily be seen as misogynistic. He refers to her actions as if they are typical of all women. In Act III, while conversing with Hamlet about the play that is being put on, and Hamlet is impatient with the introduction of the play. Ophelia assures him that it will be brief, to which Hamlet replies, “As woman’s love.” (Act III, sc. ii, l.108). Although Ophelia has done nothing to betray Hamlet in any way and is still very much in love with him, Hamlet assumes that her love will not be long-lasting simply because Gertrude’s love for Hamlet’s father did not last any length of time after his death. In a soliloquy early into the play, Hamlet mentions what he considers to be his mother’s betrayal to him and his father and utters, “Frailty, thy name is woman!” (Act I, sc. ii, l.146). ‘Frailty is apparently referring to his mother’s ‘moral weakness’ which in Gertrude’s case, could very well be true, but it his reference to all women having moral weaknesses and being distrustful that shows misogyny. Similarly, when Hamlet finds out the truth regarding his father’s death from the Ghost, he includes the line, “O most pernicious woman!” in his soliloquy (Act I, sc. ii l.106). It is assumed that he is using the word ‘pernicious’ as being fatal or tragic, reiterating that he considers women to be evil and whose purpose is to destroy men. It is evident in many cases that Hamlet feels betrayed by his mother and seems to use these feelings against all women.

It is evident throughout the play that Hamlet holds bitter feelings towards women as a result of the actions of his mother, Gertrude. These feelings are clearly shown by the way that he talks to Ophelia on countless occasions. Although at times he ears to be in love with her, he thinks that she is untrustworthy and deceitful. “That if you be honest and fair, your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty.” (Act III, sc. ii, l.108-109). Even though Ophelia has done nothing to betray Hamlet he constantly belittles her. Hamlet believes that Ophelia is a whore and can only be saved by religion, and does not deserve to be happy with a man. “If thou dost marry, I’ll give plague for thy dowry: be chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go: farewell, or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know what monsters you make of them.” (Act III, sc. i, l.135-140). Although Ophelia has not acted in a promiscuous manner, Hamlet believes that all women are whores because he thinks that his mother has acted like one. And although Ophelia has professed her love to Hamlet, he believes that she is being deceptive with her feelings towards him. “I could interpret between you and your love if I could see the puppets dallying.” (Act III, sc. ii, l.242-243). Even though Ophelia appears to truly love Hamlet he refuses to believe that her intentions are sincere. Throughout the play, Ophelia remains to be innocent, naпve and in love with a man who constantly insults her. However, Hamlet’s opinion of women has been jaded by his mother and therefore he treats Ophelia terribly and in a misogynistic manner.

Hamlet proves many times in the play that he does indeed not hate just the women in his life, but apparently all women in general. Several of the misogynistic things that he says are not about the specific women that he is involved with, but about the entire female gender. It appears that his outlook on women was drastically altered by what he considers to be his mother’s deception and promiscuity and therefore has taken a discriminatory and misogynistic view on women.