Olone v. Estate of Shabazz essays

O'lone v. Estate of Shabazz essays Facts: Muslim inmates brought suit under 42 USCS 1983, stating that policies newly adopted by New Jersey prison officials prevented them from attending a weekly Muslim congregational service, and therefore were violating their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The first policy, Standard 853, required prisoners of the respondents class to work outside the buildings in which they were housed and in which the services took place. The second policy prohibited inmates in that class to return to those buildings during the day. The Federal District Court ruled that no constitutional violation was present. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded however, stating that the policies could only be sustained if the State showed the challenged policies were intended for security purposes, and that no reasonable method exists by which prisoners religious rights can be accommodated without creating bona fide security problems. Legal Question: Should a prisoners religious rights take priority over prison policies made to ensure security? Decision: The decision of the United States Court of Appeals was reversed. (5-4) Holding: (1) The prison regulations did not violate the free exercise of religion clause. (2) The prison officials did not have the burden of proving that no reasonable alternative method existed by which the inmates religious rights could be accommodated without creating bona fide security problems. The court must resolve the present issue by determining whether a prisoners religious rights takes precedence over prison policies made to ensure security. In Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1984), it was ruled that lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justi ...

Dear Sir and Other Business Conventions

Dear Sir and Other Business Conventions Dear Sir and Other Business Conventions Dear Sir and Other Business Conventions By Maeve Maddox A reader asks: Is it just me, or does the Dear seem a little awkward when starting a business letter to someone whom you have never met or communicated [with]? If I have to call someone Mr. or something similar, is this person really dear to me? I had to laugh because I had a similar feeling the first time I had to type a letter signed Yours faithfully in England. Wow, I thought, what a devoted way to sign a business letter! At the time I was very young and literal-minded. (you can read more here about the business letter format). Dear Sir, Yours sincerely, Yours faithfully, and all such polite expressions are conventions, agreed-upon forms that serve a conventional purpose. Theyre not intended to be taken literally. Language is itself a convention. For example, the object that English speakers call a pencil is by French speakers called a crayon. For American English speakers a crayon is a stick of colored wax composition used for drawing and coloring. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. We can and do make the same words mean different things. Its all a matter of context. The dear in Dear Sir, does not mean the same as the dear that I use to address my grandchild. The one is a convention; the other is an endearment. The complete conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass may be read here. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Business Writing category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:20 Great Opening Lines to Inspire the Start of Your Story5 Lessons for Mixing Past and Present Tense5 Ways to Reduce Use of Prepositions