Quotes From the Louisa Ma Alcott Novel Little Women

Little Women is a classic novel by Louisa May Alcott. Based on her own experiences growing up with three sisters, the novel is Alcotts best-known works  and presents many of her personal viewpoints. This novel is something of a conundrum for feminist scholars because while it portrays a strong female heroine (Jo March, an analog for Alcott herself), the ideals of hard work and sacrifice and the ultimate goal of marriage seem to stymie true individual rebellion from any of the March sisters.   Here are  a few of the quotes that show the contradictions in the themes of independence and feminism in Little Women.   March Familys Money Problems Christmas wont be Christmas without any presents. Jo March. Right out of the gate, Alcott shows the March family’s precarious financial situation  and gives a glimpse into each of the sisters’ personalities. The only one who doesn’t complain about the lack of Christmas gifts is Beth (spoiler alert: much later in the novel, Beth dies, giving readers a mixed message about the virtues of sacrifice).   None of Alcotts characters ever raise the question of why Mr. March keeps returning to his post as a war chaplain even though his wife and daughters are close to destitute. Virtue and Pride in Little Women Alcott had strong, unyielding views on proper behavior. Im not Meg tonight, Im a doll who does all sorts of crazy things. Tomorrow I shall put away my fuss and feathers and be desperately good again. Megs wealthy friends dress her up to attend a ball, she flirts and drinks champagne. When Laurie sees her he expresses his disapproval. She tells him to lighten up, but later feels ashamed and confesses to her mother that she behaved badly A poor girl getting to enjoy a party hardly seems like the worst possible behavior, but the moral code of Alcotts novel is strict. Marriage in Little Women The reality for women in the 19th century who were not wealthy was either marry a wealthy man or work as a governess or teacher to support their parents. Despite her somewhat radical feminist views, Alcotts characters do little to deviate from this norm in the end.   Money is a needful and precious thing,--and, when well used, a noble thing,--but I never want you to think it is the first or only prize to strive for. Id rather see you poor mens wives, if you were happy, beloved, contented than queens on thrones, without self-respect and peace. -Marmee. The March sisters mother seems to be telling her daughters not to marry for the sake of money or status  but doesn’t suggest that there’s any alternative to marriage.  If this is a feminist message, it’s a seriously dated and confused one.   You have grown abominably lazy, and you like gossip, and waste time on frivolous things, you are contented to be petted and admired by silly people, instead of being loved and respected by wise ones. Amy lets Laurie have it, and this moment of brutal honesty is the beginning of their romantic relationship. Of course, Laurie is still pining over Jo at this point, but Amy’s words seem to straighten him out. This is sort of a pivotal quote from â€Å"Little Women,† because it reflects Alcott’s personal views about vanity, gossip and the like.   Trying to Tame Jo March Much of Little Women is spent describing how Jos stubborn, headstrong behavior needs to be subdued.   Ill try and be what he loves to call me, a little woman, and not be rough and wild; but do my duty here instead of wanting to be somewhere else. - Jo March. Poor Jo has to suppress her natural personality (or try to) in order to please her parents. It’s easy to infer that Alcott may have been projecting a little bit here; her father, Branson Alcott, was a transcendentalist and preached strict Protestant values to his four daughters.   An old maid, thats what Im to be. A literary spinster, with a pen for a spouse, a family of stories for children, and twenty years hence a morsel of fame, perhaps... Jo says it, but this is yet another example of Alcott’s voice coming through her main protagonist. Some literary scholars have interpreted this and some of Jo’s other â€Å"tomboyish† points of view to indicate a homosexual subtext, which would have been taboo for a novel of this era. But in another instance Jo laments Meg’s impending marriage, saying: â€Å"I just wish I could marry Meg myself and keep her safe in the family.† Whether intended or not, to a modern reader, Jo’s personality and resistance to being paired with a man (at least in the early chapters) do indicate the possibility that she was uncertain about her sexuality.

The Existentialist Views of Hamlet Essay - 756 Words

The Existentialist Views of Hamlet Do we matter? Will anything we do endure? These are questions from existentialism. The dictionary defines existentialism as the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad (Merriam Webster). In the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Hamlet struggles with the concept that nothing from our lives last and time grinds everything away. Hamlets major conflict was his existentialist view of the world. Does a prince of Denmark have any worth if Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of earth we make loam; and why of that†¦show more content†¦Even with this proof, Hamlet will not kill Claudius during prayer because he believes his decision will matter and he must choose wisely. In the graveyard, Hamlet saw peoples skulls and wondered what the couriers compliments or the jesters tricks had brought them but another spot in the earth. Hamlet saw the acts of well respected men not protect them from the grave and anonymity when he said, This fellow might be ins time a great buyer of land, with his statutes his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries: is this the fine of his fines, and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor himself have no more ( V. i. 98-103). Hamlets inaction appeared in his relationship with Ophelia. He admitted at her grave that he loved her but he did not attempt to have more than a physical relationship. Hamlets fear of action led to other problems. Hamlet was so obsessed with his lack of action and the worthlessness of life that he contemplates suicide asking, For who could bear the whips and scorns of time ( III. i. 69-70). He believes he would be foolish to suffer through his life when he will simply beShow MoreRelatedEssay on Existentialism in Unknown Places1409 Words   |  6 Pagescertain characteristics and behaviors that describe existentialist views. Throughout today’s world, there are examples of it everywhere, it’s found in movies, books, songs, and just people in general. Existentialists are known to think and do for themselves only. They believe that to understand what it means to be human requires understanding of themselves first. Some very well known pieces of entertainment existentialism is found in are: Hamlet by William Shakespeare, The Metamorphosis by Franz KafkaRead More Hamlet, the Existentialist Essay1082 Words   |  5 PagesShakespeare’s Hamlet is a tragic play about murder, betra yal, revenge, madness, and moral corruption. It touches upon philosophical ideas such as existentialism and relativism. Prince Hamlet frequently questions the meaning of life and the degrading of morals as he agonizes over his father’s murder, his mother’s incestuous infidelity, and what he should or shouldn’t do about it. At first, he is just depressed; still mourning the loss of his father as his mother marries his uncle. After he learnsRead MoreThe Relationship Between Ophelia and Hamlet: William Shakespeare970 Words   |  4 PagesThe play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, looks at the issue of madness and how it effects the characters of the play. Madness can be looked at from very different perspectives, such as strong and uncontrollable emotions, a person’s desires, and also a persons mental stability. Throughout the play, the audience is questioning the sanity of the main character, Hamlet, as he goes on his quest for revenge. The people around hi m also show signs of madness, such as Ophelia and Claudius, but in differentRead MoreHamlets Existential Crisis1429 Words   |  6 PagesWhen looking at Hamlet, one could say that William Shakespeare put the play together as a very cathartic tragedy. The emotional result of dealing with so many deaths brings on a plethora of emotions which are not usually felt in a typical play. Hamlet begins not with the normal prosperity and good fortune as do most tragedies, but with a more stifling and depressing sort of mood (Tekany 115). However, something else could be said about this play as well. The play centers on Hamlet and his existentialRead MoreHamlet And Laertes By William Shakespeare1469 Words   |  6 PagesShakespeare’s characters Hamlet and Laertes, in the play Hamlet, attempt to attain revenge for their fathers, but contrast in their approaches to achieving revenge, and their view of life as a whole, their failures revealing the inevitability of fate. Just as Hamletâ₠¬â„¢s inaction hinders him from achieving his goal of killing Claudius, Laertes’s impetuosity similarly leads him astray from his goal their inability to achieve these goals. The power of fate is thereby revealed through the futility of humanRead MoreUnderstanding Existentialism Essay864 Words   |  4 PagesThe dictionary defines existentialism as an individual’s experience filled with isolation in a hostile universe where a human being attempts to find true self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. Hamlet is an existentialist character who believes that he is forced to avenge his father’s death and the hatred builds in his heart because of the many betrayals which direct him towards a senseless life and constant thoughts about suicide; this ultimately leads toRead MoreThe Concept of Bad Faith in the Philosophy of Sartre1335 Words   |  6 PagesUnderstanding the concept of bad faith means to comprehend the existent ialist philosophy of Sartre. The concept of bad faith forms the basis of his moral psychology. Also, bad faith continued to remain main theme throughout Sartre’s philosophical works. The concept emphasizes that bad faith, similar to all our attitudes, determines the manner in which the world and every person within it appears. Bad faith shapes all our beliefs, views, and actions specifically as agents in the world. In this contextRead MoreComparision Of Hamlet With Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead1306 Words   |  6 PagesRosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (R and G†¦) by Tom Stoppard is a transformation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that has been greatly influenced due to an external contextual shift. The sixteenth century Elizabethan historical and social context, accentuating a time of questioning had specific values which are transformed and altered in Stoppard’s Existential, post two-world wars twentieth century historical and social context. The pro cesses of transformation that are evident allow the shifts in ideasRead MoreThe, No Scene Of Violence Exists For Its Own Sake1350 Words   |  6 Pagesand action. Hamlet is as much a story of emotional conflict, paranoia, and self-doubt as it is one of revenge and tragedy. The protagonist, Prince Hamlet of Denmark, is instructed by his slain father’s ghost to enact vengeance upon his uncle Claudius, whose treacherous murder of Hamlet’s father gave way to his rise to power. Overcome by anguish and obligation to avenge his father’s death, Hamlet ultimately commits a number of killings throughout the story. However, we are not to view the characterRead MoreCharacteristics Of A Shakespearean Tragedy1716 Words   |  7 Pages Characteristics of a Shakespearean tragedy: (Identify three and give an example/connection from Hamlet and a short explanation of the importance) 1. A central character who has status and prosperity A defining characteristic of Shakespearean tragedies is a powerful and high ranking protagonist. Hamlet fits this bill perfectly, being the crown prince of the kingdom of Denmark and thus wielding enormous power. One of the reasons why protagonists of Shakespearean tragedies are characters of status

Religion’s Effect on American Policies Free Essays

string(60) " as opposed to simply allowing religion to take free reign\." America is a country that is characterized as being a nation with multiple cultures, multiple ethnicities, and multiple religions. Plurality in all aspects of American society’s classifications is something that is espoused by most Americans. Numerous individuals with different backgrounds come together on American soil to form and make up the nation that is established on equality and democracy. We will write a custom essay sample on Religion’s Effect on American Policies or any similar topic only for you Order Now Inclusion of all the diverse backgrounds present within this democratic society is the main goal of most American social institutions. Religion is one of the main aspects of an individual’s background that influences his or her behavior and analysis about life. Religion in America goes beyond an individual’s everyday life. (Minkenberg, 2) In fact, religion even affects the numerous American policies conceptualized by the government. Religion is such a potent force that its effect on American policies is not even dependent on the rate of citizens that attend churches for the different religions present in the United States. Minkenberg, 2) This means that religion is able to affect change in US government policies despite possible increases or decreases in religious Americans over given periods of time. The effects on American policies are not a result of the country becoming more religious as a whole but rather on the strength of religion itself as an entity enforcing change in political systems. (Minkenber, 5) There are many who emphasize their disagreement with religion’s effect on American pol icy. These individuals believe that religion should not be allowed to affect government policies so strongly or at all. However, it is this paper’s argument that religion should is not a necessary aspect of policy-making and that religion affecting American foreign policy should not be acceptable or encouraged. A presentation of the valid arguments with regard to this thesis will be made. Counter arguments will also be presented and refuted in order to provide a clear view into the fact that religion is indeed one of the crucial factors to be considered by America’s policy-making bodies. Before establishing why religion is not an important aspect of American policies, it should first be established that religion is in fact affecting the said policies. A Study on Religion and the Role of It on People and Media†¦. iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" style="position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);" src="https://phdessay.com/a-study-on-religion-and-the-role-of-it-on-people-and-media/embed/#?secret=Zv7pT3jOpu" data-secret="Zv7pT3jOpu" width="500" height="282" title="#8220;A Study on Religion and the Role of It on People and Media†¦.#8221; #8212; Free Essays - PhDessay.com" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"/iframe One clear example is given by the policies made during the administration of President George W. Bush. Despite the fact that America is experiencing a decrease in church-goers, it is measured to be more religious than equivalent Western countries in Europe. This is evidenced by its housing of more than 200 television channels for evangelism. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Religion is seen to take a role in the government’s policy-making decisions through the highly religious character of the President, himself. The United States’ stand on Israel is a clear case of Christianity becoming the driving force behind foreign policies. Instead of considering the interests of America, as a whole, the drive is largely to expand Christianity and to establish its hold on a nation like Israel. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith stresses that religion, specifically Christianity, has affected America in terms of sex and drug policies. Policies such as those against abortion are clear examples of the effects of religion on American policies. Harris goes on to critique such policies as being the main factors behind America’s moving towards a formation of a theocratic society, a society believing that its course is determined by a divine being. Religions role in America must not be equated to its role in a theocratic society. (God and American diplomacy, 33) This is a clear inability to separate church from state, one of the most essential aspects of American society. This is also a clear argument against religion’s evident role in American policy-making. Another clear argument against religion affecting American policies is based on the fact that America is a multi-cultural nation. It houses numerous different religions. Not all religions have the same positions and beliefs regarding policies. (God and American diplomacy, 33) As a result, when religion is allowed to affect US national and international policies, only a few of the total number of religions in the country are represented. It is only those religions with the loudest voices in America or those with members in the upper echelons of power that are able to affect changes in policies. This is no longer democracy or equality at work. However, there are those who posit that religion is in fact necessary in the development and implementation of American policies. One of the arguments for religion to be considered in policy-making lies on the fact that America’s relationship with other nations may be based on such religious foundations. A number of the international conflicts occurring today are largely religious in nature or are motivated by religious traditions. (Minkenberg, 4) One clear example is the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. Miles, 23) Although there are many reasons behind the said attack, there is no doubt that religion played a role. Miles (35-37), indicates that a strengthening of American foreign policy towards a confirmation of US religious freedom would show countries, such as those the September 11 terrorists were associated to, that America does not pose a religious threat on anyone. Protection of the country through a portr ayal of its acceptance of all religions with equal regard via the mechanisms of American policies is said to be very much a necessity in a world that is largely classified by religious traditions and belief system. However, espousal of religious freedom does not equate to allowing religion to dominate American policies. Also, this logic assumes that if other nations are shown that religion is widely accepted in America, other points of conflict will be foregone. Religion may be one of the motivations behind international conflicts but it is not a primary factor behind the said conflicts. Addressing economic and political factors would be more prudent as opposed to simply allowing religion to take free reign. You read "Religion’s Effect on American Policies" in category "Papers" Also, religion is shown to only be useful to policies when taken at this angle: America has numerous religions. We accept them all. This is not the true form of religion’s effects on American policy and does not even begin to address the numerous global implications of the weightier religion-based policies of America such as those made regarding Israel. Another argument states that religion is actually a very potent source of adaptive social change. Patrick Fagan states some of the social benefits that are derived from religion in his article Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability. He indicates that through religion, marital happiness and stability are increased, parent-child relationships are strengthened, educational aspirations and achievement are increased, physical health is improved, well-being and happiness are increased, crime rates are lowered, and community-cohesion is strengthened. In Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability, Fagan indicates that the separation of church and state simply meant that a single state-approved church could not be allowed to exist. He imposes his ideas that the government, especially Congress, should educate themselves with regards to the benefits to be derived from religion and its practice. He also stresses that policies should be made with religion in mind and that data on religion’s potency should be included and considered in debates and discussions regarding American policy. Because religion is effective in creating social change in empirical studies conducted in the community-level, it should thus be considered for policies whose implementation will involve an entire nation’s population. The main problem with Fagan’s account of religion and then his recommendations for its use in policy-making is that the success of religion’s success on marginal issues will not equate to its success in essential issues. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Just because religion was shown to have a high value in practices and regulations set for smaller populations doesn’t mean that it will be able to give an equal value for policies and rules set for the entire nation of America. Read also Analyze the Ways in Which British Imperial Policies Also, because it was able to generate positive feedback for areas such as marriage, crime, and community cohesion, it does not mean that religion will be able to generate adaptive ideas for the more complex issues of the same area. These issues may include homosexual marriages, death penalty imposition, and community governance. For more complex matters as the latter, religion is no longer relevant and allowing it to become a factor in such policies would not only be foolhardy but would even be dangerous in the long run. Also, religion’s application on a small scale with individuals practicing only one type of religion does not indicate that it will have equal applicability in a nation that has numerous different religions. The separation of church and state does include that no specific state-ordained church must exist. However, the reasons and thinking behind such a separation are deeper than simply allowing for religious freedom. Considerations such as oppression of the minority and inability to account for all the beliefs and principles of the collection of religions in America were also made. It is clear that religion is indeed affecting American policies. This change is not warranted and should not be condoned. Policy-makers should take an active stand for the separation of church and state. Policies with religion as one of its factors will, in the end, prove to be biased and geared towards the betterment of only one part of American society. Government decisions should be based on more economic, political, and democratic norms. America is a country that is characterized as being a nation with multiple cultures, multiple ethnicities, and multiple religions. Plurality in all aspects of American society’s classifications is something that is espoused by most Americans. Numerous individuals with different backgrounds come together on American soil to form and make up the nation that is established on equality and democracy. Inclusion of all the diverse backgrounds present within this democratic society is the main goal of most American social institutions. Religion is one of the main aspects of an individual’s background that influences his or her behavior and analysis about life. Religion in America goes beyond an individual’s everyday life. (Minkenberg, 2) In fact, religion even affects the numerous American policies conceptualized by the government. Religion is such a potent force that its effect on American policies is not even dependent on the rate of citizens that attend churches for the different religions present in the United States. (Minkenberg, 2) This means that religion is able to affect change in US government policies despite possible increases or decreases in religious Americans over given periods of time. The effects on American policies are not a result of the country becoming more religious as a whole but rather on the strength of religion itself as an entity enforcing change in political systems. (Minkenber, 5) There are many who emphasize their disagreement with religion’s effect on American policy. These individuals believe that religion should not be allowed to affect government policies so strongly or at all. However, it is this paper’s argument that religion should is not a necessary aspect of policy-making and that religion affecting American foreign policy should not be acceptable or encouraged. A presentation of the valid arguments with regard to this thesis will be made. Counter arguments will also be presented and refuted in order to provide a clear view into the fact that religion is indeed one of the crucial factors to be considered by America’s policy-making bodies. Before establishing why religion is not an important aspect of American policies, it should first be established that religion is in fact affecting the said policies. One clear example is given by the policies made during the administration of President George W. Bush. Despite the fact that America is experiencing a decrease in church-goers, it is measured to be more religious than equivalent Western countries in Europe. This is evidenced by its housing of more than 200 television channels for evangelism. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Religion is seen to take a role in the government’s policy-making decisions through the highly religious character of the President, himself. The United States’ stand on Israel is a clear case of Christianity becoming the driving force behind foreign policies. Instead of considering the interests of America, as a whole, the drive is largely to expand Christianity and to establish its hold on a nation like Israel. (God and American diplo macy, 33) Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith stresses that religion, specifically Christianity, has affected America in terms of sex and drug policies. Policies such as those against abortion are clear examples of the effects of religion on American policies. Harris goes on to critique such policies as being the main factors behind America’s moving towards a formation of a theocratic society, a society believing that its course is determined by a divine being. Religions role in America must not be equated to its role in a theocratic society. (God and American diplomacy, 33) This is a clear inability to separate church from state, one of the most essential aspects of American society. This is also a clear argument against religion’s evident role in American policy-making. Another clear argument against religion affecting American policies is based on the fact that America is a multi-cultural nation. It houses numerous different religions. Not all religions have the same positions and beliefs regarding policies. (God and American diplomacy, 33) As a result, when religion is allowed to affect US national and international policies, only a few of the total number of religions in the country are represented. It is only those religions with the loudest voices in America or those with members in the upper echelons of power that are able to affect changes in policies. This is no longer democracy or equality at work. However, there are those who posit that religion is in fact necessary in the development and implementation of American policies. One of the arguments for religion to be considered in policy-making lies on the fact that America’s relationship with other nations may be based on such religious foundations. A number of the international conflicts occurring today are largely religious in nature or are motivated by religious traditions. (Minkenberg, 4) One clear example is the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. (Miles, 23) Although there are many reasons behind the said attack, there is no doubt that religion played a role. Miles (35-37), indicates that a strengthening of American foreign policy towards a confirmation of US religious freedom would show countries, such as those the September 11 terrorists were associated to, that America does not pose a religious threat on anyone. Protection of the country through a portrayal of its acceptance of all religions with equ al regard via the mechanisms of American policies is said to be very much a necessity in a world that is largely classified by religious traditions and belief system. However, espousal of religious freedom does not equate to allowing religion to dominate American policies. Also, this logic assumes that if other nations are shown that religion is widely accepted in America, other points of conflict will be foregone. Religion may be one of the motivations behind international conflicts but it is not a primary factor behind the said conflicts. Addressing economic and political factors would be more prudent as opposed to simply allowing religion to take free reign. Also, religion is shown to only be useful to policies when taken at this angle: America has numerous religions. We accept them all. This is not the true form of religion’s effects on American policy and does not even begin to address the numerous global implications of the weightier religion-based policies of America such as those made regarding Israel. Another argument states that religion is actually a very potent source of adaptive social change. Patrick Fagan states some of the social benefits that are derived from religion in his article Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability. He indicates that through religion, marital happiness and stability are increased, parent-child relationships are strengthened, educational aspirations and achievement are increased, physical health is improved, well-being and happiness are increased, crime rates are lowered, and community-cohesion is strengthened. In Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability, Fagan indicates that the separation of church and state simply meant that a single state-approved church could not be allowed to exist. He imposes his ideas that the government, especially Congress, should educate themselves with regards to the benefits to be derived from religion and its practice. He also stresses that policies should be made with religion in mind and that data on religion’s potency should be included and considered in debates and discussions regarding American policy. Because religion is effective in creating social change in empirical studies conducted in the community-level, it should thus be considered for policies whose implementation will involve an entire nation’s population. The main problem with Fagan’s account of religion and then his recommendations for its use in policy-making is that the success of religion’s success on marginal issues will not equate to its success in essential issues. (God and American diplomacy, 33) Just because religion was shown to have a high value in practices and regulations set for smaller populations doesn’t mean that it will be able to give an equal value for policies and rules set for the entire nation of America. Also, because it was able to generate positive feedback for areas such as marriage, crime, and community cohesion, it does not mean that religion will be able to generate adaptive ideas for the more complex issues of the same area. These issues may include homosexual marriages, death penalty imposition, and community governance. For more complex matters as the latter, religion is no longer relevant and allowing it to become a factor in such policies would not only be foolhardy but would eve n be dangerous in the long run. Also, religion’s application on a small scale with individuals practicing only one type of religion does not indicate that it will have equal applicability in a nation that has numerous different religions. The separation of church and state does include that no specific state-ordained church must exist. However, the reasons and thinking behind such a separation are deeper than simply allowing for religious freedom. Considerations such as oppression of the minority and inability to account for all the beliefs and principles of the collection of religions in America were also made. It is clear that religion is indeed affecting American policies. This change is not warranted and should not be condoned. Policy-makers should take an active stand for the separation of church and state. Policies with religion as one of its factors will, in the end, prove to be biased and geared towards the betterment of only one part of American society. Government decisions should be based on more economic, political, and democratic norms. References Anonymous. â€Å"God and American diplomacy.† Economist, 366(2003): 33 Business Source Premier. EBSCO. 18 April 2008 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1hid=102sid=90034e27-67d3-4391-95af-666cfa43f615%40sessionmgr109 Fagan, Patrick F. â€Å"Why religion matters even more: the impact of religious practice on social stability.† 18 December 2006 Heritage Foundation. 18 April 2008 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bg1992.cfm Harris, Sam. The End of Faith. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. Miles, Jack. â€Å"Religion and American foreign policy.† Survival, 46(2004): 23-37 Minkenberg, Michael. â€Å"Religious effects on immigration policies.† Paper presented at the ECPR 32nd Joint Session of Workshops, Uppsala, March 2004. How to cite Religion’s Effect on American Policies, Papers