A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance

The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was written in 1892 by then 37-year-old minister Francis Bellamy. The original version of Bellamy’s pledge read, â€Å"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic, for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.† By not specifying to which flag or which republic allegiance was being pledged, Bellamy suggested that his pledge could be used by any country, as well as the United States. Bellamy wrote his pledge for inclusion in the Boston-published Youths Companion magazine – â€Å"The Best of American Life in Fiction Fact and Comment.† The pledge was also printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States at the time. The first recorded organized recital of the original Pledge of Allegiance took place on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus. Despite its widespread public acceptance at the time, important changes to the Pledge of Allegiance as written by Bellamy were on the way. Change In Consideration of Immigrants By the early 1920s, the first National Flag Conference (source of the U.S. Flag Code), the American Legion, and the Daughters of the American Revolution all recommended changes to the Pledge of Allegiance intended to clarify its meaning when recited by immigrants. These changes addressed concerns that since the pledge as then written failed to mention the flag of any specific country, immigrants to the United States might feel that they were pledging allegiance to their native country, rather than the U.S., when reciting the Pledge. So in 1923, the pronoun â€Å"my† was dropped from the pledge and the phrase â€Å"the Flag† was added, resulting in, â€Å"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and Republic, for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.† A year later, the National Flag Conference, in order to completely clarify issue, added the words â€Å"of America,† resulting in, â€Å"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,—one nation, indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.† Change in Consideration of God In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance underwent its most controversial change to date. With the threat of Communism looming, President Dwight Eisenhower pressed Congress to add the words â€Å"under God† to the pledge.   In advocating for the change, Eisenhower declared it would â€Å"reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future† and â€Å"strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.† On June 14, 1954, in a Joint Resolution amending a section of the Flag Code, Congress created the Pledge of Allegiance recited by most Americans today: â€Å"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.† What About Church and State? Over the decades since 1954, there have been legal challenges to the constitutionality of the inclusion of â€Å"under God† in the pledge. Most notably, in 2004, when an avowed atheist sued the Elk Grove (California) Unified School District claiming that its pledge recital requirement violated his daughter’s rights under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. In deciding the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the U.S.  Supreme Court failed to rule on the question of the words â€Å"under God† violating the First Amendment. Instead, the Court ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. Newdow, did not have legal standing to file the suit because he lacked sufficient custody of his daughter. However, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote separate opinions on the case, stating that requiring teachers to lead the Pledge was constitutional. In 2010, two federal appeals courts ruled in a similar challenge that â€Å"the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism† and â€Å"both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary.†Ã‚   Pledge of Allegiance Timeline September 18, 1892: Francis Bellamy’s pledge is published in â€Å"The Youths Companion† magazine to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. October 12, 1892: The pledge is first recited in American schools.  Ã‚   1923: The original wording â€Å"my Flag† is replaced by â€Å"the flag of the United States of America.† 1942: The pledge is officially recognized by the U.S. government. 1943: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that requiring a person to say the pledge is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.   June 14, 1954: At the request of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Congress adds â€Å"under God† to the pledge. 1998: Atheist Michael Newdow files suit against the school board of Broward County, Florida to get the phrase under God removed from the pledge. The suit is dismissed. 2000: Newdow files a lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District in California arguing that forcing students to listen to the words under God† is a violation of the First Amendment. The case reaches the Supreme Court in 2004, where it is dismissed. 2005: Joined by parents in the Sacramento, California, area, Newdow files a new lawsuit seeking to have the phrase under God from the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2010, the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals denies Newdow’s appeal finding that the pledge does not represent a government endorsement of religion, as prohibited by the Constitution. May 9, 2014: The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that because reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic, rather than a religious, exercise, saying the words â€Å"under God† does not discriminate against atheists.

Analysis Of Kitab Tarikh Al Hind ( History Of India )

Kitab Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India), written by Al-Biruni, is an ancient text that gives scholars insight into the interactions between Muslims and Hindus during the 11th century. In this opening excerpt of the text, Al-Biruni gives an introduction to his in-depth analysis of the Hindu people from his Muslim point of view and education. In this selection, he lays out where he may encounter problems extracting the true meaning out of the Hindu people because of his bias and Muslim history. Al-Biruni’s History of India is an example of how the dual religions of Islam and Hinduism were both present in the Indian subcontinent during the 11th century, and how bias affects interpretation of other religions. The author of this excerpt, AbÃ… « Rayá ¸ ¥Ã„ n Muá ¸ ¥ammad ibn Aá ¸ ¥mad Al-BÄ «rÃ… «nÄ «, or Al-Biruni, was a scholar during the medieval Islamic era. Born in Khwarezm in 973, he was well versed in religion, history, geography, geology, science, physics, mathematics, astronomy, and natural sciences, and also distinguished himself as a historian, chronologist and linguist. Al-Biruni was alive during the Ghaznavid dynasty, which was centered in the city of Ghazni, what is now modern-day central-eastern Afghanistan. Religiously, he was considered a Shi’ite Muslim, but many times his agnostic tendencies can be seen, especially in his writing. In 1017 he traveled to the Indian subcontinent and authored Kitab Tarikh Al-Hind (History of India) after being commissioned by Mahmud to explore the Hindu

Logic Gates Free Essays

A Project Report On WORKING OF LOGIC GATES SUBMITTED BY:- Shamil Choudhury ROLL__________ No_____________ Karimganj Junior College Of Science CONTENTS†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. TOPICS Page No 1. We will write a custom essay sample on Logic Gates or any similar topic only for you Order Now CERTIFICATE1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. THEORY3-4 4. EXPERIMENT5-6 5. RESULTS 7 6. CONCLUSION. 7 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8 8. REFERENCE 9 INTRODUCTION A gate is a digital circuit that follows certain logical relationship between the input and output voltages. Therefore, they are generally known as logic gates — gates because they control the flow of information. The five common logic gates used are NOT, AND, OR, NAND, NOR. Each logic gate is indicated by a symbol and its function is defined by a truth table that shows all the possible input logic level combinations with their respective output logic levels. Truth tables help understand the behavior of logic gates. These logic gates can be realized using semiconductor devices. Here we will investigate on the working of first three logic gates i. e. OR, AND, and NOT gate. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT To demonstrate the working of logic gates using torch bulb, battery and switches. APPARATUS REQUIRED To demonstrate the working of the logic gates we require the following apparatus:- i) A BATTERY OF 6 V. ii) TWO SWITCHES (KEYS). iii) TORCH BULB. iv) CONNECTING WIRES THEORY There are three basic logic gates: 1. The OR Gate * An OR gate has two or more inputs with one output. It operates in such a way that a output is high (i. e. 1) if one of the two inputs (or both the inputs) is high. The symbol of OR Gate is It works on the following truth table:- 2. The AND GATE * An AND gate has two or more inputs and one output. It operates in such a way that the output is high (i. . 1) when both the inputs are high. The symbol of AND Gate is It works on the following truth table:- 3. The NOT Gate * The NOT gate has single input and single output. The output is not the same as input. If the input is low (i. e. 0), the output is high (i. e. 1). On the other hand, the output will be low (i. e. 0) if the input is high (i. e. 1). In other words it performs a negation operation on the input and call ed the invertor. The symbol of NOT Gate is It works on the following truth table:- PROCEDURE (1) Working of OR Gate The electric circuit diagram is as shown Using the above circuit diagram we proceed as follows: (i) The switches S1 and S2 are not pluged and the glow of the bulb is recorded (do not glow) . (ii) Now the switch S1 is plugged (not S2), it is found that the bulb glows. (iii) Now the switch S2 is plugged (not S1), it is observed that the bulb glows. (iv) Both the switches are plugged, the bulb glows. (2) Working of AND gate The electric circuit diagram is shown Using the above circuit diagram we proceed as follows: (i) The switches S1 and S2 are not plugged and the glow of the bulb is recorded (do not glow) . ii) Now the switch S1 is plugged (not S2), it is found that the bulb does not glow. (iii) Now the switch S2 is plugged (not S1), it is observed that the bulb does not glow. (iv) Both the switches are plugged, the bulb glows. 3. Working of NOT gate The electric circuit diagram is shown Using the above circuit diagram we proceed as follows: (i) The switch S is not plugged and the glow of the bulb is recorded(the bulb glows) . (ii) The switch S is plugged and the glow of the bulb is recorded(the Bulb does not glow). RESULT 1. Results for the OR gate S1 | S2| Bulb glows| Off On Off On| Off Off On On| No Yes Yes Yes| 2. Results for the AND gate S1 | S2| Bulb glows| Off On Off On| Off Off On On| No No No Yes| 3. Results for the NOT gate S| Bulb glows | Off On| Yes No| CONCLUSION Thus we find that the logic gates works according to their corresponding truth table. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I extend my sincere thanks to our Dr Sujit Tiwari for his advice and help in the matter of preparing the project. I also express my deep sense of gratitude to my friends forextending all possible help in supplying project information, which I have used while preparing the project. They have given lots of information for preparation of the report I sought. My parents have supplied me all kinds of necessary materials and information for the report files. Hence, I am grateful to them also. REFERENCE [1] Concept of Physics – H. C. Verma. [2] Comprehensive Practical Physics. How to cite Logic Gates, Papers

Understanding the Behavior of the Employeesâ€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: How to Understanding the Behavior of the Employees? Answer: Introduction Organizational behavior is the study of understanding the behavior of the employees and their level of interaction among each other (Huning, Bryant and Holt, 2015). Regulation of workplace emotion defined the situation, where the employees are inclined to hide their emotion for maintaining the norms and demands of jobs. The research essay will describe the impact of workplace emotion on the job satisfaction level of the employees. The research essay will also analyze the role of supervision and leadership towards influencing the level of workplace emotion of the employees. Moreover, some suggestions will also be provided to the organizations towards improving the organizational behavior. Discussion Organizational behavior explores the way organization member interacts with the groups within their organization. Effective organizational behavior is highly required for fostering more efficient business operation. This research paper has highlighted the issues of workplace emotion among the employees. The literature review section of the research has identified that controlling workplace emotion can drive to negative impact on the mind of employees. In this way, it can lead to employee dissatisfaction. According to Whittle, (2015) interaction of the employees with their supervisor can increase the level of anxiety among the employees. Supervisors are the individuals, who directly evaluate the performance of the employees. Moreover, the employees often cannot express their emotions due to fear and job demands. It ultimately leads to dissatisfaction among those employees. On the other hand, Henle and Gross, (2014) opined that direct interaction with the supervisor can make flexible r elation of the employees with the supervisors. Increasing interaction with the supervisors can make strong bonding between them, which can lead to increased job satisfaction. While considering the Maslows Motivational theory, it has been found that employees have some social needs for getting satisfaction in the workplace. As per this theory, employees need high level of kind supervision from the supervisors. Kind supervision can enhance the level of enthusiasm of the employees on their job role. As per Matta et al. (2014) the employees can better interact with the kind supervisors and share their level of dissatisfaction with the supervision. It can foster position emotion within the employees that can lead to high level of satisfaction to the employees. On the other hand, Kaplan et al. (2014) kind supervision often can lead to increasing tendency towards making the work easier. However, such approach can often lead to lower employee productivity as well as organizational productivity. Without proper control, kind supervision can be proved to be ineffective for the employees as well as the whole organization. 6Employees need to have sufficient level of autonomy for their high level of job satisfaction. However, the level of employee autonomy tends to be low in the workplace under direct supervision of the supervisors. As per Sears and Humiston, (2015), under the direct supervision supervisors, employees often feel continuously monitored and controlled. It can lead to the feeling of irritation and undervalued for the employees within the employees. Moreover, Hodges, (2017) opined that the expectation of the supervisors often causes constraints for the employees towards expressing their emotion. In this way, such behavior of the supervisors can lead to negative effect on the mind of employees. Lack of proper autonomy often leads to decreased power of the employees towards handling their own job roles. The research has highlighted that employees are more affected emotionally by their supervisors than their colleagues or customers. On the other hand, Niven, Sprigg and Armitage, (2013) opined that increased level of employee autonomy leads to less control of the supervisor on the employees. It can often lead to increased employee arrogance within the workplace. In this way, it can often suffer interpersonal relationship of the employees. As per the hygiene theory of motivation, providing sufficient responsibility to the employees is highly required for making the responsible employees happy. The supervisors should provide enough ownership to the employees for performing their job roles. It can maintain positive relationship of the employees with their supervisors. Another issue, which has been highlighted in this research paper, is the issue of emotional regulation. Emotional regulation is the process in which the employees select to express their emotion experienced from the workplace either in automatic or in controlled way. According to Hadley, (2014), employees habitually regulate their emotional display and emotion for conforming to the norms and expectation of their workplace. They can also control their workplace emotion for the demands of their jobs. Moreover, Grandey, (2015) opined that emotional regulation often becomes harmful for the employees, as it involved the acting without authenticity. Suppressing emotion has both cognitive and psychological costs, which includes cardiovascular activation and reduced memory for social information. As per free trait theory, compromising with the emotional and physical strains can actually lower the quality of life of the employees (Bowen, 2014). Furthermore, free trait theory also suggests that suppression of emotion is also seriously associated with physical strains of the employees. The employees can face serious issues of job stress, job burnout and emotional exhaustion. In this way, it ultimately increases the dissatisfaction level of the employees and reduces their productivity level. On the other hand, Kim, Bhave and Glomb, (2013) opined that emotion regulation often minimizes the chance of workplace aggression. Moreover, the employees can get less scope to raise unnecessary issues in their workplace. Personality is the most significant role among the employees, which determines the ability of the employees towards performing a specific job. Generally, the personality of the coworkers and managers influence the working situation of an organization. Moreover, the personality of the employees also affects the success of an organization. Therefore, the human resource manager should significantly identify the personality of the employees during recruitment and selection. As per the big five trait theory, there are five types of personality, which can differentiate one employee from others. According to Hodges, (2017), the employees having openness in their personality are more inclined to feel the emotion and are more adaptive. They have good leading power towards managing a perfect team with the organization. On the other hand, the employees having Conscientiousness personality are more hard working and dependable. Therefore, the HR manager often selects such employees for performing any project needing hard working. Apart from that, Hadley, (2014) stated that employees having extraversion personality tend to be in the presence of other people. Therefore, such kinds of employees are not willing to perform any desk job and more inclined to deal people. Hence, HR manager are more likely to select such employees for dealing clients or managing groups. The employees following self-determination theory are more likely to strive for their self-growth in the organization. Moreover, they are more expressive in expressing their emotion. According to Whittle, (2015), employees having regulation on their emotion experience high level of depersonalization with themselves. Moreover, they have a feeling of isolation in their workplace, which can hamper their job satisfaction level. However, Sears and Humiston, (2015) opined that the supervisors having transformational leaders can create positive emotion among the employees. The employees can get high level of support from the supervisors in competing complex jobs. Moreover, transformational leaders are more likely to understand the issues of the employees and feel the same as the emotion of the employees. In this way, such kind of leadership can better link the positive emotion of the employees with employee satisfaction. On the other hand, Hadley, (2014) opined that there is lack of direction and control on the employees in transformational leadership. It can ultimately lead to loss of inspiration of the employees in their job role. Conclusion While concluding the study, it can be said that the success of an organization is highly dependent on the level of perfect organizational behavior. The level of interaction in the workplace creates workplace flexibility, where the employees can have a feel of job satisfaction. Suppression of workplace emotion can drive negative impact on the mind of the employees. It has been found that the employees can feel high level of anxiety during the interaction with the supervisors. Furthermore, the employees often feel under continuous control and monitoring during the interaction with the supervisor. Moreover, emotion regulation in the workplace ultimately leads to job strains among the employees. It can lead to high level of job stress, job burnout and emotional exhaustion. Personality plays a big role among the employees, which determines their ability towards performing specific job role. Therefore, the human resource manager should consider the personality of the employees during the r ecruitment and selection process. However, transformation leadership can create positive emotion among the employees, which can enhance their job satisfaction level. Recommendation Emotional suppression has been considered as an important issue on organizational behavior. It creates negative emotion among the employees by reducing their job satisfaction level. The organizations should follow flexible organizational structure. In such organizational structure, the employees would be better able to communicate their issues with the upper management. Moreover, immediate solution of the employee issues can lead to positive emotion among the employees. On the other hand, the supervisors of the employees should follow transformational leadership. In such leadership, the supervisors should provide some level of autonomy to the employees for performing their job roles by their own. It would enhance the value of the employees in their workplace. Moreover, the reduced level of control and monitoring can also lead to employee satisfaction. Apart from that, the supervisors should follow kind supervision and recognize the employee issues in their job roles. It would minimiz e the level of emotional suppression and enhance the level of employee satisfaction. The supervisors should also be supportive to them in facing any complexity in their job role. Moreover, the performance measurement process of the organization should be in systematic way rather than random way. It would help the employees towards freely interacting with the supervisors. They can be ensured that they are not being monitored during simple interaction with their supervisors. Apart from that, the supervisors should take the initiatives by their own towards understanding the reason behind the negative emotion of the employees and take appropriate remedies for revolving their issues. Reference List Bowen, J.L., 2014. Emotion in organizations: Resources for business educators.Journal of Management Education,38(1), pp.114-142. Grandey, A.A., 2015. Smiling for a wage: What emotional labor teaches us about emotion regulation.Psychological Inquiry,26(1), pp.54-60. Hadley, C.N., 2014. Emotional roulette? Symmetrical and asymmetrical emotion regulation outcomes from coworker interactions about positive and negative work events.human relations,67(9), pp.1073-1094. Henle, C.A. and Gross, M.A., 2014. What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision.Journal of Business Ethics,122(3), pp.461-474. Hodges, D.Z., 2017. Showing feelings and emotions in the workplace is not a character flaw.Dean and Provost,18(9), pp.3-3. Huning, T.M., Bryant, P.C. and Holt, M.K., 2015. Informal Social Networks in Organizations: Propositions regarding Their Role in Organizational Behavior Outcomes.Academy of Strategic Management Journal,14(1), p.20. Kaplan, S., Cortina, J., Ruark, G., LaPort, K. and Nicolaides, V., 2014. The role of organizational leaders in employee emotion management: A theoretical model.The Leadership Quarterly,25(3), pp.563-580. Kim, E., Bhave, D.P. and Glomb, T.M., 2013. Emotion regulation in workgroups: The roles of demographic diversity and relational work context.Personnel Psychology,66(3), pp.613-644. Matta, F.K., Erol?Korkmaz, H.T., Johnson, R.E. and Biaksiz, P., 2014. Significant work events and counterproductive work behavior: The role of fairness, emotions, and emotion regulation.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(7), pp.920-944. Niven, K., Sprigg, C.A. and Armitage, C.J., 2013. Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace aggression?.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,22(1), pp.88-106. Sears, K. and Humiston, G.S., 2015. The role of emotion in workplace incivility.Journal of Managerial Psychology,30(4), pp.390-405. Whittle, R., 2015. Guilt and Elation in the Workplace: Emotion and the Governance of the Environment at Work.Environmental Values,24(5), pp.581-601.