What does the second chapter in Richard Dawkins' 2006 book, The God Delusion, say about religion?

"The God Hypothesis" is the second chapter in Richard Dawkins' 2006 book, The God Delusion. Dawkins is one of the more outspoken members of a movement sometimes termed the "new atheism", a vocal anti-religious movement. Dawkins himself is an evolutionary biologist and takes a Darwinian perspective on religion, seeing it as part of a primitive belief system that is no longer relevant to a modern, scientific world view.

While Dawkins heaps scorn and sarcasm on religion, picking out individual absurdities and distasteful elements in the Bible in this chapter, there doesn't seem to be much of a coherent philosophical argument. Dawkins' construction of religion is at what theologians would consider an extreme of literalism. He assumes that all religions take their narratives as absolute historical fact rather than as parables teaching moral lessons. He also tends to conflate all religions into a single set of naive supernatural beliefs. Oddly, he seems to see religion as a (failed) form of history or science rather than something on a different order, part of a tradition of philosophical understanding of the mysteries of our world and ourselves. Dawkins is not a fan of mysteries.

Dawkins tends to construct religion as a set of self-serving lies by the clergy to preserve their power and wealth or as a set of delusions. In a sense, one can say that Dawkins constructs religion in his own image, as something singular, literal-minded and scientific, albeit wrong, as opposed to ways that diverse thinkers over many cultures and periods have attempted to understand spiritual, mystical, and emotional aspects of humanity and the divine.

In J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, what causes Holden to almost “neck” with Jane?

Chapter 11 is where Holden discusses Jane Gallagher the most. He talks about what a great figure she has and how good looking she is, but his mother doesn't think that Jane is pretty. He likes her even if his mother doesn't think she is cute, though.

The situation surrounding "the only time old Jane and I ever got close to necking" deals with Jane's step-father (78). Holden and Jane are sitting out on her screened-in porch playing checkers. Mr. Cudahy, the step-dad, comes out and asks Jane where the cigarettes are, and she doesn't answer him. Jane never discloses what the issue is with her step-dad, but Holden asks her if he ever "got wise" with her. Jane starts to cry and Holden jumps to the rescue by sitting next to her and kissing her all over her face. It's ironic, though. Here he is asking if her step-dad has tried anything physical with her, and in her despair, Holden tries to comfort/get physical with her! 

". . . the next thing I knew, I was kissing her all over--anywhere--her eyes, her nose, her forehead, her eyebrows and all, her ears--her whole face except her mouth and all. She sort of wouldn't let me get to her mouth" (79).

Since Jane just sits there and takes his kisses and won't let him kiss her on the mouth, Holden declares it "close to necking." 

How would you film the opening settings in Washington Irving's Rip Van Winkle?

Washington Irving placed his stories in the New York that he knew well, especially the lush woods and hills along the Hudson River. Any film based upon his 1819 short story Rip Van Winkle, then, would need to include copious footage of this type of landscape. As multiple depictions of Rip Van Winkle have been filmed, or recreated in animation, any student contemplating the appropriate settings for another depiction of Irving’s story would do well to consult one or more of these previous productions for ideas and inspiration, as well as studying photographs of upstate New York and similar regions, such as the densely-forested areas of the Appalachians. A good filmed-version of Rip Van Winkle is that directed by Francis Coppola in 1987 for the Faerie Tale Theatre series produced by actress Shelley Duvall (best known for her portrayal of the wife in Stanley Kubrick’s version of Stephen King’s horror novel The Shining).

Once the location scouting has been done, the next task is to design and construct era-appropriate structures, such as houses, churches, saloons, and so on. In today’s computer-generated-imagery world, all of this, of course, can be done artificially, but set design and construction still occurs and would make for a more realistic depiction. Irving stories reflect the Dutch heritage prevalent in much of the region, and any portrayal of the time and place described in Rip Van Winkle should similarly display that heritage. Irving assisted in this regard by providing the following description of the village in which his story takes place:

“It is a little village, of great antiquity, having been founded by some of the Dutch colonists, in the early times of the province, just about the beginning of the government of the good Peter Stuyvesant, (may he rest in peace!) and there were some of the houses of the original settlers standing within a few years, built of small yellow bricks brought from Holland, having latticed windows and gable fronts, surmounted with weathercocks.”

In addition, then, to capturing the natural geographic beauty of the region, the opening scenes should include the noticeably Dutch-inspired architecture that would have been prevalent.

The physical setting thus established, one would now focus on the story’s principal protagonist, the titular character of Rip Van Winkle. Irving’s story is a commentary on culture in which he was raised and on the dynamics that develop between and among communities and families. Rip, the author notes, is a descendant of a great family that has, through time and intermarriage, been constitutionally diluted. Note, for example, the description of Rip in the following passage from the story:

“In that same village, and in one of these very houses (which, to tell the precise truth, was sadly time-worn and weather-beaten), there lived many years since, while the country was yet a province of Great Britain, a simple good-natured fellow, of the name of Rip Van Winkle. He was a descendant of the Van Winkles who figured so gallantly in the chivalrous days of Peter Stuyvesant, and accompanied him to the siege of Fort Christina. He inherited, however, but little of the martial character of his ancestors. I have observed that he was a simple good-natured man; he was, moreover, a kind neighbor, and an obedient hen-pecked husband. Indeed, to the latter circumstance might be owing that meekness of spirit which gained him such universal popularity; for those men are most apt to be obsequious and conciliating abroad, who are under the discipline of shrews at home.”

So, we now have the physical setting that would dominate the opening scene, possibly accompanied by opening credits, and an introduction to the main protagonist. Rip would be seen as a simple-minded man dominated by an overbearing wife. He is kind to everybody, but will clearly leave no discernable mark on this earth—at least until the heretofore unseen events to follow take place. The Van Winkle home and surrounding property, modest though it would be given Rip’s lack of worth ethic, would reflect his disdain for hard work and all-around laziness. In other words, the property would be a mess (“it was the worst-conditioned farm in the neighborhood”). The Van Winkle children, similarly, would reflect Rip’s cavalier attitude towards good order and discipline (“His children, too, were as ragged and wild as if they belonged to nobody”).

The student’s question did not specify how far into Irving’s story he or she wished depicted. Like any good story-teller, though, and Irving was a very good story teller, Rip Van Winkle does not lack descriptive narrative to aid in designing the settings in which the story occurs.

How do Portia's and Calpurnia's attitudes compare with those of their husbands?

Portia is in total sympathy with her husband Brutus. Her only complaint is that he doesn't take her into his confidence. She is troubled by seeing all the furtive men visiting him at his home at all hours. She keeps insisting on knowing what is going on until he finally tells her, in Act II, Scene 1:

Hark, hark, one knocks. Portia, go in awhile,
And by and by thy bosom shall partake
The secrets of my heart.
All my engagements I will construe to thee,
All the charactery of my sad brows.
Leave me with haste.

We do not hear what Brutus tells her later on. Shakespeare evidently felt that would be redundant, since his audience would already knows it all. But in Act II, Scene 4, Portia knows everything about the conspiracy and has in effect become a co-conspirator. She is tormented because, as a woman, she is confined to her home and cannot go to see what is happening at the Capitol. But she is obviously hoping that her husband's plans will be successful. Towards the end of this scene she says to herself:

The heavens speed thee in thine enterprise!

Calpurnia, on the other hand, opposes her husband Caesar when he prepares to go to the Capitol where he expects to be crowned king. In Act II, Scene 2, she says:

What mean you, Caesar? Think you to go forth?
You shall not stir out of your house today.

Calpurnia feels sure that something dreadful will happen if her husband goes to the Senate House. She obviously senses intuitively that the men who have come to escort Caesar to the Capitol are not as well disposed towards him as they seem. Caesar should have listened to her, but he is driven by ambition and pride. He wants that crown. The wily Decius tells him:

...the Senate have concluded
To give this day a crown to mighty Caesar.
If you shall send them word you will not come,
Their minds may change. Besides, it were a mock
Apt to be rendered for someone to say
"Break up the Senate till another time,
When Caesar's wife shall meet with better dreams."

Calpurnia is overruled because she is a woman. Caesar cannot let it be known that he was staying at home because of a woman's dreams and a woman's fears. Caesar is a powerful man, but he is blinded by his ambition. After Decius finishes speaking, Caesar tells Calpurnia:

How foolish do your fears seem now, Calpurnia!
I am ashamed I did yield to them.
Bring me my robe, for I will go.

This is the end of the conflict between Calpurnia and Caesar, but Scene 2 does not end immediately. Shakespeare prolongs it with some incidental dialogue, but evidently the playwright's main purpose is to show a servant bringing Caesar his robe and helping him to put it on. That robe is of great importance in the play. In Act III, Scene 2, Mark Antony will be showing the mob what appears to be the same robe covered with bloodstains and shredded with what appear to be the sword and dagger strokes of the assassins. This duplicate robe will serve to represent Caesar's mutilated body, which is never shown to the mob but only described.

What's the purpose of having the boys land on an island in Lord of the Flies?

William Golding chose to have the boys crash land on an abandoned island to illustrate how children would react without societal boundaries and adult supervision. The setting of the novel Lord of the Flies takes place on an uninhabited island, with an ideal climate, and abundant food source. The boys are free to express themselves without consequence or interference from civil authorities. This setting creates the ideal location for human instincts to develop untethered and unapologetic. The island is removed far from civilization, and the topography allows the author to create various scenes that enhance the plot and imagery throughout the story. The beautiful island symbolizes the Garden of Eden. William Golding alludes to Biblical events throughout the novel, and the setting allows him to parody The Coral Island by R. M. Ballantyne. 

How can I summarize Junot Diaz's The Dreamer?

Junot Diaz's essay The Dreamer is about Diaz's mother's desire to get an education as a young girl.
 
Diaz uses the first part of the essay to describe his mother. He mentions that she now lives in a nice house in New Jersey and enjoys feeding the squirrels in her backyard. In contrast to that, though, he also describes the way she grew up poor and even refers to her as "the kind of Dominican girl who was destined never to get off the mountain or out of the campo" (Diaz). 
 
He then recounts the way his grandmother expected his mother to work on the family's farm indefinitely unless, of course, she got married. When caring for the field hands, though, his mother realized that she wanted to become a nurse. However, she had no education and her mother did not support the idea of her obtaining one. 
 
That said, a few months later, Trujillo, the country's dictator at the time, mandated that all children under 15 be educated. If parents didn't obey the law, they could face imprisonment, but Diaz's grandmother didn't seem to care. So, in a last ditch effort, Diaz's mother drank water from a puddle in order to make herself sick.
 
Her family was planning on moving further up into the hills for seasonal work and eventually they decided they weren't going to wait for her to get better, so they left without her. As soon as her family left, Diaz's mother ran to the schoolhouse and reported her own mother. At one point, the grandmother tried to take the girl out of school and back into the hills but the police put her in handcuffs and Diaz's mother remained free to get her education. 
 
Diaz ends the essay informing the readers that his mother was never actually able to become a nurse because they immigrated to the United States and she was never able to learn English, despite trying very hard.
 
However, he then states that he currently works as a professional writer and attributes all of his success to her. He says he believes that, "who I am as an artist, everything that I've ever written, was possible because a seven-year-old girl up in the hills of Azua knelt before a puddle, found courage in herself and drank" (Diaz).
 
He goes on to conclude the essay, saying that he thinks of his mother's courage whenever he needs inspiration or faces hardship in his art. 

What is the dramatic importance of the coat episode in Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw?

The coat in Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw serves as a plot device. It gives Captain Bluntschli an excuse to revisit Raina to return the coat without explicitly stating that he has a romantic interest in her.       

The plot device of Raina putting a picture of herself in the pocket of the coat serves as a way for Shaw to make fun of the way romantic tokens are handled in melodrama. While in a melodrama or sensation novel, such a love token would have been pivotal in both plot development and relationship development, as the romantic Raina hopes, the pragmatic Captain Bluntschli doesn't even notice its presence. 

The photograph does, however, serve to make Raina's father aware of the relationship, because he has found the photograph and is curious about why it is inscribed:

Raina, to her Chocolate Cream Soldier: a Souvenir.

Thus familial pressure and discovery prompt Captain Bluntschli to admit that he loves Raina and move the plot towards its resolution of a happy marriage between him and Raina.