The correct answer for your question is “I shall be Mr. Seek.
Explanation:
"In response, the Nazis segregated the Jews from the rest of the population, and ghettos were developed to forcibly detain them."
"As a result of their antisemitic ideology, following the invasion of Poland the Nazis developed ghettos to segregate and control Jews.
Historically, ghettos had been used to segregate Jewish communities from the rest of the population across Europe. The Nazi leadership, Wehrmacht soldiers, Einsatzgruppen followed the German Wehrmacht into occupied territories throughout the Second World War, where they conducted mass shootings of the Nazis ideological enemies. Approximately two million people were killed by the Einsatzgruppen over the course of the Second World War." rel="tooltip" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(17, 17, 17); cursor: default !important; display: inline-block; text-decoration: none;">Einsatzgruppen , SS , SD and various local authorities across Poland built on and adapted this historic idea.
The Nazis also introduced ghettos due to their false theories that Jews spread diseases and therefore should be segregated to protect the rest of the population. This was in line with their racist and eugenic beliefs."
<span>The summary of the Peterson v. Wilmur Communications, Inc. lawsuit is already addressed in the question. The case had a summary judgement based upon two parts. Is the belief called "Creativity" a religion? And if Creativity is a religion, was Peterson demoted solely due to his belief in Creativity? This answer will only address the first question in the case.
Creativity does claim to be a religion, but does not claim any belief in an afterlife, or any sort of supreme being. The court had a two pronged approach as to the issue of Creativity being a religion. Were the plaintiff's beliefs "sincerely held"? The court ruled that the plaintiff did claim to sincerely believe in Creativity, and that the defendant offered no contrary evidence. So the first prong of the test was upheld. The second prong was does the plaintiff consider his belief in Creativity to be religious and that Creativity is a religion? The court considered that prong to also be true considering that the plaintiff was a Minister in The World Church of the Creator, and swore an oath upon becoming one over three years prior to the law suit.
So with the above summary in mind, let's look at the available choices.
a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964, as unorthodox, and even as repulsive, as it was.
* This is a true statement and the correct choice.
not a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 due to it being so unorthodox and repulsive in nature.
* The court did declare that Creativity was a religion, so this is a bad choice.
not a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 because it espoused racial separation, which violated title vii.
* The court did declare that Creativity was a religion, so this is a bad choice.
a religion under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 because the claimant engaged in deity worship, a prerequisite to recognize any religious practice.
* Yes, Creativity is a religion. But no, it does not believe in a God or a supreme being. So this is a bad choice.</span>
He was a southern with an undistinguished record of racial remarks
