John Julius Norwich makes a point of saying in the introduction to his history of the popes that he is “no scholar” and that he is “an agnostic Protestant.” The first point means that while he will be scrupulous with his copious research, he feels no obligation to unearth new revelations or concoct revisionist theories. The second means that he has “no ax to grind.” In short, his only agenda is to tell us the story. Norwich declares that he is an agnostic Protestant with no axe to grind: his aim is to tell the story of the popes, from the Roman period to the present, covering them neither with whitewash nor with ridicule. Even more disarmingly, he insists that he has no pretensions to scholarship and writes only for “the average intelligent reader”. But he adds: “I have tried to maintain a certain lightness of touch.” And that, it seems, is the opening through which a fair amount of outrageous anecdote and Gibbonian dry wit is allowed to enter the narrative.
1.anti-Semitism
views, actions, or policies that discriminate against Semites (descendents from some ancient Asian peoples, including Jews and some Arabs)
2.encomienda
colonial Spanish economic and social policy
3.Inquisition
a time of intense Catholic persecution of those who did not hold to traditional Catholic beliefs
4.nationalism
a strong sense of love and devotion toward a nation
5.pogrom
a planned strategy to kill off a minority or ethnic group within a country
Answer:
The answer is C
Explanation:
n Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. The case began with the 1961 arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon.
It could mean many different things.
Explanation:
I think it means that without a check on that power it can't be trusted because powers are often abused.
