Answer:
B
Explanation:
D is not true, C does not answer the question and A is not a part of the question, so the answer is B.
Have a good day, can I get the crown pls!!!!
Answer:
here you go!
Explanation:
Because of English - Hindu intrigue just before freedom the territory of Pakistan which eventually arose in August 1947 was not all that solid as pictured by Quaid - e-Azam yet just a 'disfigured', 'moth - eaten' and 'shortened' Pakistan.
The main point of the Fifteenth Amendment is "<span>giving the right to vote to all American males," since after the Civil War many southern states still wanted to deny the vote to African Americans. </span>
The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, carried out by Western European Catholics who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope. Both issues were dealt with in an altogether different manner by the Roman Catholic Church during the Counter-Reformation.
Purgatory is the condition or process of purification or temporary punishment in which, it is believed, the souls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready for Heaven. They do not go to heaven directly!
The sale of indulgences was used to raise money to pay for the building of the Cistine Chapel in Rome. Martin Luther had a big problem with this (among other things that he wished to correct about the Church of Rome) and so he posted (nailed) the 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg in order to start a 'conversation' with other religious authorities.
Hope I helped you :)
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
