Answer:
ok I have heard you now okkkkk
Answer:
A proactive approach to the development of moral values
Explanation:
Many times we feel that when we stuck in a situation and we find that whatever is happening is due to us, we are the reason for all chores then it is hard to accept it. Because it needs a huge paradigm change with us for taking the responsibilities of the current circumstances. Many times we should not be influenced by the negative emotions as well as unpredictable events. This type of behavior is proactive. When we are proactive, we just concern about our things that are influenced by our inside sphere. We should focus on what we able to control or change the solution and this is only the situation where we react. We can not change or alter a person always in a direct manner.
Answer:
Integrity vs. Despair
Explanation:
In the integrity versus despair stage if a person can look back at their life with a sense of accomplishment then the person will have integrity and not have any regrets.
If a person looks back at their life with a sense dissatisfaction then they will feel despair as it will be too late to do anything about it.
Hence, the question here is referring to the Integrity vs. Despair stage.
Answer:
I believe that it is unconstitutional
Explanation:
n a 6-1 decision known as Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that the prayer was unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court. In the following excerpt he first gives the background to this case, noting the contents of the prayer and the resulting lawsuit. He then explains that the Court agrees with the petitioners that this prayer is unconstitutional because it was composed by government officials to promote religious beliefs. Black claims that even though the prayer is nondenominational and voluntary, it still involves indirect coercion because the government is behind it. Black was a Supreme Court associate justice from 1937 to 1971, where he was known as a defender of civil liberties. Prior to serving on the Court he was a lawyer and a U.S. senator.