These two texts represent the views that Puritans held regarding life, death and religion. Anne Bradstreet was one of the earliest poets in America, and through her writing, we can appreciate the thought that was common during this time period. In this poem, Bradstreet presents a positive view of death. She thinks of death as a relief from life, and believes that the person who dies is happy to be able to rest silently and peacefully. She says: <em>"As weary pilgrim, now at rest,/Hugs with delight his silent nest." </em>Moreover, she wishes that she will eventually experience this too, as this will mean the end of her pain and worries: <em>"This body shall in silence sleep/Mine eyes no more shall ever weep/No fainting fits shall me assaile/nor grinding paines my body fraile."</em>
On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards has a much more negative view in his text "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Edwards sees God as a vengeful and strict being. He believes he is interested in punishing people for their misdeeds, which leads him to believe that death is something to be feared, as it will lead people to their final judgement and thus their eternal punishment. He tells us that <em>"when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction." </em>Although Edwards shares many Puritan ideas with Bradstreet, his view of religion is a much more negative one.
The last option or option D
Hope this helps (p.s, idk if im really right yet).
Answer:
I feel great, good to get back on a schedule
Explanation:
Answer:
Ghandi’s non-violent personality is a rhetorical device all unto itself. It makes him look beyond approachable to the beneficiary of the report. One example starts on line 64. Ghandi states, “If you think that there is any substance in my letter, and if you will care to discuss matters with me, and if to that end you would like me to postpone publication of this letter, I shall gladly refrain on receipt of a telegram to that effect soon after this reaches you.” Ghandhi doesn’t pressurize the British government, he propounds to not publish the letter so that they can sit down and have a decent talk. On top of that, he has it hand-delivered by an English companion. He is definitely far more inviting than the Americans were in their Declaration of Independence.
Explanation:
I didnt change much i just put different words that sound smarter
Answer:
Explanation:
The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was a security failure, an intelligence failure — or both.
How could security forces in the nation's capital be so swiftly and completely overwhelmed by rioters who stated their plans openly on a range of social media sites? President Trump had even tweeted on Dec. 19: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Washington, D.C., is known for its multitude of law enforcement agencies — a fact reflected in the agencies involved in security on Jan. 6. The Metropolitan Police Department has jurisdiction on city streets; the U.S. Park Police on the Ellipse, where Trump's rally took place; the U.S. Secret Service in the vicinity of the White House; and the U.S. Capitol Police on the Capitol complex