Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
The Arab Empire showed great toleration and acceptance of non-Muslim communities. This was based around existing Muslim laws regarding the status of non-Muslims. They were protected, given religious freedoms, and were free from persecution according to the Shariah law. Each nation was allowed to elect its own religious figure within the empire to lead them. In cases of crime, people would be punished according to the rules of their own religion, not Islamic rules. They also had the freedom to their own language and education.
Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
Pre-historic means before history; so before the written records. This also means that we have only archaeological evidence from this time, and have to interpret this evidence.
So we don't have names of gods in the pre-historic religions, only occasional statues and remains of temples. From what we do know, it seems that most prehistoric religions venerated gods related to nature: Sun, rain, animals, Harvest, earth etc.
Answer:
The disease called the Red Death is fictitious. Poe describes it as causing "sharp pains, and sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores" leading to death within half an hour.
Explanation:
