Answer:
Since there are two side to this both the religious side and scientific people believe different things depending on your religion it would be different since different religions believe different things so for example Christians would believe God created Adam and Eve and then things went from there whereas scientist would believe Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years and evolved from their most likely recent common ancestor, Homo erectus, which means 'upright man' in Latin. Homo erectus is an extinct species of human that lived between 1.9 million and 135,000 years ago.
Explanation:
The partition of India in 1974 was mainly due because of religious matters and of the high population of Muslims, Hindus ,and Sikhs in the area.Bangladesh and Pakistan became a muslim-majority country and India became a Sikh and hindu-majority Country
also Hindus and Sikhs got a long more than Muslims because of the same language and Muslims were used to Urdu and Arabic as their language and the Hindus and Sikhs adopted as a language called Hindi as there main language
Please give me brainlist
Explanation:
the use of fiscal policy to expand the economy by increasing aggregate demand, which leads to increased output, decreased unemployment, and a higher price level. Expansionary fiscal policy is used to fix recessions.
The founding fathers believed that the government should be formed to protect all citizen's rights and not just the higher class rights.
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:
