You just gave the answer away 50N
Answer:
<h2>Deism</h2>
Explanation:
Deism and rational religion were popular approaches to religion by philosophical thinkers during the Enlightenment. John Locke was one of the early proponents of this sort of approach to thinking about God. Deists (or we could say "God-ists") believed in God, but as a rather remote Being who had created the universe by his power and embedded in it natural laws that allowed it to run on its own from there. Some have compared it to viewing God as the "great watchmaker" who designed the universe as a perpetual watch or clock that could run on from there without needing his personal intervention in daily affairs of earthly life.
C. would be the answer to which following cases would go to supreeeemey oo so creamy
Answer:When many of us were young, we were taught that the great pyramids required immense human resources to build, which of course, they did. We were told that as many as 100,000 slaves worked as forced labor for decades to build the Great Pyramid at Giza. Regrettably, it would seem that our teachers needed something to say about this ancient Egyptian civilization, and as is not unusual, memorizing some sort of data outweighed the importance of having correct information. Hence, we committed to memory the fantastic estimates of ancient historians who were mystified by the large volumes of material required to build these great stone edifices. However, we must give them credit, for at least they did not degrade the accomplishments of the early Egyptians by proposing the builders of these great structures to be space aliens or Atlantians.
Explanation:
I'm gonna choose the first prompt, I feel like it's a lot easier to come up with support.
During the early years of our independence as a country, prominent leaders George Washington and James Monroe both argued against becoming involved in foreign affairs. They felt that any international conflict brought with it the chance of war, and because America was so newly founded, we would be destroyed. Instead, they claimed that the country needed to concentrate on getting itself on its feet before they could begin to concern itself with other countries. By choosing to ignore international conflict around them, it eliminated any possible disputes with any other countries. Although this policy of isolationism worked for our founding fathers, following the same policy in today's world is not possible.
I gave you like ~150 words there to start you off, now I'll pass along things you can use as support. I'm not sure what grade you're in so I don't want to write something that sounds too elevated.
<span>The conflict in the Middle East would be vastly different.
</span>Israel would have to become more militant<span>, as they would lose the one counterweight that keeps other regional ambitions in check. Europe would fill the diplomatic void that US leaves behind. </span>France and UK would have to step up for the role of external arbitrator<span>. Saudis and other local oil exporter emirates would probably form alliance against non-oil producing Shiite majority nations. This</span><span> would result in higher energy price for the world.
</span>
<span>Japan and other Asian countries would have to form alliances to counter the Chinese territorial ambitions on their own
</span>In exchange for Japan not re-arming, the United States had guaranteed Japan’s safety. South Korea also relies heavily on the US to keep North Korea in its box. Choosing to isolationist would be a betrayal of our promises, and potentially force <span>Japan into changing its pacifist constitution. Some ASEAN countries may form military alliances, and Australia and New Zealand would likely face an even greater influx of immigrants from Asian countries.
</span>
US aid to Africa would cease<span>.
The continent of Africa is heavily reliant on the U.S. for support to combat epidemics and conflict. Many dictators and local strongmen would lose all aid money flowing into their coffers. Local conflicts may increase. China and Europe will fight for influence in the region. Nigeria and South Africa would also compete for continental influence.
</span>
Hope that helps! Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions.
