Answer:
this proves that, instead, the answer to that is, and i will finish by saying
Explanation:
Thank you to the person who answered first!
Answer:
Romeo and Juliet
Explanation:
In Romeo and Juliet play by William Shakespeare, Romeo is exiled from his home town Verona because of the Tybalt’s dead, Tybalt who was Juliet’s cousin killed Mercutio who was one of the best friends of Romeo against the desire of his father, who warned him about his responsibility as a public figure and recommended to avoid a fight between the families Montages and Capulets.
First reaction of Romeo is to stand for love and avoid losing Juliet, he went to the fray Laurence how helps him to scape to have consent about his future actions, but first he goes to Juliet’s window on Capulet’s garden and speaks to her to see if she has the same feeling about him.
Romeo wants to marry her, and with the help of the nurse they meet in the fray’s chapel it shows how Romeo is thinking wisely about his love towards the daughter of the Capulets.
The sedition of the prince was to exile Romeo, this was worst to him than death, now he couldn’t be near to his beloved wife, in fact he was trying to kill himself with a knife when the nurse finds him sobbing in the floor, again the friar convinces him to visit Juliet and to scape to Mantua the next morning, it was a hard experience for the main character, as well as enriching because it gave his life a motivation, to wait for his wife.
At the end this situation makes an important part of the play, because adds tragedy to the story as well is because of this situation that at the final part of the story when the letter and the, message never arrives to the final destination causes the big tragedy at the end of the story.
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
Excerpt from: Life on the Mississippi
Mark Twain
THERE was no use in arguing with a person like this. I promptly put such a strain on my memory that by and by even the shoal water and the countless crossing-marks began to stay with me. But the result was just the same. I never could more than get one knotty thing learned before another presented itself. Now I had often seen pilots gazing at the water and pretending to read it as if it were a book; but it was a book that told me nothing. A time came at last, however, when Mr. Bixby seemed to think me far enough advanced to bear a lesson on water-reading. So he began—
What conclusion can you make from the first paragraph?
A) Mr. Bixby dislikes the narrator.
B) The narrator is angry with Mr. Bixby.
C) The narrator thinks Mr. Bixby is stubborn.
D) Mr. Bixby thinks the narrator is stubborn.
C) The narrator thinks Mr. Bixby is stubborn.
Answer:
Personal pronouns are pronouns that are associated primarily with a particular grammatical person – first person, second person, or third person. Personal pronouns may also take different forms depending on number, grammatical or natural gender, case, and formality
Explanation:
