1) fighting in its defence
2) ensuring its spiritual regeneration
Philip II himself ordered the Spanish bishops at the Council of Trent to insist on no accommodation ofProtestants. However, the reforms at Trent were less relevant to Spain than elsewhere as Cardinal Ximenes, Charles V and Philip II had ensured that Spain remained thoroughly Catholic. Philip II also insisted that Spain’s representatives were present at the provincial councils of the church but there was no real urgency in Spain for reform as it obviously was not needed.
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
Yes, I do believe that the government should have the right to limit peoples' individual rights. Though the wording of the sentence above may sound like I'm saying I believe the government is allowed to control people, that's the last thing I mean. People need rules and structure which is what the government provides. Imagine if there <em>wasn't</em> a government. There would be no soical order because people will have too much power and some will not use their civil liberties responsibly. I understand both sides, but overall, I do think the government should have the right to limit peoples' individual rights.
In the Declaration of Independence, one opposing claim Jefferson anticipates is that prudence would "dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Indeed, he says, and experience demonstrates that mankind would take all of the suffers, as long they are bearable, before changing the Government to which they are used to. But when a long trail of abuses and usurpations makes that Government despotic and not the system that guarantees the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the duty of men to take down that government and establish a new one that guarantees those rights. And so he lists the abuses that the King's ruling has inflicted upon the colonies, such as imposing taxes, cutting off their trade, dissolving Representatives Houses when it didn't follow his wishes, and not re-establishing them after a long time, etc.
Jefferson is trying to demonstrate why it is fair and justifiable that the colonies break free from the English ruling after it didn't stop with its tyrannical actions towards them, when the colonists has petitioned it in the most humble way. If the civilized and lawful approaches weren't enough to reform the regime, then it is fair to take it down and build a new one.
