<h2><u>Answer:</u></h2>
The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and regularly alluded to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legitimate case in July 1925 in which a substitute secondary teacher, John T. Extensions, was blamed for abusing Tennessee's Butler Act.
The Fundamentalist– Modernist contention is a noteworthy break that started during the 1920s and '30s inside the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. At issue were fundamental debate about the job of Christianity, the specialist of Scripture, the passing, Resurrection, and making up penance of Jesus.
The Scopes-Monkey Trial was a broadly advanced conflict among fundamentalists and innovators. Fundamentalists passed laws in schools that rendered the instructing of advancement illicit. A pioneer - John Scopes- - overstepped this profoundly fundamentalist law and instructed development to his understudies. For this he was arraigned. In spite of the fact that the preliminary was a fundamentalist triumph - Scopes was discovered liable - innovators would at present battle for their entitlement to show development and science as opposed to religion-based creation legends.
It promoted the (relatively) rapid diffusion of immigrants, language, and domesticated crops and animals. Those factors are examined in excellent detail in Jared Diamond's book, "Germ, Guns and Steel" which I highly recommend for anyone studying the development of world cultures. It's a long read, but well worth it.
It depends. The true definition, with is roughly law without force, then it wouldn't be too bad. Sounds like it would just be a non corrupt world. However, modern day groups like ANTIFA, it would suck. Things have been blown out of proportion honestly to the point where anarchy, or "anti-fascism", almost looks like fascism.
Are you in BAVEL? Anyways, I haven't read your module for this or what ever so I'm gonna go off of my head and you could change it or whatever. Also is this a argumentative essay or is it a informative essay???
Answer:
The monarchs were mindful of Parliament's limitations on their authority. At the cost of Parliament, the monarchs were able to expand their authority.
Explanation:
Hope this helps you!!!!!! :D
