1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Elza [17]
3 years ago
13

Horace Bushnell is associated with which idea? A. religious liberalism B. religious fundamentalism C. religious intolerance D. r

eligious liberty
History
2 answers:
timurjin [86]3 years ago
5 0

The correct option is A

Horace Bushnell was an American congregational minister and theologian. He criticized the prevailing conceptions of the Trinity, the atonement, the conversion, and the relations of the natural and the supernatural. Above all, he broke with the prevailing view that theology was regarded as essentially intellectual in its attractiveness and demonstrable by processes of exact logical deduction.

  • He virtually opposed revivalism and effectively directed the flow of Christian thought toward the young.
  • He endeavored to elevate the natural to the supernatural by emphasizing the supernatural nature of man.
  • Development of the moral vision of atonement as opposed to governmental and penal theories or satisfaction
Ludmilka [50]3 years ago
3 0
Horace Bushnell is associated with religious liberalism. He <span>freed mainstream Protestant theology from its Puritan scholasticism and established the basis for religious liberalism!</span>
You might be interested in
How did newtons ideas of universal laws spread to common people
PIT_PIT [208]
He taught them his ideas of universal laws spread to common people.
8 0
3 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
Why did Japan enter World War I?
8090 [49]
"<span>C. Germany promised Japan territory in China and other regions of Southeast Asia if it joined the side of the Central powers" is the best option from the list. This is mostly because Japan was such a small island country with limited resources and needed desperately expand. </span>
7 0
3 years ago
Why did the colonists detest the stamp act?
sattari [20]

Answer: because it represented an effort by the British to use taxes in order to raise money

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
What inspired the Dixiecrats to break away from the Democrats?
ankoles [38]

It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. The Dixiecrats were determined to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation. Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Prime Minister of Japan in 1941 to 1944?
    5·1 answer
  • Which is the closest synonym for the word PROWESS?
    13·2 answers
  • What railroad practice did reformers call on governments to legislate in the late 1800s, with minimal success? rate discriminati
    6·2 answers
  • In addition to the nickname “the roaring twenties,” the 1920s have also been labeled the
    7·1 answer
  • What role did the friar play with the natives?
    11·1 answer
  • Which occupying country sought to strip Germany of its industry after World War II?
    9·2 answers
  • What was the impact of the treaty of tordesillas?
    8·2 answers
  • Why did the English government begin to directly tax the North American colonies after the French and Indian War?
    15·1 answer
  • Which military leader defended the city of Orléans against an English siege during the Hundred Years' War?
    12·2 answers
  • What is meant by the "rule of law" that has been historically traced as an important idea in the Magna Carta and the English Bil
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!