It contains the Maple Leaf, which comes from the Maple Tree
Brief Definition:
A brief, short definition of Nationalism is A belief that your country is better than others.
Full Definition:
A full definition would be an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty over its homeland.
Answer: The correct answer is : The principle of judicial restraint.
Explanation: The judicial restraint refers to the conviction that it would be excellent for judges to limit the use of their power to revoke laws or declare them unconstitutional except when there is any contradiction with the constitution.
Answer:
- Matthew the Epistle
- Hebrew
- Tax-collector
Explanation:
The gospel now known as the Gospel of Matthew was anonymous.
Papias attributed a gospel to Matthew in the second century, according to what Eusebius wrote in the fourth century. However, several academics are unsure whether the gospel descibed by Papias was the same now attributed to Matthew.
Although the Church Fathers of the second century stated that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew by Matthew himself, modern scholars agree that it was most likely written in Greek, and not by an eyewitness to the events described. Furthermore,
and Luke's Gospel, it soon becomes apparent that
Both Matthew and Luke seem to have been substantially based on Mark's Gospel.
Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
