After you finish reading that book I would like to read it.
Answer:
The setting is very specific historically and the plot regarding the Puritans and witchcraft is unique to them. In a different setting there would be a different sense of community and less concern (or at least a different way of conceptualizing) witchcraft.
Explanation:
The Crucible is based on a very specific point in history among the Puritan settlers of North America. They had a particular set of concerns in terms of their religious beliefs and cultural practices. Therefore, the play would be very different if it was written at a different time and place because the fear of witchcraft and the way that religious figures have authority in Salem is very unique to colonies like Massachusetts at the time. Act I begins with Rev. Parris praying for his daughter who he believes has participated in witchcraft because he found her dancing in the woods with her cousin Abigail.
Answer:
Im pretty sure its falling over Alice bc i did this a long time ago
Explanation:
tell me if im wrong or right
WWhich two elements should be included with each visual aid in a technical document?
This might help you
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
