There is no better option in this question
This is because the main reason that led to the rise of nativism in the 1920's was the increase of immigrants into the USA. The most feared of these immigrants were the German.
<span>Many believed the Church needed to be reformed. In the 1500s Kings such as Charles V had a sole political strategy: centralisation. This 'centralisation' included forming one State religion throughout the empire. However followers of Calvin and Luther (generally Protestants) were not very pleased with this. God was in their eyes more important than the sovereign. A King strenghtening his centralisation policy of setting Catholicism as the sole religion, consequently sparked political conflicts in the empire as well.
For example, the area what we nowadays call Germany existed in that time from seperate semi-sovereign areas headed by a so-called 'elector'. Electors chose the ruling emperor/king. In 1555 the Peace of Augsburg was signed as a direct effect of the wars between the ultimate sovereign and the semi-sovereign electors. Charles V agreed upon the division of religion within his empire ("cuius regio, eius religio"): the ruler dictated the religion of the ruled in the seperate areas that made up the Holy Roman Empire (HRE).
So, the reformation led to warfare because of different ideas by the ruler and his people. That led to political conflict mainly because the people also didn't agree with the ruler's centralisation policy.</span>
Answer:As Taoism took root, Laozi was worshipped as a god. Belief in the revelation of the Tao from the divine Laozi resulted in the formation of the Way of the Celestial Masters, the first organized religious Taoist sect. In later mature Taoist tradition, Laozi came to be seen as a personification of the Tao. Laozi wanted people to be closer to nature. He wanted to get away from the rules made by the government or society. To him, the government was selfish and power-hungry. In his world, he would have no rules.Cited from Britannica and Wikipedia.
Answer:
America forcibly removed Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor because there was a risk of Japanese spying. America had to ramp up production on almost everything during WWII, and in the event that there were Japanese spies, they could report all our weak and vulnerable points back to Japan. The Internment was, in my opinion, necessary. National security is not something the take lightly. If Japan knew all our vulnerabilities, they could have crippled us. The constitution, if I recall right, doesn't say anything about not being able to relocate a certain mass of people.
Explanation:
