Answer:
aristocrat would be the answer
a noble is someone of nobility so it would not be a commoner
a clergy is not of noble line instead works for the church
and a bourgeoisie is not of the noble line
a bourgeoisie is of middle class
The answer to your question is, <span>television.
Hope this helped you :)</span>
The M-A-I-N<span> acronym is often used to analyse the </span>war<span> – militarism, alliances, imperialism and nationalism.</span>
Darwinism was always opposed at almost every level for everything he said. Genius often runs into that problem. It probably was no consolation for him that he was not alone in opposition to his ideas. I always like to tell the story about the fact that Darwin was a divinity student. I think, but I'm not sure, that he actually had a parish for a very short time. He also thought if he found fossils that suggested related creatures to his classification system that happened quickly, he would gladly say evolution was wrong. He found no such quick relationship. I admire his wife particularly, who was very devout (more so than he was). It was she who insisted he publish his findings.
Enough blab. I'm just very fond of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin.
Social Darwinism applies the survival of the fittest to the evolution to human behavior (mostly moral behaviour).
Who opposed it? Almost everyone. Social behaviourists because they thought though the idea acceptable, it did not go far enough. Needless to say religious people then and even today are horrified that God is left out of the equation.
You can see a wonderful film starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March called Inherit the Wind which was based on the Snopes Case. It was one of the most attention getting legal cases of its generation (1925) I'm pointing out all of this to show where the opposition came from. It had then in 1925 a long history of more than 50 years of being opposed. The church I go to vehemently opposes Darwinism in any form and it is now 93 years after the Snopes Case. and more than a century since the publication of Darwin's original book.
I'm sorry this answer is so long. Had you just asked what it was, you would have gotten a single sentence answer. Since you asked who opposed it, you get much more.
<u>Natural Rights</u> are rights that you have just because you were born.
<u>Civil</u> are rights you are given for belonging to a specific society.
<u>Religious Freedom</u> and <u>Freedom of Speech</u> are rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Defamation can be broken down into two parts <u>Libel</u> (written) and <u>Slander</u> (verbal).
The Supreme Court case <u>Texas v. Johnson</u> held up the burning of the U.S. flag.
The Supreme Court case <u>Plessy v. Ferguson</u> ruled separate but equal which was overruled by <u>Brown v. Board</u> which ruled separate is not equal.
The 13th Amendment accomplished the task of <u>Abolishing Slavery</u>.
Thanks to the work of people like Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Stanton the <u>19th</u> amendment was passed which accomplished <u>women's suffrage</u>.
The freedom of religion breaks down into two parts which are <u>Free Exercise of Religion</u> and <u>No Establishment of Religions by the Government</u>.
The U.S. v O'Brien case is the litmus test of <u>The First Amendment's Guarantee of Free Speech</u>.
<u>Rousseau</u> says that people give us some of their rights for protection for their other rights.
