The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although you do not mention what was your week's issue of Studies Weekly to help you answer this question, we can indeed comment on the reason why some Hindus were polytheistic, while others were monotheistic.
Here we go.
Historians and scholars say that in Hinduism, there is a monotheistic conception of divinity but also a polytheistic pantheon of gods for the following reasons.
There is what we can understand as a monotheistic conception of one god in Hinduism. This concept teaches that there is one great mighty god, Hindus call it Brahman. He is the divine force that created everything. So Hindus believe in this original creative force that gave life to everything.
On the other hand, there is a polytheistic approach to Hinduism in that believes that different deities stem from that great Brahman god. We are talking about deities such as Shiva, Ishvara, Hanuman, Ganesha, Vishnu, Vedi, Krishna, Rama, Durga, and Kali, among many others. Hindu pantheon is extensive.
These many gods represented one aspect of creation and Earth, such as the deity of creation and destruction, a deity for knowledge, a deity of dark, a deity of prosperity, and more.
<span>Elected as a Whig to Congress in 1846, Abraham Lincoln gained notoriety when he lashed out against the Mexican War, calling it immoral, proslavery, and a threat to the nation's republican values. President James K. Polk had called for war, accusing Mexico of shedding of "American blood on American soil.” Lincoln responded by introducing a series of resolutions demanding to know the "particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed." One of Lincoln's constituents branded him "the Benedict Arnold of our district," and he was denied renomination by his own party.
Document: Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him, [the envoy of the United States,] or listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:" And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens:" And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil." And whereas this House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil: Therefore, Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House --1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the messages stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.8th. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.Source: Abraham Lincoln, “Spot Resolutions,” December 22, 1847Copyright 2016 Digital History
this is the site i got it from does this help you or no?
</span>
The correct answer is to help people immediately and provide them with jobs.
The reasoning behind President Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions was the Great Depression. When FDR took office, the US was in the worse economic depression in US history. Nearly 25% of Americans were out of work thanks to different events such as the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the failure of thousands of businesses. When taking office, FDR knew he needed to act quickly in order to help Americans survive these hard economic times. That is why he created several different federal agencies under his "New Deal" plan. These agencies created hundreds of thousands of jobs over the course of a decade and helped America recover from the economic depression.