Answer:
The minister's black veil in lines 101-136 reveals his individuality when his courtesy was paid with 'strange and bewildered looks.'
Explanation:
"The Minister's Black Veil" is a short story written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The story is about a minister named 'Mr. Hooper.'
The story is about human nature, sin, and guilt. In the story, Nathaniel has portrayed Mr. Hooper as a sole individual, the one who is ready to accept the truth.
In lines 101-136, when Mr. Hooper comes out after the service, the congregation began to shake their 'sagacious heads', some began to profane the Sabbath day with their 'ostentatious laughter.' But when Mr. Hooper came out he greeted everyone as he used to do every Sunday after service, bless little ones, etc. The individuality of Mr. Hooper can be seen here when he was paid back with 'strange and bewildered looks' for his civility, he was neglected an invitation on dinner, when no one wanted to walk beside the Minister as an honor.
In order to have a sentence with an active voice, you need to have to have the main subject perform an action.
"The revision (subject) gives the sentence (action) an active voice."
MLA Style says numbers that can be written in one or two words (three, fifteen, seventy-six, one thousand, twelve billion) and to use numerals for other numbers (2¾; 584; 1,001; 25,000,000). APA Style, uses words for numbers below 10 and numerals for numbers 10 and above.
The correct option is this: Young children are not allowed to borrow books on their own.
From the above excerpt, we can see that the writer is a young child who loves to read. Mrs Long usually ask her the books she desires to read and when she mentioned them, Mrs long will go to the town library, to get the books for her.
Mrs Long has to do this because children are not giving the privilege of borrowing books.
<span />
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
