Polytheism<span> is belief in many gods — it's kind of the opposite of monotheism, which is belief in one god. If you believe in </span>polytheism<span>, you have a bunch of gods to thank or blame. ... Usually in </span>polytheist<span> religions certain gods are associated with specific things, like war or love.
</span>
-hope this helps :)
Which conclusion can you best draw about mercantilism, And it is B. Colonies provided an economic benefit to parent countries.
Answer will help you.
Answer:
The reason why the Texas Bill of Rights describes who receives rights in the state naming specific groups is because of inclusion, diversity, and equality recognition of individuals among law.
Explanation:
The reason behind this answer is that after inclusion, diversity, and equality were included on a social scale. We recognize each group, instead of including them al in "all Texans". Because the meaning of providing enough importance to all the different types of individuals is equality. Since in "all Texans" we assume that a male adjective is enough to identify children, women, and the rest o the groups in society. It is a factor of inclusion.
<span>Scientific and medicine contributions:
• Arabic numerals (adapted from India), including zero
• Algebra
• Expansion of geographic knowledge
</span>• D<span>ifferentiate between smallpox and measles
</span>• Diagnose the plague, diphtheria, leprosy, rabies, baker’s cyst, diabetes, gout and haemophilia
• Muslim surgeons were also pioneers in performing amputations and cauterizations
• <span>discovered the circulation of blood, the use of animal gut for sutures and the use of alcohol as an antiseptic</span>
Answer:
The correct answer is C. In Tinker v. Des Moines Justice Fortas argues that it would be obvious that students' rights are violated "if a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding discussion of the Vietnam conflict . . . except as part of a prescribed classroom exercise."
Explanation:
The opinion of Justice Fortas, which corresponds to the majority position of the Court in the case, establishes that the prohibition to students to discuss positions regarding the Vietnam War is clearly in violation of the students' rights to express their opinions, which is framed in the right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
