In the biblical book named after her, Esther is a young Jewish woman living in the Persian diaspora who finds favor with the king, becomes queen, and risks her life to save the Jewish people from destruction when the court official Haman persuades the king to authorize a pogrom against all the Jews of the empire.
The story of Esther is a captivating tale set in ancient Persia. It revolves around a Jewish girl named Esther who becomes the queen of Persia through a beauty contest orchestrated by King Ahasuerus. Esther keeps her Jewish identity a secret until a wicked advisor named Haman convinces the king to issue a decree to annihilate all Jews in the kingdom. Mordecai, Esther's cousin, urges her to intervene and plead for her people's lives. Esther, risking her own life, reveals her Jewish heritage to the king and pleads for mercy. The king is swayed by her beauty and compassion, granting her request and foiling Haman's evil plan. The Jews are saved, and Esther's bravery and faith are celebrated annually during the feast of Purim. This story teaches us the importance of courage, standing up for what is right, and the power of faith in the face of adversity.
Elizabeth I was a great Queen? How far do you agree?
(complete a PEEL for 2 contrasting opinions)
PEEL=Point, evidence, explanation, link
PEEL for agreeing that Elizabeth I was a great Queen:
Point: Elizabeth I was a great Queen because she provided stability and prosperity to England during her reign.
Evidence: Elizabeth I's reign saw a flourishing of the arts and literature, as well as an expansion of trade and commerce. She also successfully navigated religious tensions and prevented foreign invasion, such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.
Explanation: Elizabeth I's policies and leadership provided stability and growth to England, which led to an increase in wealth and prestige both domestically and internationally. Her strong leadership and diplomatic skills allowed her to maintain peace and prevent conflicts with other countries.
Link: Therefore, it can be argued that Elizabeth I was a great Queen due to her successful reign and contributions to England's prosperity and stability.
PEEL for disagreeing that Elizabeth I was a great Queen:
Point: Elizabeth I was not a great Queen because of her treatment of Catholics and her failure to produce an heir.
Evidence: Elizabeth I implemented harsh measures against Catholics, such as the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, which led to religious persecution and division. Additionally, her refusal to marry and produce an heir caused a succession crisis that led to instability and uncertainty after her death.
Explanation: Elizabeth I's policies towards Catholics and her lack of an heir ultimately had negative consequences for England. Her persecution of Catholics led to resentment and division, and her failure to produce an heir created instability and uncertainty about the future of the monarchy.
Link: Therefore, it can be argued that Elizabeth I was not a great Queen due to her policies and decisions that had negative consequences for England's stability and unity.
I don't have personal opinions. However, I can provide you with two contrasting opinions on whether Elizabeth I was a great Queen.
Opinion 1: Elizabeth I was a great Queen.
- Point: Elizabeth I was a remarkable monarch who achieved political stability and cultural prosperity during her reign.
- Evidence: Under Elizabeth's rule, England experienced a period of relative peace known as the Elizabethan Era. This era saw significant advancements in literature, art, and exploration, with renowned figures like William Shakespeare flourishing under her patronage.
- Explanation: Elizabeth's astute political decisions, such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the establishment of the Church of England, contributed to England's rise as a global power. Her leadership and charisma inspired loyalty and admiration from her subjects.
- Link: Overall, Elizabeth I's reign is often celebrated as a golden age for England, marked by stability, artistic achievements, and national pride.
Opinion 2: Elizabeth I was not a great Queen.
- Point: Despite her achievements, Elizabeth I's reign also had its shortcomings and controversies.
- Evidence: Elizabeth's religious policies, particularly her persecution of Catholics, led to division and unrest within her kingdom. Additionally, her refusal to name a successor created uncertainty and ultimately resulted in the turmoil of the Stuart succession.
- Explanation: Elizabeth's emphasis on maintaining her own power and avoiding foreign entanglements limited England's influence abroad and hindered the country's economic growth. Furthermore, her marriage refusal and subsequent lack of an heir created a power vacuum that ultimately led to political instability.
- Link: While Elizabeth I's reign had significant accomplishments, it is important to consider the challenges and controversies that occurred during her time as Queen.
It is important to note that the assessment of whether Elizabeth I was a great Queen can vary depending on the criteria and perspective used.
which statement describes early greek city-states?
A: They each devolped there own system of government.
B: They each experimented with different forms of a monarchy.
C: They each identified as Greek.
D: They each had there own language and cultural traditions.
Answer and Explanation:
Option (D) They each had there own language and cultural traditions.
What was the Gadsden Purchase?
Ps: Can you please do a short paragraph if you do it
Answer:
Gadsden's Purchase provided the land necessary for a southern transcontinental railroad and attempted to resolve conflicts that lingered after the Mexican-American War
Before You Begin
Part One: Imagine that you have just voted in a local election. As you are walking out of the polling station, you notice a van of mentally disabled people out in front. As you walk past, you see the van driver give each of the people in the van a $20 bill and hear him tell the people to go inside and vote for the candidate that you want to win. He asks them to chant the name of the candidate over and over, until they understand what they are to do. What do you do?
Write a paragraph describing what you saw and what you should do next. Explore your feelings, and defend your actions. Remember to include what your responsibilities are as a citizen.
Part Two: It is brought to the attention of local authorities that, in the last election, someone paid a van full of mentally disabled people to vote for a candidate who won the election by just ten votes. The case has come to trial as a case of voter fraud. You are selected to serve on the jury. Write a brief summary of the case, then argue for each side of the case using 1-2 paragraphs per side.
Part Three: Now, imagine yourself in a room with the other jurors trying to decide the verdict in the case described in Part Two. Is this a criminal case or a civil case? Imagine yourself in the courtroom. What does the defendant look like? Does that make you think the defendant is guilty or not guilty? What are the lawyers saying? Is there any evidence that turns the tide, or is it just a steady stream of evidence that seems to favor one side?
Write an essay that sets the scene of the courtroom and the jurors' deliberations and decision on the case.
Begin by making an outline of the essay. Decide the details of the case, the courtroom and the jury's deliberations. Flesh out your topic paragraph and overall thesis for the essay. In a paragraph or two, thoroughly describe the key evidence, evidence that turns the tide or seems to weight the argument toward one direction. Explore the adjournment and how the jury deliberates. Offer differing viewpoints of the jury based on the different evidence. What do you think? How does the jury come to a unanimous decision? Write persuasively and clearly, taking into account how your emotions and perception may influence your decision about the case, the defendant, and the other jurors.
Use the Internet, newspapers, and other media outlets to learn about similar cases. Be sure to begin writing with an outline, and develop your arguments using correct grammar and sentence structure in order to make your point.
Part One:
As a citizen, my responsibility is to ensure that every vote is cast fairly and without coercion. In this scenario, I witnessed a van of mentally disabled people being paid to vote for a particular candidate. This is a clear violation of their rights as voters and is an act of voter fraud. I feel uneasy witnessing this, and I believe that it is my responsibility to report this behavior to the authorities. It is important to ensure that every vote is cast freely and without coercion, and that everyone's voice is heard equally. By reporting this, I am upholding the democratic process and ensuring that the integrity of the election is maintained.
Part Two:
The case of voter fraud involves the payment of a van full of mentally disabled people to vote for a specific candidate in the previous election. The defendant is accused of orchestrating the scheme and bribing vulnerable voters to cast their ballots in favor of the candidate they support. The case is brought to trial as a criminal case, as voter fraud is a serious offense that undermines the democratic process.
On one side, the prosecution argues that the defendant committed voter fraud by coercing mentally disabled people to vote for a specific candidate. They argue that this behavior undermines the integrity of the election and is a direct violation of the voting rights of those who were coerced. The prosecution presents evidence of witnesses who saw the defendant paying voters to cast their ballots.
On the other hand, the defense argues that the defendant did not coerce the voters and that they cast their ballots freely. They argue that there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant bribed voters, and that the accusations are based on hearsay. The defense presents witnesses who testify that the voters cast their ballots of their own free will.
Part Three:
As a member of the jury, I find myself in a room with my fellow jurors trying to determine the verdict of the case. The defendant is a middle-aged man who appears nervous and anxious throughout the proceedings. His lawyers argue that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the defendant committed voter fraud and that the accusations are based on hearsay.
The prosecution presents witnesses who saw the defendant paying voters to cast their ballots. The defense argues that the witnesses' testimony is unreliable, as they cannot provide concrete evidence to support their claims. The defense presents witnesses who testify that the voters cast their ballots of their own free will.
The key evidence in this case is the testimony of the witnesses who saw the defendant paying voters to cast their ballots. This evidence turns the tide in favor of the prosecution, as it provides concrete proof that the defendant committed voter fraud. The prosecution's evidence is a steady stream of testimony from witnesses who saw the defendant in action, while the defense's evidence is mainly hearsay.
During the adjournment, the jury deliberates on the evidence presented in the trial. There are differing viewpoints among the jurors, with some believing that the evidence presented by the prosecution is convincing, while others are skeptical of the witnesses' testimony. However, as the deliberation continues, the majority of the jurors come to a unanimous decision that the defendant is guilty of committing voter fraud.
In conclusion, the case of voter fraud is a serious offense that undermines the democratic process. As a member of the jury, it is important to evaluate the evidence presented in the trial and make a decision based on the facts of the case. While emotions and perceptions may influence our decision, it is important to remain impartial and make a decision based solely on the evidence presented in court. By upholding the integrity of the democratic process, we ensure that every vote is counted fairly and without coercion.
EXPLORING PLACE Why
would it have been difficult for
one ruler to control the Holy
Roman Empire?
Answer:Emperors attempted to solve these problems through internal reforms.
Explanation: For example, the emperor Diocletian split control of the Roman Empire into two halves, a western and an eastern portion. Diocletian believed the territories throughout the empire would be easier to control and support if they were overseen by two administrations.
Answer:
They couldn't gain full political control
Explanation:
with all of the competing royalty making up the empire they would have to make complicated alliances to stay in control
