<p>Im still gonna outscore you either way you dumbass, regardless if your right or I am.</p>
<p>There are two kinds of christians in america- Protestants and Catholics- The protestants have many denominations, including religious fundamentalists.</p>
<p>char...who was the defense?</p>
<p>did the defense support fundementalism?</p>
<p>ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS and post them.</p>
<p>The defense did not support fundamentalism, but that is not what it asked- you should have read the question more closely. Read like 20 pages back, everyone agreed it was religious fundamentalists.</p>
<p>yeah med i think you remember the question wrong. i also put religious fundamentalists</p>
<p>what did the question state?</p>
<p>JUST GOT PROOF THAT THE QUOTE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADISON'S.<br>
"Iit is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority" - </p>
<p>straight from the Federalist Papers themselves- the quote was saying the majority rule was harmless- CASE CLOSED.</p>
<p>"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." yea and the quote said that there would be so many different oppinions the majority couldn't be tyrannical so yea...i still think your wrong i don't see how that pasage supported your argument</p>
<p>the quote was not even talking about majority rule..it stated that a strong centralized government would be in the bets interest of hte majority...and that it would curb tyranny...</p>
<p>yes, but the people who framed the constitution did not think that- Jackson did.</p>
<p>And MED no it didn't- just accept the fact you got a crappy score and stop arguing with me.</p>
<p>what was the question for the scopes trial ????</p>
<p>does anyone else have any other opinions ????</p>
<p>Hope char is right on army question and scopes question.
Hope MED is right on madison question....</p>
<p>odin64x...do you remember the question about the scopres trial</p>
<p>and the question about the army...it was ballistic missiles.</p>
<p>Like you said, the germans had ballistic technology way before anyone. Even during WWII. Right after the war ended States believed that the Soviets were breaking ties with the U.S. and developing nuclear technoology. EX: BARUCH PLAN They feared a soviett-german alliance. <----IF YOU DONT KNOW THAT YOU ARE STUPID BEYOND REGOGNITION
they feared that germany would spread the ballistic technology to the soviets. Therefore ballistic missiles were the greatest PERCIEVED THREAT</p>
<p>DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THE SCOPES QUESTION</p>
<p>Yes And Everyone Picked Fundamentalists</p>
<p>not that this would matter, but isn't the answer choice land-based missiles? i seem to remember seeing that</p>
<p>how was it fundementalists. THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE DEFENSE. SCOPES WAS NOT AN ADVOCATOR OF FUNDEMENTALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>i read the question over twice ot make sure i didnt make the idiot mistake you did..and i am 100% sure that the question was talking about the defense</p>
<p>The answer to the Scopes Trial was fundamentalist...I am confident that every reliable US history textbook would defend that answer. The defense was argueing against the fundamentalist aspect of the Bible which said that God was above everything. In those days, Christianity was important and they truly believed that God was the most important aspect of their lives. Otherwise the Scopes Trial would not have taken place.</p>
<p>Just to clarify on the Scopes Trial question.</p>
<p>In order to accurately understand and correctly answer this question, you must look into the historical background on the prosecution and the defense. This is necessary in order to interpret both sides of the arguement.</p>
<ol>
<li>William Jennings Bryan was a fundamentalist. This is a fact. It cannot be argued.</li>
<li>Upon hearing that Bryan would be on the Prosecution, Clarence Darrow immediately took the case, on the defense side. </li>
</ol>
<p>Why would he do that?...This leads me to the 3rd and final point.</p>
<ol>
<li>Clarence Darrow argued against fundamentalism because he strongly believed that science could beat fundamentalism.</li>
</ol>
<p>These are all true facts. If any of them are wrong, please correct me. I am very knowledgable on the Scopes (Monkey) Trial court case and I am 100% sure that the defense was vehemently against the fundamentalist aspect of the Bible.</p>
<p>Youre right, dont listen to MED, he has no idea what he is talking about.</p>