Nationalism is when a person believes their country is the best, whereas the "white man's burden" is when white people believe it is their responsibility to "educate" other races.
Which definition of nationalism is the most accurate?An ideology known as nationalism places a strong emphasis on loyalty and claims that allegiances to a nation or nation-state are more essential than those to other people or groups, devotion, or allegiance to that entity.
How do nationalism and patriotism differ?But patriotism and nationalism are very different from one another. Whereas nationalism emphasises a unity of the past, including the language and legacy, patriotism is based on love of people and places a greater focus on ideas and ideals.
To know more about Nationalism visit:-
https://brainly.com/question/1018147
#SPJ1
THEO: According to Rosemary Ruether, what are the positive attributes or applications of an androgynous Jesus Christ? How is this a positive theology for women?
Rosemary Ruether, a feminist theologian, argues that an androgynous Jesus Christ has several positive attributes and applications, particularly for women.
What is liberation?Liberation since it challenges the patriarchal systems that have historically oppressed and marginalized women, an androgynous Jesus might be interpreted as a symbol of freedom for women.
An androgynous Jesus is a theological concept that sees Jesus as embodying both male and female characteristics, rather than being exclusively masculine.
An androgynous Jesus is a theological concept that sees Jesus as embodying both male and female characteristics, rather than being exclusively masculine.
Learn more about Feminist theology here:
https://brainly.com/question/29526642
#SPJ1
Ruether says that a Jesus Christ who was androgynous would have a few good qualities or uses: a focus on gender parity.
Because Jesus embodies both masculine and feminine characteristics, Christianity would also acknowledge the experiences of women.
What did Rosemary Radford Ruether accept?Ruether was of the opinion that the traditions of classical theology don't include women's experiences, which keeps the idea that women are less important than men alive. Feminist theology, in Ruether's opinion, had the potential to reveal and alter theological systems that were inherently discriminatory.
What has Rosemary Ruether contributed to the field of feminism?Church historian, theologian, author, and educator Rosemary Radford Ruether was well-known all over the world for her work on women and religion. She was a major proponent of a feminist critique of Christian theology, a traditionally male field.
Learn more about Jesus Christ:
brainly.com/question/29025154
#SPJ1
Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.
Thomas Hobbes looked to the distant past to observe a primitive "state of nature" in which there was no such thing as morality. He found that this self-interested way of being was "nasty, brutish, and short," that is, a perpetual state of warfare. He outlined the civilized solution to this problem in the form of a logical syllogism.
We are all self-interested.
Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests.
We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order.
Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
John Locke disagreed. He refuted Hobbes' claim that early civilizations were always "at war" by pointing to historical examples of people in that "state of nature" and praising their efforts to maintain both their individuality and a fair society.
Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. He found that when governments fail in that task, citizens have the right and sometimes the duty to withdraw their support and even to rebel.
So, which philosophy is most like your own? Is human nature animalistic or noble? How can you tell?
Let's consider an example that many of us can relate to. In December of 2001, just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb while on board a passenger airplane bound from Paris to Miami. Fortunately, some quick thinking and brave flight attendants and passengers were able to stop him. As a result of that single incident, millions of passengers have been obliged to take off their shoes while going through the airport security check. Some consider this to be a reasonable precaution, while others feel it is an overreaction that inconveniences everyone without increasing safety.
For your initial post, discuss an example of something most of us are routinely required to do that limits our personal freedom. In your opinion, is the loss of freedom justified by some gain in social order or safety? Why or why not?
An example of something most of us are routinely required to do that limits our personal freedom is wearing a seatbelt while driving a car.
While seatbelts can be uncomfortable and restrict movement, they have been proven to significantly increase safety and save lives in the event of an accident. In this case, the loss of personal freedom is justified by the gain in safety.However, it is important to consider the balance between personal freedom and social order/safety in each situation. Some may argue that certain restrictions, such as mandatory vaccination, go too far in limiting personal freedom, while others argue that they are necessary for the greater good. It is up to individuals and society as a whole to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of such restrictions and come to a collective decision.
To learn more about freedom click the link below:
brainly.com/question/30621656
#SPJ1