they ruled by divine right
No -- and no one should believe in such obscure ideas of absolute authority.
Absolute monarchs disliked Parliament because they viewed it as a challenge to their authority and power. They believed that their divine right to rule should not be questioned or constrained by a legislative body. Parliaments often sought to limit the monarch's powers, demand accountability, and represent the interests of the nobility and common people, which conflicted with the absolute rule that monarchs aimed to maintain. This tension often led to conflicts and power struggles between the monarchy and parliamentary institutions.
Creon feels that the authority of the state is supreme over that of natural law and that it shouldn't be tested or questioned by any. However when the authority of the state is questioned Creon feels that the law as supported by the authority of the state should punish said questioner and set a precedent for others who may secretly question the state. Essentially Creon feels that the state should not and perhaps may not even have the ability to show any form of weakness or necessarily mercy and remain or be a functioning and effective governing force.
Some accountants believe that SMAs should be accorded the same considerable authority as generally accepted accounting principles. As of 2005, such authority had not been granted.
They should be questioned as to why they'd believe in multiple weak gods...... a real god only needs oneself.
Both believed that anyone who questioned the government should be harshly punished.
The doctrine of divine rights was a belief that monarchs derived their authority directly from God. Some thinkers, like John Locke, sought to challenge this idea by arguing that political power should be based on consent of the governed rather than divine authority.
No. Teachers have the authority to make these kinds of decisions on their own, as they see fit based on any number of factors.
montesquieu believed that disobeying laws leads to a loss of liberty because, not monarchs or unrestrained mobs- should goern society.
With reference to both England and France, discuss the emergence of national monarchies in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages (1050-1300). How did individual monarchs enhance royal authority at the expense of both local feudal lords and the institutional authority of the church? To what extent were the monarchs able to create fundamental changes in English and French society and to what extent were they limited by existing institutions and practices?
The monarchs can gain salary from his/her job position. For example: he/she should serve people for contributing his/her ability to reach the satisfying result.
The Puritans probably believed only church members have the authority to cast a vote. Am I right? (Mike NJ)