Which of the following describes a difference between a sect and an NRM? A sect is much more likely than an NRM to rely on a highly charismatic personality for leadership. Sects typically break off from a traditional denomination in an effort to reform its views, while NRMs generally form around something entirely new or newly rediscovered. NRMs are only somewhat at odds with the norms and values of traditional religion, whereas sects are often dramatically opposed to traditional religious norms and values. A sect is far less likely to proselytize, or try to recruit new members; NRMs, on the other hand, spend much of their resources in trying to expand their membership.

A sect is far less likely to proselytize, or try to recruit new members; NRMs, on the other hand, spend much of their resources in trying to expand their membership.

Explanation:

Sect is a term that describes a subgroup of people that carved out from the existing but bigger religion, such that their beliefs and practices are slightly different at superficial level. For example Amish religion is considered a sect to Protestant faith.

While NRM which is an acronym for New Religion Movement is a term that explains the religion or form of spirituality whose forms is attributed to modern ideology or origin, such that, it infuses the existing societal norms and cultures into its practices and beliefs. For example Christian Reformed Church in North AmericaAmerica

Thus, Sect already has the exisiting members or group of people carved out with the teachings and practices well known among its members. However, NRM, due to its formations, do put more efforts in getting new and more members in their movement, by preaching their teachings and set of beliefs to people so as to entice the public towards them.

answer; the federal reserve system;

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.