Do I agree or disagree with Locke's and Hobbes' claims?

I agree with the claim on Hobbes’ views that states that other strong men in the commonwealth will seek to forcefully remove the sovereign. In the country, there may be other influential individuals who might have enough power and they can desire to seek the highest form of authority and replace the king. Additionally, I agree that there is a possibility that a king is likely to turn into a tyrant. According to Hobbes’ view of human nature, humans have animalistic qualities, and instead of acting on reason, they act instinctively. If a sovereign does not govern by reason, and instead is instinctively violent and selfish, this may lead to them becoming a tyrant.

     I agree with the claim on Locke’s views that America is becoming a less Christian nation, but I disagree that that is turning the country into a more corrupt and selfish nation. It doesn’t matter if a government is closely associated with a specific religion or is completely secular, because corruption is happening all over the world in multiple types of governments. It is not related to religious or non-religious laws in a country. There are multiple examples of corruption in different settings, including religious based governments versus non-religious. During the Middle Ages in the Vatican, Popes paid to be elected, and this this proves that a high level of corruption can exist in a Christian country. In a completely secular government, such as in the former Soviet Union, corruption was also present and evident when political decisions were influenced by money.