What is the letter writer intending to do/beginning to do? Is this a noble undertaking?

The letter writer, Captain Walton, is intending to sail to the North Pole, a "country of eternal light," in order to find "a passage near the pole to those countries, to reach which at present so many months are requisite"; in other words, he is hoping to find the Northwest Passage.  Such a passage would provide a shipping route that bypasses North America and connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  Captain Walton is also interested in "ascertaining the secret of the magnet, which, if at all possible, can only be effected by an undertaking such as [his]."  
The captain has a great desire for adventure and glory.  He even says to his sister, Mrs. Saville, the intended recipient of his letters, "And now, dear Margaret, do I not deserve to accomplish some great purpose.  My life might have passed in ease and luxury; but I preferred glory to every enticement that wealth placed in my path."  Thus, I think this undertaking can be described as noble.  On one hand, Captain Walton has a clear desire to improve life for humanity, finding a new shipping route would greatly benefit his country: this seems noble.  On the other hand, he wishes to accomplish these things not only to assist humanity but also to bring himself personal glory: this seems less noble than a pure desire to help one's fellow human beings.  

How do Islamic perceptions of heaven and hell differ from those of Christianity and Judaism?

The main source of the Islamic teaching on heaven and hell is the Qur’an. For Judaism, such a source is the Tanakh (the Old Testament), while Christianity bases its eschatology (or doctrine of the "last things") on both the Old and New Testaments. According to the critical viewpoint, Muslim theology is dependent on both Jewish ad Christian teachings, which includes those on heaven and hell.
The three religions have much in common in terms of general descriptions of heaven and hell. Leaving aside doctrinal points that are debatable within each of the three faiths (the eternity of hell, particulars of the eschatological events, etc.), the main differences between the respective perceptions of heaven and hell may be summed up as follows.
Islam emphasizes the physical aspect of the blessedness of the righteous and the torment of the wicked. The Qur’an is rife with fragmentary but at the same time poignant pictures of the two opposing realities. Of the three religions, Islam is probably the most detailed in regards to the portrayal of heaven and hell. Such matters as space, dimensions, degrees, and numbers seem to be of utter importance to Muslim theology. While Christianity is clear about life in heaven as being free from marital relations (Matthew 22:30), the Qur'an (56) states the contrary.
Judaism is concerned with physicality of the blessed state too. In fact, the Tanakh gives comparatively few descriptions of heaven as such or celestial spheres as the final destiny of man. On the contrary, the future is represented as mainly the earth restored to its primeval perfection. There is little to be gleaned from the Old Testament about hell. In fact, the word behind the “hell” of the English Old Testament refers generally to the abode of the dead with no or little discrimination between their being righteous or wicked (in Genesis 37:35, the righteous Jacob, bemoaning the supposed death of his son Joseph, refers to “hell”). Post-biblical Judaism, however, develops various ideas about heaven and hell, and the spiritual aspect of these ideas (including the concept of retribution and reward beyond the grave) acquires greater significance.
Christianity raises the spiritual aspect of heaven and hell to the highest possible level. “Hell” in the New Testament is no longer the common abode of the dead. It is rather a place of punishment for the wicked, where they are kept until the judgment day. Their suffering is primarily spiritual. Interestingly, the final state of the unrighteous is not hell as such but rather the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). Christianity spiritualizes the Jewish image of Jerusalem as the new paradisaical city, and it introduces the idea of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2 and 21:10) as the eternal home of God and His people.

Christians
The concept of Hell in Christianity is one that sounds harsher than the rest. As a way of avoiding to go to hell, a christian is expected to accept Jesus as their personal savior, believe that He died on the cross for their sins and believe that he is coming soon. There are other ideologies such as baptism, constant reading of the bible and so on that helps one qualify to go to heaven and shun hell. Failure to do all the mentioned above guarantees that one will go to hell and burn for eternity with no options of ever getting redeemed back to heaven.
Islam
Muslims believe that people go to hell when their bad deeds outweigh their good deeds. Their concept of hell is harsh for those who do not please Allah, but there is hope because one serves their term in hell in regards to the amount of bad deeds committed and this means that after staying in hell for a number of years depending on the amount of sin committed, one can eventually cross over to heaven.
Judaism
The emphasis of heaven and hell in Judaism is not much and the concept of reward and punishment is also not considered much. People who have done many wrongs might face harsh judgement from God if they do not repent, but those that live a good life might end up spending the rest of their lives withtheir departed dead ones.

In the three major monotheistic religions, heaven and hell are seen as opposing states of being that occur after death. The soul is the entity that enters one “place” or the other based on the judgment of God. Heaven is an everlasting paradise where the soul is freed from the burdens of earthly life, and hell is “place” where the soul is subject to eternal torment. The three religions have differing mechanisms by which God divides the worthy souls from the unworthy.
ISLAM
The tenets of Islam say that after death, a person’s good works are weighed against the person’s sins. If good works outweigh bad, the soul is allowed to enter heaven and enjoy an eternity of bliss. Otherwise, the soul is sent to hell, where it is tormented by fire and almost any other manner of inflicting pain. The Islamic version of hell has gradations, or certain conditions that allow some souls eventual entry into heaven.
CHRISTIANITY
Christians who wish to enter into heaven must accept Jesus Christ as their savior and as the only vehicle to an everlasting paradise where the soul is united with God. Those who die without accepting Christ can expect their souls to receive no mercy and to be sent directly to hell. Unlike in Islam, there can be no crossover between heaven and hell.
JUDAISM
Believers generally place little emphasis on the afterlife, choosing instead to view life on earth as an end in itself and not as a precursor to an eternal state of grace or punishment. There are concepts of heaven and hell, but the soul’s destination after death is not an either/or judgement. A sinful soul might require atonement, or an upright soul might be reunited with loved ones or enjoy the presence of the Almighty.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/gmoran/HEAVEN.pdf

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/

How does Holden catergorize people in The Catcher in the Rye?

In the novel The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, the main character, Holden, characterizes many people as phony.
First of all, Holden is a sixteen-year old adolescent, so his view on the world will be limited by his experience. However, he calls many adults phony. By phony, he means they are insincere or shallow. Holden goes out of his way to look for this trait in the adults he meets. For example, Holden believes that the headmaster, Mr. Haas, is phony for the way he preferentially treats parents. Those parents who he feels are beneath his notice, he has short, phony conversations with. As well, Ossenburger, the wealthy undertaker, is phony, owning discount funeral homes that take advantage of the sorrowful families while he attempts to emphasize Christianity.
However, ironically, Holden fails to realize that being phony is essentially part of the world and does not necessarily make one a bad or evil person. In fact, Holden, himself, is phony when he calls Ackley "a real prince" (Chapter 7), and he's sarcastic or insincere in his interactions with other characters.

What is the present-day relevance of The Merchant of Venice, and how is this shown in the text?

In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare presents two different worlds. The first is Venice—a place of Christianity, lavishness, and commerce. The Venetian society, Christian and orderly as it seems to be, is also shown as a barbaric one. Here, money equals the law. Lending money for interest as a way of making profit is very much acceptable and is the driving force of Venice, which is why loan sharks are highly respected. One of the moneylenders is Shylock the Jew; however, despite being respected for being a good moneylender, he is ostracized because of his religion and is considered subhuman. Money-making logic is considered more important than religious values, and Venice is shown as the embodiment of emerging capitalist ethics.
The other world presented in the play is Belmont. It is an idealized world, where justice and equality are most important. There is no religious intolerance. Belmont is shown as a complete contrast to the town of Venice—with no economic exploitation, the city is able to flourish with charity, forgiveness, purity, and love.
Keeping the two societal worlds in mind, we can compare them to today's situation. Although there have been advancements made regarding society and laws that affect it, there still exists a clear gap between our current society and an ideal one. While Belmont is something we strive to achieve, we are still living in Venice, where capitalism is often placed above basic human needs.
The presence of prejudice is clear from the Venetians' treatment of Shylock. He is considered a villain and an outsider. The Christian, profit-oriented society only sees him as a human being as long as he is valuable as a loan shark—beyond that, he is subhuman. Should he lose his respect as a moneylender, he is sure to lose respect as a person. Shakespeare used this character to represent anti-Semitism, which is what makes the play relevant to this day. There is still a lot of controversy about whether Shakespeare wrote the character of Shylock to address the issue at hand or to present his alleged anti-Semitic views. This interpretation of the play is possible; after all, in the time the play was written, anti-Semitism was far too common in Elizabethan society.
However, throughout the play, Shylock is shown as a complex, ambiguous character. He not a conventional or caricatured Jewish figure; instead, he has positive and negative sides which do not necessarily represent his religious beliefs. This is why critics mostly agree that Shakespeare wanted to deconstruct anti-Semitic prejudice through this character. When we think of Marlowe's Jew of Malta, Barabas is made the villain due to his Jewish faith. In contrast, Shylock's behavior is not the result of his being Jewish. He is not inherently evil, but was in fact pushed into his malicious actions by society. This makes a difference in how the audience reacts to his tragic end: we sympathize with him, at least partly.
Similarly, in Othello, a black, converted Muslim tries to fit in a white, Christian society. Shakespeare wanted to deconstruct the stereotypes of "evil Jew" and "devilish black man." Both of these plays are still relevant in today's society—despite the progress being made when talking about religious and racial tolerance, there is still prejudice present in the world. In fact, the prejudice is being reinforced by a growing number of world leaders, giving a platform to those with hidden—or even blatant—detrimental values. With bigotry and narrow-mindedness on the rise, there is a big chance of our society taking steps in the wrong direction in the near future.
Shylock believes the Venetians are hypocrites for preaching Christian morals but not following them. In act 3, scene 1, he goes on to say:

I am a Jew. Hathnot a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed withthe same food, hurt with the same weapons, subjectto the same diseases, healed by the same means,warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, asa Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poisonus, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we notrevenge?

In his famous soliloquy, Shylock explains that Jewish people are no different from others—no matter their religious beliefs, people are bound to react to situations in the same way, and take similar actions. He believes that there is no fundamental difference between people, and that the Venetians are simply being hypocritical. This is a crucial part of arguing for an all-encompassing and humane society in today's world.

The Merchant of Venice is a play about prejudice and bigotry. Although the outcome of the plot shows Shylock defeated (and it is a defeat the other characters are reveling in and congratulating themselves on), it's undeniable that the "message" of most of the play is at odds with that outcome.
Though some aspects of Shylock's character are those of a stock villain and are a reinforcement of stereotypes, we need only compare him with Barabbas in Marlowe's The Jew of Malta to realize how sympathetic Shakespeare's portrayal actually is. Shylock speaks openly of the hypocrisy of Antonio and other Christians, and there is nothing in the text to contradict or refute his evaluation of them. Shylock's famous "I am a Jew" soliloquy asks the basic question of why he and other Jews are marginalized and persecuted simply because they are of a different religion from the majority.
It's relevant today because we are living in a time when, in spite of the changes ever since the Civil Rights movement began (which we've assumed should have become permanent), there are new efforts by leaders in both America and Europe to turn back the clock and to treat people differently from others simply because of religion, skin color, and the language they speak. It's no different from Shylock's situation in which he must rhetorically ask what it is that makes these people assume that he does not have the same feelings as others simply because he is a Jew, as if his religion or ethnicity somehow makes him a different species in their eyes.

In our society, as in the Venetian society that Shakespeare depicts, harsh justice often prevails over mercy. As Portia says in court:

The quality of mercy is not strained.

By this she means mercy is not overused.
This lack of mercy is also an aspect of our courts of law. Mandatory sentencing often prevails over mercy, leading people to arbitrarily serve long sentences for relatively minor crimes.
Second, people in our society often take on debts they can not repay on schedule, just as Antonio does. For example, individuals who are in over their heads with students loans can find themselves, like Antonio, in stressful situations.
Finally, anti-semitism has been on the rise in Europe and the United States in recent years, and stereotypes about Jews circulate now as they did in Venice centuries ago. As Shylock notes, he is still a human being even though he is Jewish. This is a lesson some today still have not assimilated.
Our society has much to learn from The Merchant of Venice, including the value of mercy, the risks that attend debt, and the evils of anti-semitism.

The main issue many modern critics find of immediate relevance to contemporary culture is the issue of antisemitism. Many of the characters in the play think of Jews in stereotypical terms and treat them as second-class citizens. Although Shylock is portrayed as fitting the negative stereotypes of Jews in the period, he also has one of the most moving speeches in the play in which he pleads for understanding and against racism and prejudice: 

. . . I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? . . . 
If you prick us, do we not bleed?

What did Jim say they should do with their Christmas presents?

Jim says they should simply put their gifts away for now. He states:

"Dell,” said he, “let’s put our Christmas presents away and keep ’em a while. They’re too nice to use just at present. I sold the watch to get the money to buy your combs."

Jim realizes that each of them has already received a more precious gift from the other than the physical gifts they have purchased, as costly as those are. He recognizes that they have each shown their love for one another because each of them sacrificed what they loved most for the benefit of the other. Della sold her beloved hair, sacrificing it for Jim. Jim likewise sold his beloved watch, sacrificing it for Della. This mutual unselfishness bodes well as a foundation for their marriage.
At the end, by invoking the original magi and the gifts they brought for the infant Jesus, O'Henry implies that Jim and Della have understood the true spirit of Christmas giving, which is to give from love.

Jim's feeling a little embarrassed at having sold his watch to buy Della some combs for Christmas. But then again, she sold some of her lovely locks of hair to buy him a watch-chain. So they've both been burdened with gifts which are, for now, useless. Della's so happy at the watch-chain she's bought for Jim; it's an absolute beauty that will go just fine with his watch. But after he tells Della that he's actually sold the precious item, Jim sensibly realizes that it's best if they put away their gifts for now and keep them for a while. At least this way, when the time is right, the gifts will eventually come to have the meaning that they were always meant to have.

Why is Kafka's short story "The Judgment" universal in terms of its application?

"The Judgement" by Franz Kafka is a semi-autobiographical tale of a young man who faces his father's harsh judgment and is sentenced to drowning. It finds a universal application through its Oedipal and religious themes.
It is, in a way, not to be reminded of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam and Eve are judged and condemned by God and ultimately condemned for eating the forbidden fruit. In both Genesis––particularly the tale of the Garden of Eden––and "The Judgement," there is a universal feeling of guilt. In addition, there is the universal theme of being judged and condemned by a father figure, whether it be a literal father like Georg's in "The Judgement" or the Father of the Universe in the Bible. Georg's condemnation to being drowned in the river can serve as a metaphor for any fate that befalls man.
"The Judgement" ultimately serves as a tale of guilt or dueling moralities. Where the father expects one thing, Georg expects something else of himself. He cannot fill the father's expectations and is consequently forced to die. The father, of course, can stand in as a metaphor for many other things, whether it be a government, society, a divine force, or even an individual's subconscious!
http://franzkafkastories.com/shortStories.php?story_id=kafka_the_judgement

Why did William Penn believe his colony was different from the other English colonies?

William Penn's vision became the foundation for America's "melting pot" of cultures because of the way he established the colony of Pennsylvania.
Penn wanted to build a culture full of diverse talents, so he welcomed people of all faiths and embraced a policy of religious tolerance, whereas other colonies did not. He did not establish an official church in his colony, again breaking with the practices of the other colonies.
Because of this, Penn saw diversity flourish in Pennsylvania, setting it apart. He even reached out to people of various backgrounds and cultures and invited them to be part of his settlement. The Dutch and Swedish were farming there by the 1620s, and Lenape Indians lived near the Delaware River.
Penn's vision had great foresight and became the very basis of the ideals in the US Constitution. Although far from perfect (slavery also took root in Pennsylvania), this settlement did seek to encourage diversity of background and religious tolerance far more than the surrounding colonies of the time.
http://www.pennsburymanor.org/history/william-penn-and-american-history/

William Penn envisaged Pennsylvania as a genuine haven of religious tolerance, a "peaceable kingdom." This was an expression of his deeply-held beliefs as a Quaker. To many other settlers, such as the Puritans of Massachusetts, religious tolerance meant being able to practice your own religion but not allowing anyone else to practice theirs. Pennsylvania become a place of refuge for many persecuted sects such as Anabaptists, almost universally despised and mistrusted by other denominations of Christianity.
Pennsylvania under its founder was also notable for cultivating a respectful, tolerant attitude towards Native Americans. William Penn actively sought good relations with the Lenni Lenape people. As a result of this bold step, the indigenous population and the new settlers were able to co-exist in some considerable degree of harmony. The kind of uprisings that regularly broke out in other colonies didn't occur in Pennsylvania. And as a Quaker dedicated to pacifism, Penn refused to get involved in the French and Indian War, something else that set Pennsylvania apart from the other American colonies.
https://www.learnreligions.com/william-penn-and-his-holy-experiment-701369