Carter

What is the Establishment Clause?

The Establishment Clause is the beginning part of the First Amendment when it speaks about Religion. It is the part that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This part of the Amendment has brought upon many arguments of Government and Religion.

Stephen L. Carter discusses points of each argument and explains the history behind the Religion vs. Government. He states that “For most of American history, the principal purpose of the Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government (Carter 104).” This is one of the most controversial arguments dealing with the clause. It is the argument of whether the clause protects religion from Government or if it’s really protecting the Government from Religion. Carter attempts to explain both sides of the argument but he tends to favor the side that is sensitive to the issue of the religious aspects not getting funding and the double standards that exist within the system.

I found it amusing that he does not let the Government justify the funds for the celebration of Christmas through the season by letting them slide with the excuse that it is the “Fabric of our society”. Carter counters it with the point, “Racial segregation was once part of the fabric of our society; so was prohibiting the women’s vote, and corrupt patronage politics in the big cities (Carter 109).” He argues, should that still be incorporated today because it was the fabric of our society? I think this is a valid argument.

The Government should not be able to dictate what they can and cannot monetarily support when it comes to this “clause”. The law makes its citizens obey the Lemon Law and the Government should always follow it as well. It should not be able to choose when they will follow it and when they won’t.

Carter, Stephen L. "The Separation of Church and State." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp99-112.

Arendt

What happens to human beings in concentration camps?

Hannah Arendt writes strongly with much compassion on the issue of totalitarianism. It’s obvious when reading the passage that she feels strongly about her views against totalitarianism. Arendt gives examples of the affects of totalitarian government. It led to the idea and formation of concentration camps or as some may try to soften the sound of it, by referring to it as forced-labor groups.

Here in these concentration camps people are reduced to the equivalency of animals. They are not recognized as human anymore, nor do they receive the same rights or respect as even the lowest class of people. Life as they know it is ripped away and they are either murdered or work under the supervision within the camps doing various tasks. These people had no contact with the outside world. Physicians experimented on them after they were killed, and sometimes while they were still alive. Arendt referred to these camps as hell and described the levels in which these camps were thought of by those in the camps. “Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western Conceptions of a life after death: Hades, Purgatory, and Hell (Arendt 96).” Hell is where she explains that “Hell in the most literal sense was embodied by those types of camp perfected by the Nazis, in which the whole of life was thoroughly and systematically organized with a view to the greatest possible torment (Arendt 96).” These people were forced into these camps and tortured. I could only imagine the thought of actually being that person.

As you can see, totalitarian government rules by fear and seeks complete devotion from it’s followers. Arendt stresses the importance of knowing the ill effects of letting government rule entirely. People can suffer not just hardships with money or their occupation. People can end up suffering in the complete sense of the word. Losing your life to a government that has complete power of its citizens is disturbing and quite frankly disgusting.

Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7^th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp85-97.

Machiavelli

Why does Machiavelli praise skill in warfare in his opening pages? How does that skill aid a prince?

Niccolo Machiavelli was a man who centered his life on his civil work. The highs and lows of government affected his prosperity, so as you could imagine, who was leading the country where he lived, was very important to him. He had strong points of view on how he believed things should be run when you are leading others. This strong point of view of course led to strict guidelines he came up with in “The Qualities of the Prince.” He had what seems to be a harsh view on war and personality that a prince should possess. He prioritized war as being most important.

In the first few pages of the excerpt he writes that a prince should basically only have war on his mind in order to succeed each time he faces obstacles in the field. Succeeding and failing are close together. The difference of outcomes could be as simple as not preparing extensively before hand. Machiavelli puts such emphasis on always preparing for war that he claims his strategy will work. “He must, therefore, never raise his thought from this exercise of war, and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by mind. And as far as actions are concerned, besides keeping his soldiers well disciplined and trained, he must always be out hunting and must accustom his body to hardships in this manner; and he must also learn the nature of the terrain, and know how mountains slope, how valleys open, how plains lie, and understand the nature of rivers and swamps; and he should devote much attention to such activities (Machiavelli 38).” By studying even when there is not elevated alert should put you above everyone else in terms of skill and victory.

This skill aids a prince by allowing him to have the advantages in times of war. If victories come far more often than losses, followers will support him. They will feel safe under his care and be confident that he is studying and devoting his time and life to them, in order to assure that they win instead of losing their lives or family’s lives. The skill in war increases devotion among followers and could even sway the opinions of those who may not like the prince or support him. By the explanation of how princes’ should act when in war or peace, Machiavelli believes this will help be more productive and successful. With this, the country will prosper.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7^th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp35-51.

LAO-TZU

What is the Master's Attitude Toward ACTION?

The Master’s attitude toward action in Lao-Tzu’s writings maintain the same general guidelines throughout the passage. Lao-Tzu explains how the "Tao" way of life is easily manageable in everyday life. He highlights the aspects of the Tao that will help in teaching someone a different way of governing. He claims that it will work as long as you do not abuse it.

Lao-Tzu explains that the absence of overt action actually does more than what the action could have obtained. He explains that people tend to cooperate with you if they feel as if they are not actually being governed. The authority role tends turn people off about matters that you would like them to follow. Instead they concentrate on the fact that someone is "telling" them what to do. People tend not to like being pushed around as adults. They get enough of that as young children.

The Tao has a subtle way of governing. The ruler should be behind the scenes working his magic instead of vocally displaying what he wants his people to do. If you sit back and let people figure things out on their own they respond with a positive attitude. By standing in the shadows but working within a basic framework people do alright on their own. They will also have more respect for you, as you have not forced them into any situation but gently guided them to their destination.

Lao-Tzu says "Practice not-doing, and everything will fall into place"(Lao-Tzu 22). He explains that when you try to actively rule you end up ruining the relationship between yourself and the people you wish to govern. Everything else goes haywire.

Leading by example is another one of his guidelines. If you "practice what you preach" like the saying goes, you end up not just telling people that your way is the right way, but you show them that you are up to the challenge of change as well. Seeing is believing, and gaining trust by showing someone can be a powerful tool.

Action can work in your favor if you are not forcing people into following your way. Allowing people to figure things out on their own is still considered as you acting upon them, just not in an obnoxious way. Action does not have to conform to the cut and dry definition of actively doing something. By sitting back and letting people learn and do on their own can still be acting upon the situation. Lao-Tzu made a very well written argument on the way you can act upon a group by not actually acting upon them at all.

Lao-Tzu. "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp22-31.