What is the Establishment Clause?
The Establishment Clause is the beginning of the first Amendment where the issue is religion. The Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Carter debates each point of the state and religion as he discusses a number of examples. Carter asserts “the principle task of the church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104). I think that Carter tends to lean heavier towards Christianity and the church. He wants the state and the church to secure religious freedom. “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). Just as Carter stated in the beginning paragraph of the reading, the Establishment was originated to protect religion from state, not state from religion. This Clause sets a boundary on how involved state is with religion. The state can not fund any organized religion, yet free prayer is not allowed in the beginning of classrooms, because not all people derive from the same religion. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (Carter 105). The Establishment Clause has put a metaphorical wall between church and state, leaving no room support in the church, because the Clause supports religious liberty. Carter writes “The embarrassing truth is that the Establishment Clause has no theory; that is the Supreme Court has not really offered any guidance on how to tell when the clause is violated.” (Carter 106). There are different cases and arguments that would determine your case.
Works Cited
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Hannah Arendt - Total Domination
What happens to human beings in concentration camps?
Finding the passage of Hanna Arendt to be densely written, I was able to pick out certain aspects of how human beings were treated in concentration camps. Arendt is strongly against the totalitarian form of government; her views on total domination are introduced in the first pages of the reading.
“The camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled condition, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something even animals are not;” (Arendt 88).
Individuals forced into the camps were either worked till their bodies gave way, or they were thrown aside to be murdered. The camps were so atrocious, that it had its advantages against the inmates. The over bearing work and the long days with no food altered the souls of the people held under control. This cruelty would turn ones personality numb as if there is nothing left to exist for.
Arendt asserts, “Its horror can never be fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that it stands outside of life and death. It can never be fully reported for the very reason that the survivor returns to the world of the living, which makes it impossible for him to believe fully in his own past experiences”. (94-95). These sentences stuck out to me the most, as I found Arendt stressed that there was no evil comparable to the life in a concentration camp. Any survivors, who managed to escape the “hell” could not explain their stories, but rather had a hard time believing themselves that they have returned to the outside world.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp85-97.
Finding the passage of Hanna Arendt to be densely written, I was able to pick out certain aspects of how human beings were treated in concentration camps. Arendt is strongly against the totalitarian form of government; her views on total domination are introduced in the first pages of the reading.
“The camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled condition, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something even animals are not;” (Arendt 88).
Individuals forced into the camps were either worked till their bodies gave way, or they were thrown aside to be murdered. The camps were so atrocious, that it had its advantages against the inmates. The over bearing work and the long days with no food altered the souls of the people held under control. This cruelty would turn ones personality numb as if there is nothing left to exist for.
Arendt asserts, “Its horror can never be fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that it stands outside of life and death. It can never be fully reported for the very reason that the survivor returns to the world of the living, which makes it impossible for him to believe fully in his own past experiences”. (94-95). These sentences stuck out to me the most, as I found Arendt stressed that there was no evil comparable to the life in a concentration camp. Any survivors, who managed to escape the “hell” could not explain their stories, but rather had a hard time believing themselves that they have returned to the outside world.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp85-97.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Niccolo machiavelli - The Qualities of the Prince
Why does Machiavelli praise skill in warfare in his opening pages?
How does that skill aid a prince?
In Machiavelli’s opening pages he gives great importance to arms and warfare of the prince. The prince must be in total state of war to be successful during this time. “He must, therefore, never raise his thought from this exercise of war, and in peace time he must train himself more than in time of war;” ( 38). Machiavelli stresses that a prince must never let an opportunity pass. As he stated if there is a time of peace, take advantage of it and plan your next move, or train your army, but never relax.
Machiavelli says, “Such knowledge is useful in two ways: first, one learns to know one’s own country and can better understand how to defend it; second, with the knowledge and experience of the terrain, one can easily comprehend the characteristics of any other terrain that it is necessary to explore for the first time...” (Machiavelli 38). Machiavelli asserts that knowledge of warfare is indeed useful and it will help the prince to defend his own country better. In addition, if the prince has awareness of the terrain, when it comes time to explore new grounds it will not be a problem, and can easily navigate his way. Machiavelli says, “a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader”. (38). In reading this, I interpret Machiavelli to give scheming and plotting of war a high rank. Machiavelli feels that a prince must know where all obstacles lie and all escape routes exist. This is why he praises skill in warfare, for the reason that a prince must be able to defend to be employed as prince, therefore this skill aids a prince to conquer and succeed.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp35-51.
How does that skill aid a prince?
In Machiavelli’s opening pages he gives great importance to arms and warfare of the prince. The prince must be in total state of war to be successful during this time. “He must, therefore, never raise his thought from this exercise of war, and in peace time he must train himself more than in time of war;” ( 38). Machiavelli stresses that a prince must never let an opportunity pass. As he stated if there is a time of peace, take advantage of it and plan your next move, or train your army, but never relax.
Machiavelli says, “Such knowledge is useful in two ways: first, one learns to know one’s own country and can better understand how to defend it; second, with the knowledge and experience of the terrain, one can easily comprehend the characteristics of any other terrain that it is necessary to explore for the first time...” (Machiavelli 38). Machiavelli asserts that knowledge of warfare is indeed useful and it will help the prince to defend his own country better. In addition, if the prince has awareness of the terrain, when it comes time to explore new grounds it will not be a problem, and can easily navigate his way. Machiavelli says, “a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader”. (38). In reading this, I interpret Machiavelli to give scheming and plotting of war a high rank. Machiavelli feels that a prince must know where all obstacles lie and all escape routes exist. This is why he praises skill in warfare, for the reason that a prince must be able to defend to be employed as prince, therefore this skill aids a prince to conquer and succeed.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp35-51.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Lao-tzu
What is the master’s attitude toward action?
From reading Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching, I found the masters attitude to be direct but humble. According to Lao-tzu, “The Master doesn’t talk, he acts.”(23).As I relate this to today’s leaders there is a lot of talking about actions, but nothing is actually being done in our government. Our presidents talk to compete.
“Just stay at the center of the circle and let all things take their course.”(Lao-tzu 23).
The master repeated this many times in his writings, giving peace the highest value (25)
With these two quotes, I think that the master strongly believes that all things have some form of symmetry to nature. If everything is at peace, everything will fall into place as it should, but the only way to obtain that peace is to do less of what we try to do and we will be doing more. “If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. (Lao-tzu 27). Everyone is trying to be a leader and we are all fixed on the idea that the more laws and economic growth we have the better our world will be, but the way of the “Tao” says to drop all concepts and let the world do its part. According to the Master, to be centered in the Tao we must not desire, but we must be content with ourselves and if we are content all things are at peace and we are centered in the Tao.
Works Cited
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. pp 22-31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)