From the selection “The Separation of Church and State” by Stephen L. Carter I think that perhaps the most eye-opening point in this section is his argument that the first amendment was designed to protect religion from state, not the other way around (Jacobus 103). Although, I never really put too much thought into actually analyzing the true meaning of the first amendment beyond the obvious I think that Carter makes a valid point.
I agree that the first amendment was designed to protect religion from state and not the state from religion. Carter even cites one of the founders of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, to prove this point (103). Considering the history of the United States one of the basic principle ideas is that people should have freedom of religion without interference from the government. A lot of colonization took place in the Americas so that people could practice their religion freely without being persecuted by the government (or at least as far as I can remember from history). So based on that I believe that the first amendment was probably meant to ensure that government couldn’t impede on people’s religion or religious beliefs, and not vice versa.
Despite the intentions of the first amendment I think that based on this selection government interprets it as it pleases. Most of the decisions that are made in courts supposedly based on the first amendment are used to completely separate government from religion, as it should, but it’s using the first amendment as a crutch to support secularism. It’s almost as if government is trying to completely exclude religion from having any part in the government, when in actuality religion has a large part in shaping people’s morals and values. To try to completely rid government of religion is almost impossible because as Carter said it’s on our money, in our pledge, in the hearts of our founders (103, 105). It also becomes messy as he illustrates throughout the piece with holes and gaps in the courts rulings on cases of religion. So although I think the first amendment was designed to protect the state from religion it appears that the government is using it to protect itself from the religious.
Works Cited
Carter, Stephen L.. “The Separation of Church and State.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers .Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. pp.102-110.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Blog #3
“Total Domination” by Hannah Arendt is easily one of my most difficult reads to date. I think that of the three pre-reading questions there was only one question that I could actually address. This question also happened to be the most poignant topic in this entire piece which is the question: What happens to human beings in concentration camps? It took me several reads to figure out what Arendt claims happens to humans once they have been in these camps because as she puts it “he himself [those who have been in concentration camps] is often assailed with doubts with regard to his own truthfulness…(Jacobus 89).”
I think the aforementioned quote represents part of what Arendt sees as what happens to humans in concentration camps, and that is that they become inanimate (91). Arendt describes them as people that “can no longer be psychologically understood…” due to the fact that their “psyche, character, and individuality…” have all been destroyed (91). She even goes as far as comparing them Lazarus, basically saying that they are the dead that have risen (91). In other words, in almost every possible way the human being that went into the concentration camp was killed on every level , except the physical.
To elaborate further on this, she goes on to discuss how those that put them in concentration camps also try to erase any trace of their existence (93). So not only are humans who are put into concentration camps stripped down on every level of their psyche, but they are also discarded as nothing creating even more psychological problems for those who’ve lived through it. She also addresses the “superfluous” nature of those in concentration camps on page 95 when she states, “The concentration-camp inmate has no price, because he can always be replaced; nobody knows to whom he belongs, because he is never seen. (95)”
To sum it all up human beings who are in concentration-camps are degraded to the worst possible level. I believe that Arendt is right by saying it’s “as if they were already dead. (96).” They level of nothingness they were treated as, and the whole mentality that they were worthless and should be wiped off the earth alone is enough to affect anybody psychologically. However, more than just shunning was done to the humans put in these concentration camps. Isolationism took place in these camps along with oblivion and the reducing of men to bundles of reaction as Arendt puts it, all of which are hard to grasp on any level of real understanding (92,94).
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. Martin’s, 2006. pp.88-96.
I think the aforementioned quote represents part of what Arendt sees as what happens to humans in concentration camps, and that is that they become inanimate (91). Arendt describes them as people that “can no longer be psychologically understood…” due to the fact that their “psyche, character, and individuality…” have all been destroyed (91). She even goes as far as comparing them Lazarus, basically saying that they are the dead that have risen (91). In other words, in almost every possible way the human being that went into the concentration camp was killed on every level , except the physical.
To elaborate further on this, she goes on to discuss how those that put them in concentration camps also try to erase any trace of their existence (93). So not only are humans who are put into concentration camps stripped down on every level of their psyche, but they are also discarded as nothing creating even more psychological problems for those who’ve lived through it. She also addresses the “superfluous” nature of those in concentration camps on page 95 when she states, “The concentration-camp inmate has no price, because he can always be replaced; nobody knows to whom he belongs, because he is never seen. (95)”
To sum it all up human beings who are in concentration-camps are degraded to the worst possible level. I believe that Arendt is right by saying it’s “as if they were already dead. (96).” They level of nothingness they were treated as, and the whole mentality that they were worthless and should be wiped off the earth alone is enough to affect anybody psychologically. However, more than just shunning was done to the humans put in these concentration camps. Isolationism took place in these camps along with oblivion and the reducing of men to bundles of reaction as Arendt puts it, all of which are hard to grasp on any level of real understanding (92,94).
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. Martin’s, 2006. pp.88-96.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Blog 2
The beginning of Machiavelli’s piece The Qualities of the Prince: A Prince’s Duty Concerning Military Matters his main concern seems to be stressing the importance of a prince being proficient in war. He provides reasons why a prince should be proficient in war, how it benefits the prince, and even cites an example of the need for this.
Machiavelli basically starts off his piece by stating that someone whose station is that of a commander, such as a prince, main concern should be war (Jacobus 38). He then defends this statement by claiming that it is necessary to be proficient at war for three reasons. The first being to maintain the position of a prince. The second being to maintain control of the state. The third reasoning is allowing for those at a lower station the possibility to rise to the station of a prince (38).
He then moves to making a comparison between armed and unarmed men to further validate his views that being proficient in warfare is a skill needed of a prince (38). To quote Machiavelli, “for between an armed and unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever…” (38). He explains this reasoning by saying that those who go unarmed can’t feel safe amongst those that are armed because one will become suspicious and the other contemptuous causing friction. With such friction comes conflict, and no one who is armed will willingly obey someone who isn’t (38). Thus, Machiavelli praises being proficient at warfare because it helps the prince maintain his position and helps prevent his position from be seized from him.
Several reasons on how being proficient at war benefits a prince are also given by Machiavelli. Some of the benefits derive from the two ways in which Machiavelli feels a prince should train himself. One of these reasons is by learning through action such as learning about one’s country or terrain (38). Machiavelli suggests that a prince should become familiar with his country’s terrain to better prepare himself for war and to become more proficient. By doing this the prince will benefit in several ways which I will quote, “because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize them for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (39). So by the end of the opening pages Machiavelli not only gave reasons why it’s important for a prince to be proficient at war, but also why it’s beneficial to them as well.
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. Martin’s, 2006. pp.37-50
Machiavelli basically starts off his piece by stating that someone whose station is that of a commander, such as a prince, main concern should be war (Jacobus 38). He then defends this statement by claiming that it is necessary to be proficient at war for three reasons. The first being to maintain the position of a prince. The second being to maintain control of the state. The third reasoning is allowing for those at a lower station the possibility to rise to the station of a prince (38).
He then moves to making a comparison between armed and unarmed men to further validate his views that being proficient in warfare is a skill needed of a prince (38). To quote Machiavelli, “for between an armed and unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever…” (38). He explains this reasoning by saying that those who go unarmed can’t feel safe amongst those that are armed because one will become suspicious and the other contemptuous causing friction. With such friction comes conflict, and no one who is armed will willingly obey someone who isn’t (38). Thus, Machiavelli praises being proficient at warfare because it helps the prince maintain his position and helps prevent his position from be seized from him.
Several reasons on how being proficient at war benefits a prince are also given by Machiavelli. Some of the benefits derive from the two ways in which Machiavelli feels a prince should train himself. One of these reasons is by learning through action such as learning about one’s country or terrain (38). Machiavelli suggests that a prince should become familiar with his country’s terrain to better prepare himself for war and to become more proficient. By doing this the prince will benefit in several ways which I will quote, “because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize them for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (39). So by the end of the opening pages Machiavelli not only gave reasons why it’s important for a prince to be proficient at war, but also why it’s beneficial to them as well.
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. Martin’s, 2006. pp.37-50
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Blog #1
“Thoughts from Tao-te Ching” makes several references to the Tao. The Tao, in my opinion, seem to be ideas on the best way for a country to be run. Although, it is referred to often in the piece it is never directly stated what the Tao means. However, there are several verses that help to clarify what the Tao actually means.
Lao-Tzu helps us comprehend what it means by illustrating the ways of the Tao. By giving us several examples of things that would and wouldn’t occur Lao-Tzu is able to create a picture for us allowing us to better understand what it means. One of these examples would be on the bottom of page 24 when Lao-Tzu talks about one who rules are based on that of the Tao. This verse discusses how ruling by Tao would not involve using force or using force as a weapon. This implies that the Tao way is not oppressive, forceful, or puts use to strong-hold techniques. This one passage alone helps us gain a better idea of what is or isn’t considered following the way of the Tao. This in turn, allows us as readers to get a better understanding of what Tao means. This along with several other verses help sculpt a definition of Tao for us as readers and inquirers.
Lao-Tzu is also able to explain what it means to be in harmony with Tao using this technique. Through several other verses he describes some of the causes of following the Tao and of not following the Tao. A perfect example of this would be on page 26 when he compares a country who follows the Tao to one that doesn’t. The one that follows the Tao seems has positive attributes and the one that doesn’t has negative attributes. The positive implications of following the Tao is scattered throughout the piece suggesting that to be in harmony with Tao is to benefit and thrive in life.
Lao-Tzu helps us comprehend what it means by illustrating the ways of the Tao. By giving us several examples of things that would and wouldn’t occur Lao-Tzu is able to create a picture for us allowing us to better understand what it means. One of these examples would be on the bottom of page 24 when Lao-Tzu talks about one who rules are based on that of the Tao. This verse discusses how ruling by Tao would not involve using force or using force as a weapon. This implies that the Tao way is not oppressive, forceful, or puts use to strong-hold techniques. This one passage alone helps us gain a better idea of what is or isn’t considered following the way of the Tao. This in turn, allows us as readers to get a better understanding of what Tao means. This along with several other verses help sculpt a definition of Tao for us as readers and inquirers.
Lao-Tzu is also able to explain what it means to be in harmony with Tao using this technique. Through several other verses he describes some of the causes of following the Tao and of not following the Tao. A perfect example of this would be on page 26 when he compares a country who follows the Tao to one that doesn’t. The one that follows the Tao seems has positive attributes and the one that doesn’t has negative attributes. The positive implications of following the Tao is scattered throughout the piece suggesting that to be in harmony with Tao is to benefit and thrive in life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)