The Separation of Church and State

According to Carter the First Amendment protects religion from the state and not vise versa. "The metaphorical separation of church and state originated in an effort to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion" (Carter 103). This can be seen throughout America today. I'm not exactly sure when and where, but there once was a time in America where individuals were trying to enforce prayer in public school. This is wrong for a number of reasons. For one, not everyone practices the same religions or share the same religious beliefs. Another thing the First Amendment protects the public from is the possibility of being persecuted for practicing your religion. As Americans we have a plethora of different cultures and belief systems, so it would be unimaginable, even though it's happened throughout our history, that an individual would be reprimanded and discriminated against for practicing the religion of their choice. Carter states that "the government should neither force people into sectarian religious observances, such as classroom prayer in public schools, nor favor some religious over others, as by erecting a creche paid for with public funds, not punish peoples for their religiosity without very strong reason other than prejudice" (Carter 103). I believe that this is the reason for the First Amendment, to protect the religious rights of the public from the government. However one has to ask themselves how far is too far? Carter gives an example from his home town. He states that "The town of Hamden, Connecticut, where I live, briefly ruled that a church group could not rent an empty schoolhouse for services" (Carter, 105). This decision was said to have been made as a defense of as required by the separation of church and state. Was this decision correct? In my opinion, of course not. I don't see the harm in renting an empty space that just so happened to have once served as a school building. This in no way violates the First Amendment, at least in my eyes.

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. Martins. 2006. pp.22-31

Total Domination

I believe that there is not a single adult in the world today that has never heard of the Holocaust. When first learning about it myself, I was disgusted. First, I thought I was being lied to. Why? At the age I was at the time and even now I still find it unfathomable that any human being could subject another human being to the torment, humiliation and injustice that the Jewish people were subjected to during the Holocaust. I am convinced now that the horrible things that I was told and read about actually happened to these innocent people. Even today, as an African American, I have been discriminated against simply because of my race. And the ideology that someone can create such an enormous lie based off of racial superiority and forever change the history of an entire race for the worst is extremely scary, especially being a minority. When reading this, I was kinda scared by something Hitler stated "to be successful, a lie must be enormous" (Arendt 91). In a sense, I took that as meaning if someone were to come up with a lie that was so big, no matted how outrageous, it could be accomplished simply because out of fear no one would question it. And for me, that explains the role of terror in a totalitarian state. Not enough people came to question what was happening and why.
And this was understandable during the particular time that these events happened, but at the same time just knowing that this happened leaves my mind in awe because if it happened once, whose to say it can't happen again. Have we really evolved as a a human race to value every human life as if it were our own? No!

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. pp. 88-96.

Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince

According to Machiavelli it is better for a prince to be feared. I find his thoughts about the particular subject kind of disturbing but ultimately true. While the idea of being loved and respected would be great for any governing person to have, I believe that there would be limited respect and that would definitely lead to misfortune on behalf of the governing individual. Machiavelli gives multiple examples of how an individuals compassion can ultimately lead to the downfall of the common good. In the destruction of Pistoia, the Florentine people's primary goal was to avoid being cruel to it's people and this ultimately lead to the destruction of Pistoria. Macheavelli states "with a very few examples of cruelty he will be more compassionate than those who, out of excessive mercy, permit disorders to continue, from which arise murders and plundering; for these usually harm the community at large, while the executions that come from the prince harm one individual in particular" (Macheavelli 43). As harsh as this may sound, I agree. Sometimes being nice isn't always the answer because there a lot of people that take your kindness for weakness. Therefore as Macheavelli puts it "one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking" (Macheavelli 44). While the idea of ruling through fear seems like something from out of the dark ages, I have a certain level of respect for it simply because I know that as a ruler there must be limitations as to what one is willing to tolerate. Being known as a compassionate ruler, while would be great, I don't think they would be able to maintain their empire. I feel that their compassion would ultimately lead to their downfall.

Machiavelli. "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. pp.37-50.

Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching

While somewhat an easy read, I found this reading rather difficult to wrap my brain around. The structure of and the vocabulary in the article were rather simple, however it's contents were not, this made for a much more difficult reading than expected. I found that the most profound thing that jumped off the pages at me was the actions, or should I say non-actions, of the "Master." Lao-Tzu strategically voices his beliefs towards moderating the government's active roles in society. It was his belief that the government should not do anything. However if the government had to intercede then it should be at a minimum and in a manner in which it was inconspicuous. Lao-Tzu uses "The Master" as an active figure throughout the article. It is through The Master that Lao-Tsu is able to further stress his beliefs in a government for the people, with a significant emphasis on "the people." Lao-Tzu makes it known that The Master is always there, always aware of the situation and always available to lend assistance. However, The Master does just the opposite. The Master acts without actually doing anything physically. Through the various examples in the text, The Master is there, "emptying people's minds and filling their cores" (Lao-Tzu 22), while governing "the people are hardly aware that he exists" (Lao-Tzu 22), and he travels all day without leaving home (Lao-Tzu 23). All of these examples show that while there is a governing presence, his actual involvement is at a minimum. The Master is there acting as a sort of spiritual force behind the scenes, no necessarily always a physically active hand of the government. Lao-Tzu used the Master to show that while there should be a governing presence available at all times to the public, it should not be necessary. The Master, while if needed would step in, was still only present at a minimum.

The more I write the more I find myself questioning my understanding of the article. I kind of feel like I'm "writing in circles." I definitely saw a connection between Lao-Tzu's belief in moderating the government's involvement in everyday life and I believe he used the Master to help shape his argument.

Lao-Tuz. "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobson. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006 pp 22-31.