The Establishment clause Blog # 4

The establishment clause was meant to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. For some time the establishment clause had been thought as the protection of religion against the secular government. The fact of the matter is that the establishment cause has no theory, meaning that the Supreme Court has not offered any direction in telling whether the clause has been violated or not. In order to pass the establishment Clause, justice wrote that the statute in question must meet three criteria: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, it’s principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive entanglement with religion (Carter 106). ’” The establishment clause was written trying to build around the political process, a wall almost impossible to take seriously. Pro choice scholars have argued that pro-life legislation violates the establishment clause because of the religious motivation of many supporters. The establishment clause by its terms doesn’t allow the imposition of religious belief by the state, not statements of religious belief in the course of public dialogue. Religious freedom is something that our nation prides itself on, the establishment clause might well end up not antiestablishment but antireligion. Religious views are extremely important and should not be argued against and people should not have to feel that their religious views are incorrect or wrong. I feel that religion and the state should be separate they should not conflict because they are to totally different parts of our lives.

Carter. “The Separation of the State.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006. pp 99-110.

Blog #3 What Happens to human beings in concentration camps?

When the phrase concentration camp comes to mind, words that immediately define the phrase are horror, death, torture, and pain. This reading is very powerful and difficult to grasp, with all the information that the author packs into the reading. When it comes to concentration camps it is interesting to learn that they can be split into three types of a life after death: Hades, Purgatory, and Hell. The concentration camps were so terrifying that it was like the prisoners were already dead and an evil spirit was getting a kick out of seeing the people suffer more before letting them die. It was easy for inmates to break not just physically but mentally as well, and the idea was for the leaders of the camps to treat the inmates as if they never had existed, they were isolated and kept from the outside word. They were treated like nothing because a prisoner has no value or price, and it was easy for an inmate to be replaced. One can not truly imagine what it is like in the concentration camps, it is something that is beyond life and death, the horror and torture can never be fully grasped. Many died from the regular torture and starvation, and as well because the camps were to overcrowded. This reading was hard to read in that yes we all know about the concentration camps and what went on but the way the author explains things and lays them out really hits the readers. This reading really lets the reader know that people have know idea of what really went on and it is to horrific to fathom what was done to the inmates and how some survived.

Blog #2 Is it better for a prince to be loved or to be feared?

There are many things that a prince when ruling his country has to be aware of. When reading Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, my answer to the title question changed from the moment I read the title of this reading to when I finished the reading. Loved was the first answer that came to mind because a prince I assumed would want the respect, love and loyalty from his people and a way of achieving this is to be kind, caring and generous to ones citizens. According to Machiavelli it is best if a ruler be both loved and feared, but if one attribute is lacking then it is far better to be feared than to be loved. It is easy for a prince to have control if he has inflicted fear upon his citizens. People are willing to abide by laws and be good and loyal citizens if fear is inflicted upon them or they are simply afraid to experience fear. Love holds to many false promises, and it will only get people so far. People will only do so much if they know that nothing will happen to them if something doesn’t get done, there is to much self interest involved, if a request doesn’t benefit someone then the majority of the time things will not get done. If fear is the motivation behind choirs and requests getting completed then so be it, if that is what has to be done to get results then the prince should do what ever is necessary to benefit his country in the long run, even if that means dealing or executing particular individuals to better his country. People do not like to be punished, and it allows the prince to be in control of his nation.

What does it mean to be in harmony with the Tao?

This reading for me was hard to understand in a way, on one end I was following how the author Lao-Tzu was connecting the Tao which means “the way” or “the Great Mother” (Lao-Tzu 20) to every day life. My understanding of the Tao is that it is supposed to be the path that both people and leaders of countries are recommended to follow in their every day lives. Meaning to just let things happen, live your life to the fullest in peace and love, displaying strong morals. A leader is supposed to watch over his or her country, not try to be over powering or controlling, and doesn’t force issues. The idea of the Tao is that the world will turn out fine and govern it’s self, always finding the way in the end. Then on the other hand one quote that really threw me after I was understanding the meaning of Tao was “When the Tao is lost, there is goodness” (Lao-Tzu 26). This did not make sense to me because the idea of being in harmony with the Tao is to live ones life with good morals and being good to one another, letting the world be, and not forcing issues on each other. So therefore shouldn’t the Tao be a good thing? If the Tao was lost should that mean that goodness is lost? For a country to be in harmony with the Tao it’s leader is powerful only when he or she is not trying to be, people are working together and looking after one another. In following the Tao the world is as it should be.

Lao-Tzu. “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Translator. Steven Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 22-31.