Carter: The Separation of Church and State

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The First Amendment clearly protects religion by separating it from state. The First Amendment is not only protecting religion it is also protecting the people’s religious freedom, to choose and practice any religion they wish. It protects religion from the control of government. “The Supreme Court has said many times that a government may neither “advance” religion nor engages in an “excessive entanglement” with it (Carter 104).” This proves that the First Amendment protects religion because a government is not to encourage religion nor partake in any involvement of religion. Carter says it in The Separation of Church and State, that “for most of the American history, the principal purpose of the Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government (104).” The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was created for this reason; throughout history it has served the purpose of protecting religion from government. Without the Establishment Clause the government would have the power to intervene with the religious world. Before the First Amendment was created the state was able to prescribe a prayer to start the school day and or pick a holy book where the prayer would be chosen from, religion clauses were written to forbid this (105).
The Justices made a wise decision to forbid the state from choosing the religious materials used in school and from forbidding religion to be taught in the classroom. It protects those of all religions and protects those who chose not to practice religion because neither are forced to participate in something they wish not to.

Carter L. Stephen. “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 104-105.

Arendt: Total Domination

In Total Domination, Hannah Arendt an important political philosopher wrote about the totalitarian institution of the concentration camp in which human dignity is destroyed. I chose to focus on the question “What happens to human beings in concentration camps?” I chose this question because in the past years I have taken a grave interest in the Holocaust and the Nazi Conscience. I have learned a lot about it in these past school years, whether I took the time to research for myself or was taught in class. To me it is one of the most horrible events in history, for the outside world to be so blind-sited while people were being gruesomely executed by the German people, those known as the Nazi party.

The human beings in the concentration camps were treated worse than animals. Human beings were used in laboratory experiments of every kind to exterminate and degrade them. Some experiments were to transform human beings into mere creatures (88). The Nazis transformed men were transformed into “uncomplaining animals”. Human beings were isolated from the world outside (89). These innocent human beings became nothing, as if they never existed in this world. No names just numbers tattooed on their forearm.

The Nazis used a system called the “Final Solution”, the final solution was the Nazi’s plan to eliminate Jews, Russians, Polish, and Ukrainians .The final solution consist of three independent systems; the first system sentenced human beings for limited periods. The second system consisted of concentration camps “which human material is ruthlessly exploited and mortality rate is extremely high, but was essentially organized for labor purposes (Arendt 94)”. The third system consisted of the annihilation camps in which the inmates are systematically wiped out through starvation and neglect (94).

Survivors of the torture endured in concentration camps had it worse off then those who died. Instead of being at peace they were cut off from the world because the dismay caused oblivion. Arendt said that life and death are obstructed equally effectively in concentration camps (94). She also states “There are no parallels to the life in the concentration camps. Its horror can never be fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that stands outside of life and death (Arendt 94).” She is simply saying the events that occurred in the concentration camps are of nothing like any that has occurred in history since. Those who haven’t experienced it first hand could never imagine or endure anything like this.

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. pp88-94.

Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince

Machiavelli praises skill in warfare in his opening pages because as he states in the first paragraph “it is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state (Machiavelli 38).” My interpretation of this is that in order for a prince to maintain his leadership status and power of his state he must be skilled in his art of arms, in other words his art of warfare. Machiavelli says “being disarmed makes you despised; this is one of those infamies a prince should guard himself against (38).” The prince could never be disarmed, for then he would be disarmed and not in his state of war.

A prince must always be focused on the thought of war, even when there is no war the prince must train himself and his soldiers for war. Machiavelli states the skills a prince needs to acquire can be done in two ways one by action and the other by mind. A prince by action keeps his soldiers well disciplined and trained and must always be hunting. By using his mind he must learn the nature of the terrain, know mountains slope, how valleys open, how plains lie, and must understand the nature of rivers and swamps (Machiavelli 38).

These skills help to aid the prince by allowing him to gain the knowledge of his country and how to defend it. The prince is also gaining the knowledge and experience of the terrain; one can easily comprehend the characteristics of any other country that may need to be explored. These skills teach a prince to be track out enemies, to choose a safe campsite, lead troops, organize them for battle, and besiege towns to their own advantage (39). As Machiavelli claims, a prince who lacks these abilities lacks the most important quality in a leader. A leader must posses great leadership skills; you can’t just be given the title of prince without proving yourself to your people or to your royal family. By having the ability to always be on alert and ready for war would take a lot from someone, you can’t just train yourself over night, this kind of commitment takes months maybe even years to master.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. "The Qualities of the Prince." 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. 38-39.

Lao-tzu: Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching

According to Lao-tzu, moderation is important in government because an overpowering government would handicap the people. If the government becomes too involved in society; such as increases taxes it can lead to poverty, people would go hungry and could potentially become homeless. Lao-tzu states that prohibitions cause people to be less effective, weapons cause people to be insecure, and subsidies cause people to not have self-reliance (27). An overpowering government only leaves people discouraged and resentful. A government wants to be liked by his people not despised, by the government taking control and not just sitting back taking trust in people causes serious issues between the two.

Lao-tzu believes in one’s individual freedom, the government should not make promises to provide individuals with things they do not need, but instead shall provide individuals with things they do need. Lao-tzu implies in order to be a good leader you must learn to follow Tao (27). The government’s job is not to control people, but to let go. From the readings Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching, I am under the impression that Tao is the practice of good government and the moral behavior of government. Government should practice Tao like the Masters Lao-tzu describes in his writings because government practicing Tao would allow people to be content individuals, who would cause a content society, and eventually would lead to a content nation.

“Lao-tzu argues that by keeping people unaware that they are being governed, the leader allows the people to achieve good things for themselves (Jacobus 20).” This means that the government stays in the shadows while allowing the people to believe they achieved something on their and allows them to feel good about their achievement. Lao-tzu believes instead of the government educating people, the government teaches the people to not-know (29). This just means that people having too much knowledge leads to confusion and chaos.
“If you want to govern the people, you must place yourself below them. If you want to lead the people you must learn how to follow them (Lao-tzu 30).” Lao-tzu is trying to say government should not feel the need to be more intelligent or richer than an individual; government must place themselves below an individual in society to gain their respect. Once government has applied all the lessons of Tao to his governing people become grateful and respectful. The government and the people create an agreement, the government doesn’t horde the people and puts his trust in them and the people take respect in that trust and continue to do the right thing, while the government keeps an eye out.


Jacobus , A. Lee. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. “ Lao-tzu: Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” 7th ed. New York, 2007. (pp. 20-30)

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. Pp20-30.