Response to "The Separation of Church and State:"

In “The Separation of Church and State” by Stephen L. Carter, the issue of protecting religion from the state vs. protecting the state from religion is discussed. In this discussion, the only side of this argument that is represented by the First Amendment is the fact that religion is protected by the state not the other way around. Since the First Amendment was written congressmen, judges, and many other types of governmental men have said they are looking out for the best interest of religion, but as history shows their intentions are only that, just “actions meaning to be done.” In Carter’s argument he quotes Thomas Jefferson in saying that “the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights…” (Carter 103) are the rights that were designed to secure religious liberty. But I ask where has Jefferson’s way of thinking gone?

It is obvious that congress and the government as a whole have started to leer away from protecting religion from the state, and switched to protecting the state from religion. Carter states the best known case of this is the example in which the government denied the schools the right to have organized prayer in public schools (Carter 105). I believe that the government is neither abiding by nor breaking the First Amendment, they are just trying to casually ignore it. By not passing laws over the citizen’s right to practice what every religion they so choose they are abiding by the First Amendment. It is when they rule that schools and treatment centers cannot be funded by the government for the sole reason they may use a few prayers is when the government is not necessarily breaking the First Amendment, but just trying to get by it, by saying, in my opinion, “No we will not fund your programs, but we support your ideas and will let you stay as an organization!"

Therefore I believe Carter is trying to expose to the nation that our rights may not be taken away, but they are being compromised. It is plain to see that congress has changed its views on who to protect. I personally think that prayer in school would not harm anything or anyone. As well as prayer in rehabilitation centers would not harm anyone; it would only make them believe in themselves and a “higher power” even more, therefore giving them hope in breaking their addiction. Believing in and praying to a higher power is not going to change peoples’ opinions about the government and make them lean away from it and support only their God, no… all prayer does is give people the strength and belief that they are going to make it through any tough time they may encounter. So if religion is not harming the state, why does congress feel it necessary to protect the state from it?

Works cited

Carter, Stephen L."The Separation of Church and State." From "The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law

and Politics Trivialize Religous Devotion." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed.

Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: BEdford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp99-111.

Response to "What Happens to humans beings in concentration camps?"

After reading, “Total Domination,” the better question is… “What does not happen to humans in concentration camps?” It seems as though answering this question would lead to a much shorter essay, for just about any in-humane, horrible, and de-humanizing action was carried out in concentration camps. I believe, the best description of a concentration camp is a place where masses of humans are cut off from the world, just like they no longer exist, and they, even though are technically “alive,” are forced to work themselves to death. When they do die, they are just replaced by another inadequate soul, in the eyes of their oppressors, until each and every one has been exterminated. “Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western conceptions of a life after death: Hades, Purgatory, and Hell,” says Arendt (Arendt 96).

This quote is one of my favorites, because it clearly sums up how concentration camps work and she expresses them as easy to understand concepts for a reader such as me. Arendt then goes on to state that each level represents a different type of concentration camp; meaning, Hades is considered the DP camps, Purgatory represents the Soviet Union camps, and then the worst of the three, Hell represents the Nazis camps. In concentration camps it is clear that total domination does, in fact, occur. The idea of horror is imposed on to the camp’s poor members and they are treated not as the individual they are, but as a mass of one characteristic. At such camps, humans are stripped of their individuality and are worked and murdered. Arendt states, “Here, murder is as impersonal as the squashing of a gnat (Arendt 94).” If that is not a powerful statement of how oppressors felt towards their victims, I do not know what is.

Reading “Total Domination,” gave me a new way to look at concentration camps. I have always been taught that they are horrible places, and humans there, if they even made it through, were not the same people after; but now I see them for everything they are. Which is not just one race believing they are superior, so oppressing another to work for them to get a job done, oh no, not just that. Concentration camps, explained by Arendt, are places where racism and prejudice run in high amounts, where humans are transformed into “uncomplaining animals (Arendt 89).” I think it is such a sad day that our world could be so cruel and unresponsive. It is ludicrous just to know there used to be places of such terror. Although, we no longer see the use of concentration camps, I think a relative to the idea still lingers today. Such examples would be the suicide bombings we experience in today’s society. The only difference is there is no “higher race opinions,” only a cult leader, if you will. This “cult leader” persuades persons of low morals and who lack their own opinions, to believe in his cause, and get them to come together and start attacking many parts of the world by suicidal bombing missions. Although suicide bombings are technically forms of terrorism, I think they are a close relative to concentration camps. After my reading and analysis of the reading, I can only ask this question, will terrorism ever stop? Will it, like concentration camps, eventually loose its power and seize to exist? I suppose I can only hope.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. "Total Domination." From The Origins of Totalitarianism. A World of Ideas: Essential

Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 85-

97.

Response to Machiavelli's, "The Qualities of the Prince"

It is difficult to come up with one conclusion, in my opinion, about whether a prince should be loved or feared. If he is loved he is supposed to have the loyalty of his subjects, as well as their support. Yet is seems if a prince is only loved and nothing else that he may, at one point in time, loose this loyalty and his subjects may rebel and turn against him. This is the point in which I agree with what Machiavelli has to say. The way I see it (and it is obvious Machiavelli also sees it this way) is if a prince is feared he gains his subjects’ respect. Then in turn from gaining their respect he gains their obedience, which then becomes their loyalty. This is a different loyalty than that of being a loved prince, for a feared prince will never loose his subjects’ loyalty because they are all too scared of the repercussions of their actions if they were to attempt to rebel. I believe a good prince is both loved and feared; he just has to know when he wants to be loved and when he needs to be feared. Although if I must pick only one quality, I would say a feared prince is a better ruler. My opinion is in agreement with Machiavelli’s which states, “I reply that 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" (Maciavelli 44).

Having such a strong power over one’s subjects that the prince actually scares them out of doing something against his will, seems to me, to be the ultimate ruler. In my opinion, the ultimate ruler/prince is one whom unites this army and people, keeps them in line, and rules fairly for many years. Although, I believe a prince can be strict and feared without having to resort to cruelty all of the time. For if he rules with only cruelty he will become hated, which is the opposite of what he is striving for. If the prince must be cruel, I think he should make an example of an individual who broke his rules in public; this way he sends one clear message to all his other subjects’, the message being, “This is what will happen if you break my rules.” By only having to be cruel once in a public example, the prince has put fear into the mind’s of his subjects so they stay in line, and now he will not have to resort to more cruelty, thus not becoming hated. My opinion stated above is in best agreement with this quote of Machiavelli’s, “And if he must take someone’s life, he should do so when there is proper justification and manifest cause; but, above all, he should avoid the property of the others, for men forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony” (Machiavelli 44). This quote is speaking about how to be cruel, but it also speaks of being cruel in moderation, which in turn agrees with my point stated earlier.

Thus ruling with a strict upper hand but being gentle is the best way to rule. For being only loved by one’s subjects, the prince may be vulnerable to disrespect and loss of loyalty, because love is only promise, and promises are meant to be broken. “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned; but fear is held together by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (Machiavelli 44). This is a quote that reiterates the point that is it better to be feared than loved; for a loved prince will fall while the feared prince will reign all.

Works Citied section for quotes in response

Machiavelli, Niccolo. "The Qualities of the Prince." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers.

Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's,

2006. pp 35-51.