Does the First Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion?
In the beginning of this reading it explains the Clauses of the First Amendment. The first Clause is the Establishment Clause which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” which is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From this I thought it would answer my question to, does the first Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion? To this question and from the Clauses I would say the First Amendment protects religion from the state, but as I read on my answer was starting to change.
As I read further on there was something in the beginning that caught my eye and wanted to change my answer. In the beginning the example he gives about a Christian minister who ran a drug rehabilitation program. The thing that caught me though was at the end he says “but this program, he went on with something close to bitterness, could receive no state funding, because of its religious nature” (Carter 104). From this example Stephen talks about it make me think my answer is wrong to that question. So I thought well then the First Amendment protects the state from religion.
From this though I am not sure either my answers are more right then the other. I think depending on the situation the answer to the question could go both ways I think sometimes the First Amendment is protecting the state from religion and sometimes the First Amendment protects religion from the state.
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen 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 102-110.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince
Why Does Machiavelli praise skill in warfare in his opening pages? How does that skill aid a prince?
In the beginning of the reading, The Qualities of the prince by Nicclo Machiavelli, he talks a lot about how a prince should know nothing more then war. He says “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Machiavelli 37). This to me is the beginning of why Machiavelli praises skill in warfare. I say that because to me he is showing he believes that the most important thing for a prince to know is war. As he continues on with this sentence he says, “…it is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state” (Machiavelli 38). This part of the sentence really showed me why Machiavelli he praises skill in warfare because in this part of the sentence to me it seems that to him princes should not even give thought to luxuries because war is the most import. In other words to sum this up I think he praises skill in warfare because he believes war is the most important thing when it comes to a prince.
Having the skill for warfare aids a prince according to Machiavelli in a couple ways. One way he mentions “..a prince who does not understand military matters, besides the other misfortunes already noted, cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli 38). In other words to me this means understanding military can aid to a prince in the sense of his soldiers. If he knows the military his soldiers are able to trust him and the prince is able to trust them. Another way I thought showed how warfare aids a prince was when he mentions about knowing the land, from this he says “..a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize then for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (Machiavelli 39). From this I took that knowing warfare in the sense of land, it aids to a prince because knowing the land can not only have advantages for the prince but also to the people.
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. Martins, 2006. pp35-51
In the beginning of the reading, The Qualities of the prince by Nicclo Machiavelli, he talks a lot about how a prince should know nothing more then war. He says “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Machiavelli 37). This to me is the beginning of why Machiavelli praises skill in warfare. I say that because to me he is showing he believes that the most important thing for a prince to know is war. As he continues on with this sentence he says, “…it is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state” (Machiavelli 38). This part of the sentence really showed me why Machiavelli he praises skill in warfare because in this part of the sentence to me it seems that to him princes should not even give thought to luxuries because war is the most import. In other words to sum this up I think he praises skill in warfare because he believes war is the most important thing when it comes to a prince.
Having the skill for warfare aids a prince according to Machiavelli in a couple ways. One way he mentions “..a prince who does not understand military matters, besides the other misfortunes already noted, cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli 38). In other words to me this means understanding military can aid to a prince in the sense of his soldiers. If he knows the military his soldiers are able to trust him and the prince is able to trust them. Another way I thought showed how warfare aids a prince was when he mentions about knowing the land, from this he says “..a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize then for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (Machiavelli 39). From this I took that knowing warfare in the sense of land, it aids to a prince because knowing the land can not only have advantages for the prince but also to the people.
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. Martins, 2006. pp35-51
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Lao-Tzu: Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching
In the reading Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching, the Master’s attitude toward action is that taking action does not make things better. He believes in what is called Tao. The meaning of this is “the way”. He mentions that “the Tao never does anything, yet through it all things are done” (Lao-Tzu 25). I mentioned this because I believe what he is trying to say is that the Tao is not taking action and things are getting done.
One of the ways Lao-Tzu shows his attitude toward action is through this saying, that “if you tamper to the world, you’ll ruin it” (Lao-Tzu 24). I think by this he is trying to say if you take action towards changing the world you will only make it worse.
Another reason I believe Lao-Tzu doesn’t believe action makes things better is when he mentions this in the reading, “Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself” (Lao-Tzu 27). I think this shows his attitude toward action because I believe he means by this is that if you don’t act towards controlling things the world will control itself.
Lao-Tzu says “Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass” (Lao-Tzu 27). I wanted to use this saying from the reading because to me this shows a good example of how the Master’s attitude is toward action. I say this because by the things he is saying is to me saying that if you don’t take action toward these things, it makes them better.
This is why I believe the Master’s attitude toward action is that action does not make things better.
Works CitedLao-Tzu. ”Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching .” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading For College Writers . Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans.Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006. pp 22-31.
One of the ways Lao-Tzu shows his attitude toward action is through this saying, that “if you tamper to the world, you’ll ruin it” (Lao-Tzu 24). I think by this he is trying to say if you take action towards changing the world you will only make it worse.
Another reason I believe Lao-Tzu doesn’t believe action makes things better is when he mentions this in the reading, “Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself” (Lao-Tzu 27). I think this shows his attitude toward action because I believe he means by this is that if you don’t act towards controlling things the world will control itself.
Lao-Tzu says “Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass” (Lao-Tzu 27). I wanted to use this saying from the reading because to me this shows a good example of how the Master’s attitude is toward action. I say this because by the things he is saying is to me saying that if you don’t take action toward these things, it makes them better.
This is why I believe the Master’s attitude toward action is that action does not make things better.
Works CitedLao-Tzu. ”Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching .” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading For College Writers . Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans.Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006. pp 22-31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)