In Stephen L. Carter’s piece, “The Separation of Church and State”, he basically talks about the impact that religion has on politics in today’s society, and whether or not it’s handled correctly. He delivers a compelling argument about his belief that the first amendment in the Constitution was created to protect religion from the state, rather than the state from religion. In many cases throughout American history, it seemed as though the government was trying to protect the country from certain religions, as opposed to protecting religious beliefs from the country. He cites the best known case in which the government struck down organized prayer in public schools. Honestly, I think that the separation of church and state is a good thing, as long as it isn’t taken out of context.
Carter, on the other hand, believes that the government shouldn’t be so intolerant when it comes to religion and religious matters. Frankly, I think Carter misunderstands what the First Amendment was actually put into place for. He believes that government, by upholding the First Amendment, is promoting anti-religion, which I disagree with. In my opinion, any citizen of this country should be able to exercise their religious freedom at any time without consequence from anyone; and, to my understanding, that’s what the First Amendment ensures. I think what Carter was trying to emphasize was his belief that the government should be more accepting of the different religions it’s citizens have, and try to find a better way to handle religious matters.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Hannah Arendt: Total Domination
After reading Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” piece on totalitarian governments, I’ve come to the conclusion that the totalitarian style of leadership is completely ridiculous, and shouldn’t be used under ANY circumstances. To put people through such torture and anguish JUST to keep them in line is outrageous in my opinion. Personally, I couldn’t imagine having to live through a totalitarian regime, as many people were forced to, so it’d be silly for me to say what I would’ve done. But, there’s no doubt in my mind, that I wouldn’t have been able to tolerate it for long.
When I sat back and looked at just what a totalitarian government “was” and consisted of, I realized that without concentration camps, totalitarian governments had no power. Hannah even mentioned that “these camps are the true central institution of totalitarian organizational power” (Arendt 89). So, without them, that style of leadership was rather insignificant to put it nicely.
On another note, one thing I did disagree with, and had a hard time understanding was Hannah’s difference between murder and the mass death that occurred in concentration camps. From what I understood, she was saying that when a murderer kills someone, they take away that person’s life, but they don’t destroy the fact that they existed; but then, she went on to explain how what the Nazis did was different? Personally, I think murder is murder, whether you kill 1 person, or thousands, but maybe that’s just me!! In any event, I was pretty confused through this entire reading, but some of it did make sense.
When I sat back and looked at just what a totalitarian government “was” and consisted of, I realized that without concentration camps, totalitarian governments had no power. Hannah even mentioned that “these camps are the true central institution of totalitarian organizational power” (Arendt 89). So, without them, that style of leadership was rather insignificant to put it nicely.
On another note, one thing I did disagree with, and had a hard time understanding was Hannah’s difference between murder and the mass death that occurred in concentration camps. From what I understood, she was saying that when a murderer kills someone, they take away that person’s life, but they don’t destroy the fact that they existed; but then, she went on to explain how what the Nazis did was different? Personally, I think murder is murder, whether you kill 1 person, or thousands, but maybe that’s just me!! In any event, I was pretty confused through this entire reading, but some of it did make sense.
Hannah Arendt. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 85-97.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Machiavelli: extreme, yet understandable
So, after reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Quality of the Prince”, and Lao-tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching”, I can honestly say that I’m torn between both ideas. On one hand, Lao-tzu raises some extremely good points about how a leader should govern, as he emphasized the importance of maintaining a happy citizenry, and the belief that the less a leader intervened, the better off things would be. Then again, on the other hand, Machiavelli made sense in a lot of ways as well.
Although he was radical in his beliefs, I understood why Machiavelli felt the way he did, and why he believed his approach to leadership was as it should be. While he was somewhat irrational in his belief that a leader should focus on war more than anything else, I did agree with the emphasis he put on a leader remaining disciplined at all times, staying informed, and always being prepared. Needless to say, I think it’s obvious that our leader today hasn’t always been fully informed when he did some of the things he did, but I digress.
Secondly, although I hate saying it, I agree with Machiavelli when he says, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 40). In my opinion, he’s not saying that a leader has to be immoral to govern well, but to act as though the people in this world are 100% honorable and just would be incredibly naïve. So, it would only help for any leader to acknowledge that fact when making important decisions.
Overall, although they’re beliefs are completely different, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli both made strong cases as to why their methods are correct, and why any others are fallible in every way possible.
Niccolo Machiavelli. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Translator. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 35-51.
Although he was radical in his beliefs, I understood why Machiavelli felt the way he did, and why he believed his approach to leadership was as it should be. While he was somewhat irrational in his belief that a leader should focus on war more than anything else, I did agree with the emphasis he put on a leader remaining disciplined at all times, staying informed, and always being prepared. Needless to say, I think it’s obvious that our leader today hasn’t always been fully informed when he did some of the things he did, but I digress.
Secondly, although I hate saying it, I agree with Machiavelli when he says, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 40). In my opinion, he’s not saying that a leader has to be immoral to govern well, but to act as though the people in this world are 100% honorable and just would be incredibly naïve. So, it would only help for any leader to acknowledge that fact when making important decisions.
Overall, although they’re beliefs are completely different, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli both made strong cases as to why their methods are correct, and why any others are fallible in every way possible.
Niccolo Machiavelli. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Translator. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006.pp 35-51.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Lao-tzu, Jacobus 14-17
Ok, so after reading the introduction to A World of Ideas’ government section, I think I have a pretty good idea as to where the authors in the section are coming from. In the introduction, the author explains how 6 different philosophers/leaders felt about how a government should be ran. They basically focus on the different forms of government and its role in society.
Lao-tzu, for instance, believed in maintaining a happy citizenry. He believed that a government’s success depends entirely on good relationships between the leader and their people. Obviously, he had a great concern for the well-being of the people in a government. He also believed that the government didn’t always need to be involved with everything, and that the less it intervened, the happier the people would be.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, completely dismissed how the people felt, and stressed the importance of gaining and holding power at all costs. He feared that if he didn’t wield his power ruthlessly, he might lose his people to a more powerful nation, and that was the last thing he wanted.
Hannah Arendt was somewhat like Machiavelli, but he took things to the extreme. He believed in total dominion, and wanted to use terror to enforce the government’s ideas. He believed that individual rights should be sacrificed for the good of the nation, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson came along in the United States, and wanted to eliminate monarchies completely. He actually wanted to emphasize the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and, therefore, enforce the government’s obligation to protect those rights.
Whether these 3 leaders were correct in their own philosophy is arguable, but each of them expressed good points as to why theirs would work.
Lao-tzu, for instance, believed in maintaining a happy citizenry. He believed that a government’s success depends entirely on good relationships between the leader and their people. Obviously, he had a great concern for the well-being of the people in a government. He also believed that the government didn’t always need to be involved with everything, and that the less it intervened, the happier the people would be.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, completely dismissed how the people felt, and stressed the importance of gaining and holding power at all costs. He feared that if he didn’t wield his power ruthlessly, he might lose his people to a more powerful nation, and that was the last thing he wanted.
Hannah Arendt was somewhat like Machiavelli, but he took things to the extreme. He believed in total dominion, and wanted to use terror to enforce the government’s ideas. He believed that individual rights should be sacrificed for the good of the nation, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Luckily, Thomas Jefferson came along in the United States, and wanted to eliminate monarchies completely. He actually wanted to emphasize the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and, therefore, enforce the government’s obligation to protect those rights.
Whether these 3 leaders were correct in their own philosophy is arguable, but each of them expressed good points as to why theirs would work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)