The Establishment Clause is regarding religion within the government. This clause basically examines where the line is drawn on religion in the government. It determines whether certain things are consider bias towards one religion or another.
From what I understand, the Establishment Clause helps decide whether something is too religious to be adopted by the state; like one of Carter’s examples about prayer in public classrooms. This clause sets the boundary for where religion needs to stop, before it interferes and forces other of different religions to abide by these religious laws.

One of Carter’s examples about the minister who could not get funding for his rehabilitation program, even through it had a higher success rate compared to other programs; interested me because this clause was like a roadblock for this program just because it was religiously based. This clause has to draw a line somewhere, but the fact that the government cannot fund something so beneficial, because it is based on religion is puzzling.

According to Carter, “the principal task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious liberty” (104). This makes sense to a point, in order to make sure that everyone has a choice to their own religion the government must not support any, in order for it to seem as if no religion in prevalent. However, as this clause works along with the freedom of religion, it almost limits religious expansion, because without financial support a group or program is less likely to succeed.


Works cited
Carter, Stephen L. “The Separation of Church and State.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus.7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 102-110.

Humans in concentration camps were cut off from the world and were treated as if they were nothing. According to Arendt, “these camps are the true central institutions of totalitarian organizational power” (88). What Arendt is saying is that this government had the power to hold a large number of people in one area, while they represented these people to the world as if they never existed, thus proving total domination on the country. These camp were used for testing and minimal work, but were basically used as a way to remove un-wanted people from society and have them vanish from life as if they never were alive. Arendt says “even if they happen to keep alive (the campers), are more effectively cut off from the world of living than if they had died, because terror enforces oblivion” (94). The way she states this makes you understand that the people in these camps are no longer living, but are walking around like zombies. When a person witness death on a day to day basis, as if it is nonchalant, then that person may come to the realization that they are next or that life is no longer precious. When a person gets to this point, they lose hope and they begin to vanish emotionally and mentally, becoming oblivious to the world around them. “The concentration- camp inmate has no price, because he can always be replaced…,” (Arendt 95) this backs up the reasoning behind why these inmates are oblivious. If they know that they can be killed in a second and replaced one second later, then the hope and fear they had in the beginning disappears and most likely, they turn into emotionless creatures.


Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination.” A World of Ideas; Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 88-96.

Machiavelli praises the skill of warfare in the opening of this piece because he feels that knowing how to wage war, as a prince, is their most important responsibility. Knowing how to wage war is the basis for how a prince runs his domain. According to Machiavelli, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor he take anything as his profession but war…” (Machiavelli 36).
Machiavelli feels that warfare is the force that guides a country. He believes that “in peacetime he (a prince) must train himself more than in time of war…” (Machiavelli 38). He is saying that when there is no present war, that we should still be preparing for a war like it is tomorrow, so that we are ready for when it does come. I feel there is sense behind this because knowing the solution to a problem before it arises is better that having to figure it out right as the problem is occurring. On the contrary, I disagree with Machiavelli on how he believes war should be a leader’s greatest concern. It should be a concern, but not a prevalent as what Machiavelli is saying. Skills of war should be studied, revised, and newly interpreted, in order for a leader/prince to keep his country ready for battle and safe. However, the leader should also think of more present day problems; in Machiavelli’s time, the concerns were different from today, nowadays we have issues such as healthcare, welfare, and environmental to worry about.
Knowing warfare skills helps a prince keep control over there own country and defend it from others. Besides that, to me, knowing warfare gets you not much more. It helps when you are in war, and some of the skills can aid in the way you debate, but wars skills are to be used in war times.


Works cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobs. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 35-50.

The Master’s attitude towards action is very simple, “just stay at the center of the circle and let all things take their course” (Lao-tzu 23). Lao-tzu is in a way, saying that in order for life, in general, to work properly that there needs to be no interference. I believe that what he is saying makes sense in a way. When you have a problem in life, other try to step in and help you out when sometimes all you really need to do is to take control over the situation and lets things “take their course” (Lao-tzu 23). When you compare this to a government status such as Lao-tzu is doing, what comes to mind is the United States entering wars where it is not their place to be interfering with. In a way, this affects how we view our leader due to the way he handled these situations. If these situations had been handled in a way similar to what Lao-tzu is saying, there might have been more of a harmonious condition in the country, instead of anger and bitterness, which is what, comes to mind when the Iraq and Vietnamese Wars are brought up.
According to Lao-tzu, “She lets them go their own way, and resides at the center of the circle” (Lao-tzu 24). The Master’s action is to watch over what happens in a leader-like way but not to interfere with the outcome, but to try to guide the situation towards “harmony with the Tao” (Lao-tzu 26). I believe that the Master represents a force that takes action in a way that does not have an ultimate leadership presence, but is strong enough so that she is given the treatment and honor that an admirable leader should have.


Works Cited

Lao-tzu. “Thought 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.