The issue of separation of church and state is one that is in the media a lot. To me it seems to more prevalent now then it was years earlier. I don’t know if that is just because the media is making a big deal out of it, or if that is because the issue really is being discussed more. I believe it to be a combination of both. I have little idea as to why this is so. The first amendment has exists for hundreds of years, but it seems to be only in the past few decades that parts of this amendment have been called to question. Does this come for the “liberal media” and the twenty-four news networks looking for more stories? Or are people seriously offended by religion? For the most part, I don’t think people are bothered by religion and the use of the word God in the pledge of allegiance.

People seem to be twisting the words of the first amendment around. Carter stated in paragraph 2 “Simply put the metaphorical separation of church and state originated in an effort to protect religion from state, not state from religion” (103). So if this is what the first amendment means, the why are people getting so upset over a three letter word in the pledge of allegiance? The word does not hinder religion, so it should be allowed. I am aware that God was not always in the pledge of allegiance, but there is little reason for it to be taken out now that it is put in. One can be patriotic by saying the pledge of allegiance or by doing other things. So if some says that they can not by patriotic because they do not say the word God when saying the pledge of allegiance, I think they are mistaken.

The founding fathers came here to escape religious oppression so they wanted to protect religion. I think that is the reason why the first amendment exists. It is designed to protect our rights. The word God does not hinder the rights of anyone. It is simply a three letter word that means a lot to millions of people. I know why we have the amendment, what I don’t know is how/why the issue is so controversial today. It has lead me to a few questions.

How much does the media have an effect on what American’s consider to be controversial issues? If the media is affecting the issues being talked about, is that good or bad? Are there issues that should be brought up, but because the media does not bring them up, they are not as widely known? Are those who are not Christian really offended by the presence of God in our society? How do other nations, besides the US deal with this topic? Does the debate over church and state happen else where, or is it limited to the US? Just some thoughts that came upon me while reading and writing this blog.

Hanna's post -- she had some copmuter difficulty, thus I am reposting it here:

I was an eager magnet to Lao-Tzu’s refrigerator of inspirational philosophies, advice, and guidelines for a “Master”. His epiphanies flow into simple, catchy phrases which could easily be separated and thrown haphazardly into a quote book…and still stir me. It is no wonder it served as a basis for Taoism, and has survived since sixth century B.C.
In fact, the author uses language so powerful that it may be difficult for mesmerized readers to find the intended meaning in them. “If a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest”(part 58), for example, could be translated by some as Lighten up on criminals and there will be less crime. If we peer deeply through the delicate woven lace of words, arguable statements like these may be found.

In the final paragraph of Lao-Tzu (part 80), the author makes statements that are somewhat chilling to me, and possibly others who thrive on life’s experiences. Phrases like, “…don’t waste time inventing labor-saving machines”, “they aren’t interested in travel”, and “delight in the doings of the neighborhood” sound like an elaboration of the old saying, Ignorance is bliss. His words don’t sound harsh, but the idea behind them might be. With a closer look, Lao-Tzu gives the impression that he believes citizens should not be encouraged to seek knowledge, improve life, travel, invent, or experiment. With all of this man’s admirable goals and ideas, what moved him to discourage the practice of horizon-broadening?

Although this aspect of Lao-Tzu’s perspective is slightly unsettling, there is a treasure box of inspiration for anyone who opens his writing. Those seeking leadership positions, as well as ordinary folks, can glean from these writings. He offers fresh insight into human psychology and behavior. He discusses how various actions bring varied results (specifically part 38), predicts how people will respond to steps a leader takes, and describes how a leader can become a “Master”( parts 17, 26, 30, etc.).

Lao-Tzu promotes a sort of Laissez-Faire policy for the government, advising that it places fewer expectations on citizens and stays out of war: “Weapons are tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” (Part 31). He speaks of a stable, selfless leader who will remain in the “center of the circle”(part 19). Concepts that one wouldn’t normally associate with spirituality or philosophy, Lao-Tzu does. He skillfully weaves these theories together with spiritual threads, emphasizing the Tao.

Although Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching could be interpreted in a variety of ways by an assortment of people, I personally have fallen in love with it. The thoughts he has put here are ones I wish I had thought of first! I will push aside any reservations and allow myself to enjoy the intricate embroidery of wisdom Lao-Tzu has created.

During all my years of school, I have never actually read the whole Declaration of Independence. I really enjoyed reading it, especially after reading Rousseau which was very difficult for me to understand. Even though the Declaration of Independence was written over 200 years ago, the principle behind it still holds true today. People have certain rights that one’s government must never take away.

People must not be ruled by a tyrant. That was the whole reason behind writing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson set up his argument it a form that was easy to follow. First there was the introduction and the reason why people may separate from their ruler. Then Jefferson specifically accuses the King of Great Britain of having tyranny over the States in the end of paragraph 2. Following this there are 26 examples and reasons why the States were separating from Great Britain. The document concludes by mentioning other times in the past when the States asked Britain to grant them more freedom and how each time, they were oppressed more.

I find this format of writing an argument to be very solid. It is logical and easy to follow. Jefferson first makes his argument, then supports it through evidence.

The first paragraph is very formal. The first line is one of the famous ones from the whole Declaration. “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the Powers of the earth…” The Declaration of Independence is one of America’s most famous documents. It was the first step to freedom and democracy. In Jefferson’s opinion the purpose to writing such a document is so that the nation that the people are separating from knows why. It was done for formality.

One thing I find most interesting is the use of the word God. Know a days, it is such a heated topic to refer to God in any government document. People even want God removed from the pledge of allegiance; yet God is mentioned in the very first paragraph. “… the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” This is in reference to humans rights. In paragraph 2, Creator is mentioned. This once again refers to the rights a person has. Twice Jefferson referrers to God/Creator. He is considered to be on of America’s founding fathers. When the Supreme Court debates and issue, they try to interpret what was meant by our founding fathers. If the found fathers found it to be important to mention God and our Creator in the Declaration of Independence, why then do people not want to mention those words today? Why is there such a debate over teaching divine creation versus evolution? Just some thoughts I that came to me while I was reading.

After reading Lau-Tzu, I found connection of morality and the way in which "rulers" should govern through a "less is more" policy insightful. I imagine libertarians like his philosophy a great deal. His stance concerning desire, materialism, and power were significant and could be explored further.

Some questions we may consider(some of these came from Jacobus): What is his sense of human nature? How does he define power and how does he use it? What makes people cohere into a society? Would you want to live in that state? Why or why not? Should our current leaders in society (any sector) explore and apply his philosophy? Why? If "there is no greater disaster than desire", how does advertising make it impossible to be content? So what?

Consider this: Astin is a researcher and has been studying college students for over 30 years. In 1967 80% of students said finding a meaningful personal philosophy of life was the most important aspect of a college education. 45% said financial gain was the most important. Conversely, in 1996 80% said financial gain is most important and 45% said finding a driving personal philosophy. What might the implications of this be?