Inquiry Update Paper

The relationship between culture and government is very shaky and fickle. There
are many different institutions out there, each with their own interests to attain. Those
interests determine their relationships with governments. The primary motivation of this
inquiry is to use all the resources attainable in order for anyone to be able to synthesize a
well-informed thesis on whether a government should involve itself in cultural matters or
stay culturally neutral. In researching this broad inquiry, many subjects have been taken
into consideration. Those subjects include religion, gun control, discrimination, and
international turmoil. Institutions that focus on any one of these issues each have their
own self-interests and therefore their own opinions on government involvement in the
culture of a nation. It is the contradiction in these opinions that motivated me to dig
deeper into the resources in search of the best answer.
Most of the early settlers in what is now the United States immigrated in search of
religious freedom as their former governments persecuted them as religious minorities.
These experiences were remembered when the U.S. constitution was written and led to
the implication of freedom of religion. Despite this idealism, there was still much
religious discrimination in the United States history. This discrimination even escalated
to the level of attacks, such as the arson of a convent by an anti-Catholic mob in 1834
(Davis, 25). While the people were the ones who discriminated and not the government,
this only meant that the government, which was influenced by the people to a degree,
held a quiet version of that resentment, perhaps in a marginal group in Congress. This
religious discrimination had an affect on who could become President of the United
States until John F. Kennedy was elected as the first Catholic president in 1960. Certain

practices, which are frowned upon by most people, no matter their denomination, include
adultery. This behavior in a President presents as a very negative sign to the people, as
they perceive it as a show of immaturity and disrespect for marriage, which is something
that all churches hold in high regard. Gary Willis explains how John Kennedy was forced
to keep his affairs private from the media for the sake of his political career when he says
Later cases of presidential philandering Warren Hardings and John Kennedys were
kept secret at the time precisely because it was acknowledged they could hurt the mens
electoral chances. John Kennedy even wrote a note early in his 1960 campaign
complaining that he would have to give up his poon days for election purposes. Though
he did not abide by this wry resolution, he did break off a White House affair with Judith
Exner when his brother pointed out its dangers. (Willis, 33) These sinful acts being the
determinants for a candidates electoral success prove that to an extent, the government is
determined by the church, which would then lead to the government giving support to the
selected church. Early settlers left the Old World to escape religious persecution, but they
had absolutely no intention of creating a secular society. Thomas Jeffersons idealism as
President regarding a persons freedom of religion was evident in many of his writings.
Willis quotes Jefferson as stating that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and
manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible
of restraint (Willis, 364). This being said, it is apparent that the people, who have their
religions, elect those in office partly based on their religions. However, those that are
elected into office have a moral responsibility to ensure the ideal of religious freedom to
the people.

Regarding an elected officials moral responsibility to uphold the right to free

religion, so too should the right to free culture over all be expressed by the people? An
interesting comment by Donald Trump, who is currently running for the Republican
nomination for President of the United States, regards illegal Mexican immigrants as
unwanted people who bring crime and drugs into this country as well as rape. To me,
these comments were initially dismissed as ignorant and prejudiced. However, after
researching on the matter and re-analyzing Trumps comments, I realized that he was not
addressing all illegal Mexican immigrants, but rather an unwanted majority. Bill
OReilly, a fellow Republican, corrected Trumps statements by stating that the majority
of illegal immigrants are largely undereducated folks trying to feed their families who
do not commit any crimes other than crossing the border (OReilly, 2). He goes on to
blame Trumps complaints on rape on the Mexican drug cartels, who are largely
responsible for smuggling illegal immigrants across the border when he says Some of
the drug organizations have branched out now into people smuggling. Charging money to
get desperate migrants across the border. In the process many, perhaps most, migrant
women are sexually molested (OReilly, 4). Despite this correction OReilly then went
on to refute Trumps argument, stating that the vast majority of non-Americans
imprisoned in the U.S. are from Mexico, linking that to the fact that prisons are funded by
the American tax dollar. Throughout OReillys comments, he corrected Trumps
statements and claimed that the real source of the problem is poor law enforcement at the
border. They may both be of the same party but OReilly did not hesitate to correct his
fellow party member with a reasonably justified argument. They both, however, agree

that the border is a very high priority issue that is entirely the responsibility of the
government to secure for the sake of the nations well being.
With the border qualifying as a dispute between nations, I also inquired on affairs
in the Middle East, largely having to do with terrorism. The events of 9/11 play a deep
role in this countrys overall attitude towards Islamic extremism. However, while we
understand our feelings towards extremists and terrorists, we less so understand their
convictions. Schweitzer and Shaul explain that Islamic idealism can essentially be
divided into two major groups. Those groups are state-oriented ideals, which impose
institutions and territories, and the nomadic ideals, which view those impositions as
tyrannical. They quote a philosopher named Deleuze, who explains the thought process
of extremists when he says Nietzsche was one of the first philosophers to raise this
complex issue for discussion. According to him, philosophical concept and thought must
by nature be nomadic and free of the restraints of bureaucratic and procedural conception.
Therefore, Nietzsche turned the thought into a war machine and a battering ram, which
reflects a counter philosophy that constantly challenges the state-oriented philosophy.
(Schweitzer, Shaul, 43) Just like the nomadic group resents the state-oriented group as a
tyranny, it also holds this view towards the United States, who over the decades has
imposed its policies on this group. This resentment on top of the desire to send a message
by killing innocent people was the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. That message being
that the group is free to do as it pleases without bureaucratic intervention from outside
nations. One might ask why terrorists attack civilians instead of government officials who
are their actual enemies. Sherman and Nardin explain that terrorists justify their actions
by simply denouncing the innocence of their victims when they say First, terrorist

violence, by any group for any end, however glamorous or warranted it may seem,
involves murdering some to influence others. It deliberately targets ordinary people,
going about their everyday lives, as an end in itself or as a means to an end. Such people
are innocent because they are bystanders, noncombatants, not engaged in harming
anyone, and to harm them is criminal, unless that harm is accidental or unavoidable. But
for terrorists, such harm is intentional; it sends that no one is safe. Terrorists, and also
governments engaged in counterterrorism, sometimes rationalize the deaths of ordinary
citizens by implying that those who dies were not innocent, not bystanders, not
combatants. (Sherman, Nardin, 9) It is evident that some subjects will always have
opposing forces as there is simply too deep a difference in ideals for there to be an
understanding between sides. As these issues are so hotly debated, it seems only natural
that government should step in as an arbitrator to end the disputes. However it is not so
simple. For instance, with the conflict in Syria, many argue that U.S. intervention would
not be effective, as Assad would remain defiant in the face of an attack. (Fisher, 10)
Perhaps in these cases, the optimal action would be multi-government intervention.
Resentment towards terrorists is normal and not really frowned upon. What is
frowned upon is resentment and discrimination here in the States. The most common
form of discrimination is racism and it has existed here for centuries. Conditions have
immensely improved since the beginnings, as the nation elected its first black President to
take office in 2008. However racism still undoubtedly exists. Not too long ago, 9 black
church members in Charleston, S.C. were murdered by a single white individual that
allegedly claimed he did it in order to start a race war. This led to the decision to remove
the Confederate battle flag from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Despite the

overwhelming support for this act, there were still those who wanted to keep the flag
raised. There were those who argued that it symbolized southern heritage and freedom.
Others dismissed these arguments as a cover for racist sentiments. What did not help
those who opposed the lowering of the flag was the presence of the KKK, who
announced its plan to hold a rally in front of the statehouse. In the past, laws that
displeased people have been followed by historical events that shook the nation. The
murder trial of Emmett Till indirectly played a role in the start of the Civil Rights
movement by proving how an unjust jury completely comprised of white southerners
could ignore the cruel murder of a young, colored child. The loss of the Civil War by the
Confederates led to the assassination of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. These
uprisings may in fact hint at a future event that is based on the legislation that was just
passed.
The information that has been gathered is not sufficient to attain a universal
answer to the original inquiry. It does give a good amount of information for people to be
able to make their own decision while being somewhat well informed. Though I tried to
leave my opinion out of this project, I believe that government intervention is the way to
go so long as the people rule the government. This way, a dictatorship can be avoided
while the cultures of the nation can be respected.

Works Cited
(bold - used in last synthesis paper) (not bold new source)
Kenneth C. Davis."America's True History of Religious Tolerance". Smithsonian
Magazine. Online. Pub. Date October 2010 Access Date July 2015
Wills, Garry. Under God: Religion and American Politics. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1990. Print.
"Donald Trump Presidential Speech Announcement 2016 - Donald Trump Bashes
Mexico Obamacare." YouTube. Ed. Peter Boyer. Fox News, 16 June 2015.
Web. 14 July 2015.
O'Reilly, Bill. "Bill O'Reilly: The Vilification of Donald Trump over Illegal
Immigration." Fox News. FOX News Network, 7 July 2015.
Web. 15 July 2015.
Schweitzer, Yoram, and Shaul Shay. The Globalization of Terror: The Challenge of AlQaida and the Response of the International Community. New Brunswick [N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 2003. Print.
Sherman, Daniel J, and Terry Nardin. Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking 9/11.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006. Print.
Fisher, Max. "Should the the U.S. Strike Syria? These Are the Five Smartest
Arguments." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 July
2015.

FAUSSET, R., & Blinder, A. (2015, July 9). South Carolina Settles Its Decades-Old
Dispute Over a Confederate Flag. The New York Times. Retrieved July 14, 2015.
Grisham, Lori. "Ku Klux Klan Plans Rally at South Carolina Statehouse." USA
Today. Gannett, 2 July 2015. Web. 15 July 2015
Jalon, Allan. "1955 Killing Sparked Civil Rights Revolution : Emmett Till: South's
Legend and Legacy." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 7 Oct. 1985. Web. 15
July 2015.