What Price Peace?

From time to time in my life I have heard people remark that they are against war, all war; indeed that they oppose any kind of violence at all. They are for peace. Peace solves everything.

I beg to differ. It is a wholly untenable position to hold. Would no sane man or woman knock a criminal on the head with a rock if it meant the saving of lives? Would no country with any claim to a good moral standing not go to war to prevent a tyrant's rule? While violence and war must always be a last resort, it is, sadly, almost exclusively by violence and war that evil is kept in check. It is generally the threat and use of force which keeps people in line. For people will do bad things if they think they can get away with them, and will do so often enough despite the chance of violence against them hanging over their heads. If we approach them with no intention of eventually having to aggressively force them into right behaviors if need be, and they know that, we will soon enough have no stable society worth our participation. We surely will not have peace.

Peace did not end the Holocaust or drive Hitler from power.

Peace did not bring about the end of slavery in the United States.

Peace does not apprehend criminals nor rehabilitate them.

Peace only works among the peace loving. It almost never will turn the heads of those who hate for the sake of hatred, no matter what the treacly entreaties of the peaceniks assert.

Seeing as we live in an imperfect world, one which, quite frankly, shall never be perfect without divine intervention, the price of peace must ultimately be anarchy. At that point, will the Department of Peace flower, or simply become a seed crushed against the ground and bake, exposed, in the sun?

The cost of war is, needless to say, grim. But from the greatest human costs come the greatest things, if properly driven, and without any loss of human dignity. Indeed, I rather believe that our dignity is enhanced when we stand for the greatest things. We stand for nothing when we stand for what will not work.

Education for Diversity or Propaganda?

An ongoing debate within the political sphere, one which has indeed been carried on since the dawn of the Republic, has been about the extent and nature of public education. it is time that we addressed the issue squarely, by stating unequivocally and emphatically that public education is not a right.

For starters, seeing as education is ultimately the obligation of the individual (if mature enough) or of the parents of young children, then it is up to the person or their moms and dads to see to their learning as much as to their housing, clothing, and food. Society should only step in when the individual or the family needs help, just as it does with housing, clothing, and food. This needs to be said emphatically and forcefully: if you are able to provide for your or your child's education then you should have to provide for it, not the rest of us.

Indeed, with all the blather which the purveyors of teaching at the public trough give towards such ideas as diversity, how much more diverse can you get than to leave education to parental judgment and inquiry? Imagine a world where parents send their kids to schools they like based on their ideas of right and wrong rather than having them indoctrinated by the often errant views of the general society, a society whose 'views' are all too often dictated by judicial and legislative fiat rather of by the rational analysis of the individuals who are more concerned with true education (it is their children involved, you know) than passing fancy? How much more diverse can you get?

Or is diversity not what they truly want? Is their real aim the propagation of erroneous creeds and disreputable acts? To wit, do they want diversity as diversity, which is really only different folks acting different ways with no regard to the value of those acts (something of which even traditionalists should be wary), or do they in fact want indoctrination, the acceptance and living of the acts they, the education elite, deem worthy? Do they really want diversity, or the interpretation of ideas in their own light?

But the bottom line is that education is not a right so much as a duty. When we live up to that, we live well. When we don't, we get whatever comes along. And exactly what we would deserve.

Who Really Has the Hangup?

We are told that conservatives are hung up on issues of sexual morality. But isn't it the liberals who are in fact tied in knots over such questions?

The right wing, it is also said, is hung up on matters of sex because of religious qualms. Yet how many liberals would not steal, murder, or dishonor their parents? They agree with religious sentiment except when it comes to sex. So again, who is really all too concerned about the matter?

The left does not attack religion over ideals it believes in. Indeed, say the phrases 'social justice' or 'health care' and you will hear all sorts of appeals to religious sentiment. This is a rather convenient sense of justice, considering that the moral relativists of the left tend to be more sexually active.

The question, then, is: do their actions follow their beliefs, or do their beliefs follow their actions? Do they act they way they do out of real and honest conviction, or because it is how they wish to act, and then attempt a justification for it?

Just asking.

Dingell's Popularity is Artificial

So, John Dingell of Michigan has become the longest serving member of Congress ever. He's been around since 1955, having taken over a seat his father held, and has now spent over 20,000 days on the job. What, really, are we supposed to make of this?

Has he done that great of a job that such longevity merits accolades? The answer to that of course will depend on your political leanings. He certainly has amassed great power over all those years, and that is the essence of being a member of Congress: the longer you're there, the stronger you are. Not that that is a good thing, quite frankly. No individual ought to have too much power in our government. That's why we had a revolution in the first place.

What actually explains his long run in our nation's capital anyway? Is he in truth all that good at what he does? Or has he simply hung around a long time, and gained a veneration not actually reflective of his talents?

We'll go with that. This isn't to question his work ethic or commitment to whatever he believes in; seen strictly in political terms he has certainly been a good tin soldier for the Democrats, and we honestly don't doubt that he puts in his days' work. Still, we can't help but feel he's popular only because he's been around the block a few times. And why is that?

Simply put, the lazy voter. Everyone knows how much name recognition means in politics. Counting the years his father, John Dingell, Sr., served, there has been a Dingell in the House of Representatives from somewhere in southeast Michigan for 80 years. That's about one-third the life of the entire Republic. It boggles the mind to believe that a family which has spent that much time in Washington hasn't done enough to merit at least an occasional electoral loss. The only obvious reason this has not happened is that people every even year November have become so comfortable with the name that they effectively refuse to consider his reelection qualifications on their own merit.

Surely other factors are involved, but surely too this is the primary one. People see a name they know, they feel good about it, they cast their ballot. Everyone seems to win. As such, no one questions it. That isn't democracy, folks. It is however blind support for a petty royalty without the ermine robe.

Religious Liberty Under Attack

A teacher, fired from a Catholic school in Cincinnati, has been awarded $171,000 for wrongful termination. She was fired for having a child out of wedlock via artificial insemination, which is a violation of Church doctrine. An actively lesbian teacher has been fired from a Columbus school because her lifestyle violates Catholic teaching as well. There's no word on any potential lawsuit, but there has been significant public outcry.

Why ought there be shock and anger at such things? Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism surely knows they violate Catholic doctrine. It's hard to believe that the principles involved themselves did not realize it when they hired into their respective schools. Yet the one sues anyway, and the other is 'heartened' by the support she has received.

But more than that. The cases represent exactly what's wrong with America today regarding religious rights. The lawsuit is particularly galling: while religious groups cannot prevent free speech as demonstrated through the petition supporting the Columbus physical education teacher, the legal action has resulted in a clear violation of the First Amendment. Religious institutions certainly have the moral right to inculcate their doctrine within their own institutions, especially educational ones. On a practical level, there is simply no point in having a religious institution if not to promulgate that religion.

This must mean that authorities and employees within the religious institutions must reflect the beliefs of that religion. When they do not, they forfeit their right to work within that institution.

Rights of conscience are not merely individual. They are also institutional. The Supreme Court has recognized this with regard to political contributions and political speech. The nation needs to recognize as much with regard to religious liberty.

It does not matter what the secular world may think about the given religion. What matters, if the secular world is really intent on being true to its own espoused values about rights, is that religious rights be respected even should it disagree with the particulars involved.

That won't happen. Why? Because the secular religion rising within these United States is as unilateral, arbitrary, and authoritarian as it has often accused any Church in the world to have been. The difference is that secularists are led by nothing but raw power. That power will eventually be the death of all human rights.

Sacrifice religious rights if you must. Just remember that the powers that be will soon enough come for your pound of flesh as well.

Capital Punishment and Abortion Separate Issues

In the great and ongoing debate about abortion, it is often suggested that opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty go hand in hand. Perhaps so; capital punishment should no longer be a shirt sleeve issue for Catholic conservatives, seeing as Rome has spoken so forcefully about it in recent years. Still, it does appear that the one question does not so easily blend with the other.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#2267)

While this is obviously a very strong statement against capital punishment, it does not condemn it. Indeed it seems to say that, though 'practically nonexistent' the right of the state to use the death penalty does exist. It almost sounds like the admonition against violence or war: it should be used as a last recourse, when no other option exists.

So tying abortion to capital punishment, especially in a state such as right here in Michigan, where capital punishment has not existed since the middle of the 19th Century, indeed to place the death penalty under the umbrella of 'life issues' seems nothing short of a brazen attempt to call conservative anti-abortion activists hypocrites. Don't misunderstand this: if getting rid of capital punishment would in turn rid us of abortion, then we should do it.

But it won't. It would only force the pro-abortion crowd to find another bad name to call the right wing. Because they, unlike the Church and true conservatives, do not want what's right. They want what they want because they want it. They want it, not on grounds of true morals, but on the selfish grounds of mere human will.

Detroit stews in its own Kettle

Many Detroiters are unhappy with the situation the city now faces: a multi-billion dollar bill in current and future debt. The situation is so bad that the State of Michigan has appointed an emergemncy manager to solve it. The EM, Kevyn Orr, wants all city assets inventoried to see what can be done to cover the deficit. This, of course, has raised eyebrows, if not outright anger.

Why? Because inventorying every asset means looking at what the city's museums may be able to sell to get cash. It could mean selling the Detroit Zoo or the animals within, Belle Isle, or even the half of the Detroit-Windsor tunnel which the city owns. It may mean selling classic cars owned by the Detroit Historical Society. In short, as an analysis of what must be done to save Detroit from bankruptcy, anything and everything which might bring in money is on the table.

They should be, of course. And before all the liberals and Democrats begin whining about how wrong this is, they need to honestly answer one question: who put Detroit in this position? And, further, who did you vote for, Detroit residents? People who would run the city well, or the people who did this to the city?

It was not the GOP or the conservative movement, folks, who did this to Detroit. Detroiters, overwhelmingly liberal and Democrats, did this. Lansing did not do this. Rick Snyder did not do this. The Republican dominated legislature did not do this. You did, Detroit. And now you must face the facts.

City jewels, things which actually give city residents a proper sense of pride, may have to be sold off. Should it happen, should things of real social and cultural value be liquidated, it's on you, Detroit. And no one else.