We can Pledge but we can't Pray?

Is it good to fly the flag in public schools and to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? 43 states say yes; Michigan is included in that number. Students would not be compelled to recite the Pledge. That's okay, too; no sense offending those or their parents with serious and rational objections to it.

Yet the first question which comes to mind is: why can't we have voluntary school prayer under the same guidelines? The answer: because that makes non-Christian students feel pressured to become Christians (or Muslim or Buddhist, perhaps, depending on the locale; inserting any creed here will make the point). Wouldn't recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by many if not all others effectively 'pressure' non participants into affirming allegiance to the United States?

We certainly are not against the Pledge. It is a good and noble thing to love your country (so long as your country is good and noble) and such sentiments should be encouraged. We are likewise not against things which encourage allegiance to any right and proper cause, or to instilling a decent sense of nationhood within the citizenry. But what we are against is the relative hypocrisy on the matter. The state can, well, at least attempt to compel its wards to love, honor, and support the state. The trouble is that the state is, after all, is an institution of mere human design.

Why can the state, in even so modest of a fashion, try to make elementary and high schools students love and support it while not allowing those willing to love and support something of greater importance than a simply human construct express open and public support for it while in view of all?

We will leave the question at that. We're simply throwing it out there for the consideration of body politic. Yet we strongly suspect that the answer from that body will tell us all we need to know about the state indeed.

Labor Day 2013

Labor Day weekend is upon us, and that means many things to many people. Mostly, it seems, it is meant to be a relaxing time with family and friends. There's nothing with that, of course. But what is Labor Day really, and how does it relate to conservatism?

It is intended, most would say, as a celebration of the labor of the working men and women of our country. Fair enough; labor in all its forms is the backbone of our economy. Further, a fair days' work is something which ought to be prized and seen proudly. The contributions which we make to society when we engage in wholesome work should be satisfying to workers and the beneficiaries of work on about the same plane.

Yet the honor of Labor Day is felt with particular pride in and around Detroit and Wayne County, and why not? As the cradle of the automotive industry and the famed arsenal of democracy during World War II, among other contributions to Americana, we should feel good about our place in history. Then too, with our local economy being so hard hit by the recession, we may well feels the pangs of economic restriction more keenly than many other places in the country.

So where does this leave us with regard to the right wing? Simply that, seen in the, ahem, right light, conservatism is a great friend to the worker. Conservatism respects the rights of all, particularly, believe it or not, those most susceptible to economic strife. Conservatism recognizes the value of work and of the worker, and more, of the rights inherent in work. We respect the right of the individual to seek gainful employment in an open arena of job seekers and employers working freely and respectfully towards everyone's best interest. Conservatism, if allowed to become fully operational, would let the market works its wonders, and everyone would benefit, as they did in the Reagan years and also, truth be told, in the Clinton years under a Republican Congress which did more for the general welfare than our philanderous ex-President.

In short, conservatives are for labor. With the right amount of consideration in return, we could see this current mess ended quickly and spectacularly.

Pope Francis and the Atheists

“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

That paragraph is the salient passage of Pope Francis I's homily from a recent (May 23rd) Mass. The message is very simple: anyone who does God's work is worthy of God's kingdom. The concept isn't new to Catholic theology. It's been taught for years. It isn't even particularly Catholic, although it likely is primarily Catholic; C. S. Lewis essentially espouses the idea in The Last Battle, the final book of the Narnia series.

It is important to note the Pope's words: he doesn't say that bad atheists are saved. Bad people are not saved, including bad Catholics. He doesn't say that atheists who run around purposefully denigrating Christ, Christianity, or religion and God in general are saved. He doesn't say that atheists who actively and unrepentantly sin are saved. He says that the ones who do good are saved. He is saying it as a recognition that God's mercy goes out to whomever God elects to give it, and that it will go to those who do good and act rightly.

This is not earth shattering news. The only reason that the media and the world see it as such is because they are conditioned to a view of Catholicism which sees it as entirely judgmental against non-Catholics. It is not. Catholicism realizes that God, in His judgment, considers all factors both for and against a person. It acknowledges that, while evil is wholly bad, good is entirely good. It may well overshadow bad so much so that it could, under the right circumstances, obliterate it.

What Pope Francis has done is merely say what Catholics have know for ages: the Church, God, is inclusive. It will, He will, include anyone who truly desires Him. Even if, on the surface, they insist they do not.

They're Only Games

A steroid scandal has rocked major baseball for a decade now, and football finds itself dealing with lawsuits over the brutality many say are inherent to the game. Why do athletes play such games and do such things to their bodies?

Simply, to win. But is winning worth all that? Is it worth putting dangerous chemicals in your body? Is it worth bigger, faster, stronger and risking debilitating lifelong injuries simply to play a game?

We would like to think that no sane person would do it, except that there are many presumably sane people who do. It isn't all on the players, either. It's about the entire culture which surrounds modern professional sports. They are, after all, entertainment, with all that entails. That means money, that means responding to what the fans want; that means that should the fans want more violence then they shall have it.

This is hardly civilized behavior. It doesn't ultimately matter how 'clean' a hit is if there's a substantial chance of injury during the play. A moon shot may seem very impressive but when it comes with the risk of long term disability it really ought not be acclaimed. If a Super Bowl ring comes at the cost of having a mind scrambled when an ex-NFLer is in his fifties, we need to start questioning whether it is worth it or whether we ought to encourage it.

Spare us the the shallow and self serving excuse, for it is nothing but an excuse, that no one made them do it, because someone did. We, the fans, did. This is not to excuse the athlete who pushes himself too hard or too far. But it is a mitigating factor.

We need to remember these things are just games. It doesn't matter how much money or prestige is at stake. They're just games. They need to be seen in that light. As it is, we're simply a shadow of the Roman Empire with its gladiators and blood lust. Or perhaps we're something worse, because we seem to be fooling ourselves that we are not. At least the gladiators weren't delusional.

More Detroit Humor at Voters' Expense

Ah, Detroit. Perhaps we should call you the laugh a minute city. except that the issues involved are so very serious. Now there is a question of whether 20,000 (that's twenty thousand) ballots were incorrectly tallied from the city's primary election two weeks ago, the one won by Mike Duggan as the result of a write in campaign. Second place finisher Benny Napoleon insists they be recounted, and that's okay. A recount could give him a primary victory, and that might be important in the coming weeks with as momentum switches to the November general election.

What is not okay is another punch in the gut to Detroit. This is potentially another display of incompetence which can be laid squarely on the backs of the city and the people who live in it, run it (the Emergency manager notwithstanding), defend it, vote in it, demand democracy for it, and even run its elections. Is there any reason now to doubt the necessity of the EM?

It appears to come down to a question of whether poll workers incorrectly marked the 20,000 or so votes in question. Yes, the Wayne County Board of Canvassers could have acted more quickly, by ordering a recount earlier. You'll find more detail here: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/more-than-20000-votes-cast-for-mike-duggan-in-detroit-primary-election-may-be-in-jeopardy Instead, they punted it to the state at the last minute (they were supposed to have certified the election yesterday, August 20). So this is partly on the County too, and not Detroit alone.

Still, it reeks of the raw stupidity which Detroiters across the board have been accused of for a very long time now. Are we a banana republic, or a proud city on a hill in the United States of America?

We're not sure of the answer either.

Government has no Business in the Art Business

Why not sell the paintings and statues and various artifacts in the Detroit Institute of Arts in order to help the city out of bankruptcy? Isn't that what any individual would be expected to d in a similar situation?

Please don't bother about their cultural value to Detroit. How many Detroiters actually go to the DIA? How many folks are attracted to the city because of it? Not very many, we would wager.

Don't bother about the importance of art, either. Art is a special interest, when you get down to it. It is fair to question whether the government at any level has any business in the art industry.

The artistic and cultural snobs will tell us that we're neanderthals. Whatever; we don't stick our hands in their pockets when we go to baseball games. Why do they have the right to stick their hands in ours when it comes to symphonies and museums? Because it's art?

Sell 'em. Sell every last artifact which the DIA owns. Then sell the land on which the museum itself sits to the next Whole Foods.That would serve the city of Detroit and the community better than a plethora of items few people actually bother to see.

But What does Islam Stand For?

How we handle the Muslim world is obviously one of the trickiest tasks we face in the coming years. There is an awful lot of distrust of Islam and no real idea of how to allay the fears of it which many seem to harbor. Yet how we view and work with the Islamic world is nevertheless critical to our safety in the future.

So, how do we view Islam? That is a question which doesn't have an easy answer. The most logical point would be to look towards Muslim teachings for guidance. Yet that brings on a few difficult questions, not the least of which is: who exactly do we go to for answers?

There are many more sects within Islam than most folks imagine. A brief internet search reveals that there at at least five branches of the religion, dominated by the Sunni and the Shi'a with several smaller groups. Within Islam are four schools of thought, any of which are deemed valid to follow.

This rudimentary understanding of Islam really only heightens the problem. When there are many sects of a religion, coupled with the lack of any real hierarchical structure within it, then who actually speaks for Islam? The ones who preach peace or the ones who cry war?

Compare this to he Catholic Church, were we find a highly structured organization which can be approached as to the Catholic stance on such and such a question. We may not like what it says to us, but we cannot doubt what it means to say.

Unless we can find a source of Islam which speaks for all of Islam, can we actually ever know whether it as a movement can be trusted or not? This isn't to say that individual Muslims are bad people. As likely as not, the overwhelming majority of them are fine and outstanding members of their communities struggling with day to day life as most everyone else does. Yet do those folks speak for all of Islam when they speak, or simply for themselves as they see it no matter how heartfelt?

Without a final source on what Islam means it will be difficult to understand it more fully. And without such understanding, can the other hurdles ever be overcome?