What Are Conservative Values?

[Stephen mosier]

Thanks Martin--I believe you actually mean that. (you would stand in the picket line with me.) But let me ask you another specific question. Does it harm you that I don't believe in evolution?

[Martin Hash]

Stephen, I'm an educated & informed adult who can make his own decisions, as are you. If you choose not to believe in evolution, I will respect that choice.

However, society has a duty to present unbiased, evidentiary-based information in an educational setting for young people to consider when making their own choices. Evolution does qualify (all of my reservations notwithstanding) as important public knowledge. Like sex education and other sensitive subjects, school boards, parents and teachers must maintain vigilant oversight.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin, At the risk of putting words in your mouth I am going to take your comments to mean that my believing in evolution does not harm you. I agree with you on that point. (If that is not the meaning you intended, then please correct me.)

I have concerns about the remainder of your comments.

You said, “..society has a duty to present unbiased, evidentiary-based information in an educational setting for young people to consider when making their own choices.” My first question is: Why?

Why is it not enough for young people to be taught how to read and analyze information rather than being told what the information means? Moreover, if young people need to know the factual information supporting the theory of evolution in order to make their own choices then they also need to know the factual information which refutes the theory. Is it not a fact that all of the facts which can be interpreted to support the theory of evolution are limited to doing just (supporting the theory)? Isn’t it a fact that there is not one fact which proves evolution? (If there was even one fact which proved evolution then evolution would be a fact—not a theory.)

You wrote , “Evolution does qualify (all of my reservations notwithstanding) as important public knowledge.”

So does the theory of intelligent design. If young people need to know the evidentiary-based information which supports the theory of evolution then why to do they not need to know the many facts which support the theory of intelligent design? How is the duty to help young people make their own choices met if all the facts about all the various choices are not taught? But enough on that. Our discussion here is about the separation of church and state so I’ll get back to that.

If we assume that society does have a duty to present evidentiary-based information pertaining to fundamental questions of life (an assumption that is really no more than a subjective opinion) is there still not a difference between society and government?

Government is not society. The assumption that society has a duty to do something does not mean that government has such a duty. Government is a compilation of laws. Laws impose force. Force can only be justifiably used to prevent me from harming you. As we have already agreed, one not believing in evolution does not harm one who does (the reverse would be equally true) therefore, the force of law ought not be brought upon me by the State to impose the opinions of others upon me. Nor the opinion of the majority upon the minority. That is to say, that because what I believe does you no harm the State has no interest in what I believe.

To the extent that society has a duty to influence young people’s ability to make choices, I contend that it is duty of persuasion. If members of society are in disagreement as to what information needs to be provided to young people to aid in their making choices, then they are limited to using persuasion to resolve those differences. This is particularly so when the issues at the core of the dispute are based upon religious beliefs and matters of conscience. The State stepping into such a dispute and using force to compel one to accept the view of the other is a violation of the separation of church and State.

Martin, you have written elsewhere that you consider individual liberty as being very important to you. I think (correct me if I am wrong) you wrote that “liberalism” is largely defined by its support of individual liberty. As I lawyer you know that the abridgment of personal liberty is only permitted in consequence of a compelling need on the part of the State. Where my liberty of conscience is violated by the use of my money to support that which is in violation of my religious convictions, the State must articulate objective reasons which demonstrate a compelling need to so use my money. The subjective opinion of some members of society that society has a duty to provide certain information to a limited class of society does not create a compelling need on the part of the State to force all members of society to contribute, in violation of their conscience, to the provision of that information. If it does, then, does not the value of individual liberty become secondary to the value of subjective opinions? And does that not put you in contradiction of your stated support of individual liberty?

[Martin Hash]

“Intelligent Design” is a good concept. As an engineer & medical scientist I certainly find sympathy in the idea that the whole arrangement here on Earth was carefully thought out and implemented. In fact, I swing that way, but I don’t consider my personal flights of fancy as science. Conversely, supposedly learned people who insist evolution is all fact are often the target of my scorn.
In Search of Wisemen

As for government’s “duty to influence” – the democratic process has already put evolution through the wringer as a subject of commonly taught knowledge. The people have spoken.

Stephen, your religious convictions ARE important… To YOU. But you are not your children. Liberty is about YOU… Your children have their own liberty. (Isn’t that the basis of the anti-abortion debate?)

And Government IS indeed society. When Government no longer represents society, it will fall.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin, neither do I consider your personal flights as science. But I consider science science. Intelligent Design is supported (though like evolution, is not proven) by scientific facts.

Sorry, but the teaching of evolution has not been put to a vote of the people (the democratic process) but has been established by the courts through the judicial process. Moreover, slavery had been put through though both the democratic process (the adoption of the Constitution in which the people spoke in favor of it) and the judicial process in which the Supreme Court of The United States upheld it. Fortunately, both the people and the courts spoke a second time.

Martin, the issue is not about my children. I have no children in the public schools. It is about me and my liberty. I am the one who is being compelled against the will of my conscience to support teachings which are in direct conflict with the convictions of my faith. If others have no conflicts of conscience with such teachings then all I ask is to let them pay for those teachings and leave me alone to follow the dictates of my own conscience. Isn’t that what individual liberty means?

I disagree that Government is society. It is merely a tool of society. It is a very important tool, one without which society might well collapse, as you noted. On the other hand, society also employees religion as one of its tools. But the church is not society. They both (church and State) have their roles in society and each are utilized by society but-- if either of them IS society then the other is subject to it, and the separation of church and State will not exist.

Lastly, even though the liberty of children is not pertinent to this discussion, I will respond to your mention of it: No, the child’s liberty is not the issue in the anti-abortion debate. It’s the child’s right to life that is the issue. Clearly children have liberty as well, but the exercise of liberty requires responsibility, which a child is lacking. Therefore, the children’s liberty is restrained from them and exercised for them by their parents until they becomes mature and independent adults. It is been that way since the dawn of man. (That is true whether the family has evolved into existence--or was Created by God.)

The child’s right to life is different from liberty it that allowing a child who is alive to continue living requires no responsibility (the counter-part of liberty) on the part of the child. It does require responsibility on the part of the adults involved in the matter. But that is the subject of another discussion.

[Martin Hash]

Democracy is fluid, so it may be that evolution is no longer taught in schools a century from now, but The Courts are definitely part of this country's Constitutional foundation - just as government and liberty are - all of which comprise the "democratic process." (It's not just voting!)

Home Schooling is probably the right solution for addressing your concerns though I'm a public school supporter:
School Vouchers

Your abortion position is sound. (Once again, the people have spoken, and the argument above similarly applies.)

How about some of the other "Conservative Values" that started this thread?

[Stephen mosier]

Okay, Martin.

The thread started with you wanting someone to explain Conservative Values to you which is all that my goal is here. I am not trying to prove the superiority of those values over any other set of values. If you now feel that you understand my views on the separation of church and State then it is time to move on. Would you like to pick the next topic from your list or do you want me to just start at the top of your list and work from there?

[Martin Hash]

Yeah, Stephen, I know where you are with "Separation." It's promising that we agree on almost everything except a very defined, easy to debate issue like whether the public school curriculum is supervised adequately.

Since I'm just guessing about Conservative Values, I'll let you be the expert and lead this discussion.

[Stephen mosier]

As I said, the point of this is for me to explain my (conservative) views—not for you to agree with them. Your comment, “It's promising that we agree on almost everything except a very defined, easy to debate issue like whether the public school curriculum is supervised adequately.” , leaves me unsure whether you understand my view on separation or not. I would summarize my views as this: The State should be limited to matters which require legal action and stay out of matters of conscience. We’ll leave it there for now and move on.

Let’s try Foreign Policy.

Foreign policy: Foreign policy ought to be about nothing else than national security. Our policy to all nations should be calculated to serve that purpose. Foreign policy should follow the time proven doctrine of peace through strength rather than appeasement from a position of weakness. That requires foremost a strong and modern military capable of accomplishing as quickly and as efficiently as possible the military objectives required toward that purpose. It also requires fully engaged intelligence gathering capabilities to assure that threats to national security are foreseen and that the best resolution of such threats can be effected. Intelligence gathering agencies and methods must be appropriately restricted to protect he Constitutional privacy rights of American citizens.

Preemptive strikes are appropriate whenever and wherever sufficient evidence exits to indicate that preemptive strikes are necessary to the protection of national security. Because the ability to distort the definition of a national security threat is only limited by the imagination, the use of military force must be approved by an act of Congress, with the obvious exceptions for immediate threat of attack.

Military intervention should never be engaged in combat operations for “humanitarian” reasons. There is no Constitutional mandate for such use of the armed forces. By the same token foreign aid should not be used for humanitarian reasons. Foreign aid to any nation is only appropriate (and Constitutional) when it is calculated to enhance national security and therefore, foreign aid must be a function of Congressional appropriations not a Chief Executive order.

In the event of a national disaster, such as the tsunami in Indonesia, where the US Navy and Air Force are able to provide immediate assistance they should do so. Appropriating funds to give to the nations suffering such disasters after the immediate emergency has past, is for the private citizens to do through the myriad of private charity organizations that exist. Government involvement in charity operations violate the Constitution and the separation of church and State. Moreover, it is preferable that citizens of disaster-stricken countries appreciate Americans for what we give willingly, than to appreciate the American government for what it forces it citizens to give.

Spreading Democracy: History and experience has taught that we are more likely to be threatened by dictatorships than democracies, therefore, to some degree, our national security can be enhanced by encouraging nations to move toward democratization. The best means by which we may be able to do that will need to be the subject of Congressional debate and determined on a case by case basis. Military intervention for such a purpose is not Constitution.

Foreign trade policy ought to be calculated to encourage free trade. Trades wars are bad economic policy and therefore bad foreign policy.

That is a bare-bones view of conservative foreign policy. If you have specific questions about any part of it then I will attempt to answer them.

[Martin Hash]

Foreign policy:
My favorite motto is “Speak softly and carry a big stick." You are trying to define what that is in a subjective fashion. I can only answer with objective examples; i.e. killer drones are awesome, occupying Iraq is not. The best prescription is to AVOID FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS!

Preemption:
Preemptive strikes are NEVER acceptable. NO ONE can predict the future and when you listen to fortunetellers and soothsayers, you give them power over you. However, when attacked, BIG STICK it.

Humanitarianism:
Agreed.

Charity:
Charity is subjective, therefore it needs a process, which is congress. Aid is NOT unconstitutional, and whether the people we give charity to appreciate us is immaterial - charity is not about receiving. Having said that – almost all “aid” is counterproductive.

Spreading democracy:
I agree and will further add that thinking we know what is best for peoples of other nations & cultures is patronizing, arrogant, self-righteous, vain, and imperialist.

“Free” Trade is the most expensive trade on the planet.
National Debt
BALANCED trade is the ONLY sustainable trade.

p.s. It’s actually quite important that we agree in large part on most issues otherwise there can be no compromise – which inevitably leads to conflict. Those who won’t compromise condemn their grandchildren to violence.