What Are Conservative Values?

[Martin Hash]

This discussion was started on Lew Waters' "Clark County Conservative" blog but I have moved it here out of practicality. Below are the first few posts on the topic.

Martin Hash said:
I’m a Liberal Democrat but I’m sincerely interested in the other side’s goals. I’ve listed what it seems to me are “Conservative Values.” Is someone willing to discuss these?

Foreign Policy: pre-emptive action, spread democracy
Law & Order: strict enforcement, punishment
Government: anti-tax, anti-regulation, limited social obligations, guns, Capitalism, America is NOT a democracy (added 1/18/13)
Social: religious writings
Philosophy: personal accountability, no compromise (added 4/20/12), idolize military (added 7/4/12)
Illegal Immigrants: persecute until they leave (added 6/18/12)

Stephen Mosier said:
I would start by pointing out that ‘conservative’ should not be taken to mean preserving the status quo. Rather, Conservatism begins with the recognition that Western Civilization is founded upon principles and ideas which have been developed by Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thought and practice though out the millennia. It is those First Principles which our Founding Fathers were guided by and which they relied upon in the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. The object of Conservatism, then is to identify and preserve those First Principles for the guidance that they may provide in the resolution of problems encountered in contemporary life, society, culture economics and government.
It whatever form or manner those First Principles are being relied upon to inform and guide our decisions today, the conservative desire is to preserve the status quo. Wherever those First Principles are being ignored or have been forgotten, lost, or replaced by less worthy ideas, the conservative seeks change. It is a return to the knowledge and understanding of those First Principles, and through their application, that conservatives hope to improve the quality of life and lead humanity toward its greatest potential.
It was the pursuit of those principles which made this county great and it is the continued pursuit of those principles which will lead it to be greater yet. Because the forward movement of humankind and improvement in quality of life necessarily require change—Conservatism is itself a vehicle for change—not stagnation.

Martin Hash said:
That’s all very interesting philosophy, Stephen, but there are other philosophies I like better, specifically John Locke’s, the philosopher the U.S. Constituion is based on. In fact, the words “Life, Liberty, and Property” are his words. But even John Locke believed in a lot of things I do not. Luckily, other people had input into the U.S. Constitution, and it’s the final arbitrator of the rules. In fact, it’s the ONLY rules we ALL must abide by. Everything else is morals and ethics, and though I have personally agreed to 4 sets of eithical rules (attorney, accountant, engineer, medical doctor), ethics are only for professional organizations, and morals are for churches.

Stephen Mosier said:
Glad you like John Locke. I am sure you know that Locke and his philosophy was both a product of, and in his time, a contributor to, that larger body of Western Civilization thinkers that both preceded and followed him, respectively. However, as you said, the Constitution was not based on any single person or philosopher–The Founding Fathers drew upon their vast knowledge of the thoughts, writings and teachings of many, (not the least of which was the Holy Scriptures) the list being too long to include here.

When you say that the Constitution is the only the ONLY rules we must all abide by, I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you mean the only rules that we are legally bound by. For many persons, conscience places stronger bounds on them than the laws of man. Were that not true then it is unlikely that Patrick Henry would have said, “.. give me Liberty or give me death.”

Codes of ethics are primarily derived from standards of morality which have been codified to provide specificity to a particular group of persons. Nonetheless, you are correct that morals are for churches. That is if you mean that the teaching and promoting of morals lies within the domain of the church as opposed to the state. On that we can agree. (‘Church’ is used here to represent not any particular form or brand of religion, but that which informs and guides the individual conscience, whatever that might be.)

From that point of view then, it can be said the separation of church and state would be that which delineates what the state can compel us to do from that which the church should persuade us to do. Would you agree with me on that?

Martin Hash said:
Churches are by their nature private to the people who choose to join them. The U.S. Constitution guarantees our right of association, meaning I cannot be forced to join your church (though I would be honored), and your and my liberty allows us to chose to believe anything we want: the moon landing was a hoax, people impregnated by aliens, religion, whatever? However, I cannot be forced to act as you act without the power of law behind it.

[Stephen mosier]

I think I agree with what you said, however, I am not sure how to take your last sentence. Up to that point you was discussing our rights relative to our beliefs. Then you changed to our “acts”. Are you suggesting that the State must allow us to believe whatever we wish so long as we act as the State tells us to act? If so, then would you say that the State’s power to control our actions extends to acts of worship?

Maybe I read more into your comment than you were saying. Could you clear that up for me.

In the meantime, I am interested in your views of the doctrine of separation of church and State. What do you see as the role of the State relative to the role of the church under that doctrine?

[Martin Hash]

Stephen, “Freedom of Religion” includes freedom from religion but I don’t consider that anti-religious, or even agnostic, and certainly not atheist (which is its own religion). I simply mean that religion should play no part in government. Though I don’t subscribe to any religion (other than science), I often defend those who do:

Evolution

Religion is probably the MOST PERSONAL thing anyone has. It is worthy of the GREATEST protections possible.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin, I think we are talking about two different things here. I agree with your take on “Freedom of Religion”, with some reservations about the ‘no part in government’ until I better understand what that means. In the meantime, I see the “Freedom of Religion” clause of the First Amendment as merely declaring that our Constitution acknowledges a doctrine of separation of church and state but not defining that doctrine. In my previous question I was asking not about the Freedom of Religion but about your views of that doctrine of separation.

(Point of disclosure here: I am a conservative Christian but unlike many Christians who argue to the contrary, I do believe that there is a doctrine of separation.)

[Stephen mosier]

Thanks for the link Martin.

I read your comments and noted that of the none of the eight “other theories that account for human creation” propose a First Cause. Religion does. I suspect that is why Dr. Dawkins sees evolution as singularly in conflict with religion, and vice-versa.

You are correct—he is turning evolution into a religion. It is already a religion to many of its adherents. It is reassuring to know that you are not among them. I have found it is easier to have an intelligent discussion with a drunk than a religious fanactic. LOL.

[Martin Hash]

Perhaps, Stephen, you mean my opinion of where "Separation of Church & State" ends?

Should the State pay for a nativity scene in a public park?
No
Can a nativity scene provided privately be in a public park?
Yes
Should the Ten Commandments be in the Courthouse?
No
Is our legal system based in part on the Ten Commandments?
Yes
Should there be public prayer (or "moments of silence" or any other euphorism)?
No
Can there be flexibility for people of faith to practice their faith?
Yes

[Stephen mosier]

No. That’s not exactly what I meant. Maybe if I explain my view of the Separation Doctrine it will help.

In a nutshell, I see the rightful influence of government (which I will refer to as the state) being restricted to a limited sphere of our lives. I see religion (which I will refer to as the church) as operating in and having influence in another sphere of our lives. The two spheres may over-lap one another yet they are distinct and separate spheres.

Within that sphere in which the state operates, the power of law is used to force obedience to the will of the state. For that reason, the Apostle Paul said, the magistrate does not carry the sword in vain. Within that sphere in which the church operates, the power of persuasion is used to encourage obedience to the teaching of the church. It is for that reason that Jesus instructed His disciples to teach the gospel. He never instructed the state to compel believers to the gospel.

Because the state does use force it should never be allowed to enter into directing matters of conscience because matters of conscience belong within the realm of the church. Likewise, because the church is forbid from using force (being limited to persuasion) it ought never involve itself in punishing wrong (evil) because punishment, which requires force, necessarily lies within the realm of the state.

In sum: The state uses force to forbid bad behavior (crimes against others) while the church uses persuasion to call us to righteousness. For example, whereas the state may punish me for harming my neighbor it cannot compel me to love my neighbor. Nor can the state forbid me to hate my neighbor. Love and hate are both matters of conscience which lie within the heart of man—a place where the state-- with its sword may not go. It is what a man finds in his conscience that causes him to love and hate.

Understanding that the role of the state is to prevent bad but not to force good, it is easy to understand that the state may prevent me from stealing from you but the state ought not force me to help you. My helping you is an act of obedience to my conscience (some would say morality, others, righteousness) and it occurs, or fails to occur, according to my own moral conscience. It is of concern to the church. Not the state.

So, I see quarrels over nativity scenes in parks (for instance) as rather trivial distractions to meaningful discussions of the separation of church and state, allowing the more significant violations to go unnoticed. And I don’t mean that with any disrespect for those who have very deep seated feelings about those disputes. I care about them too. But those disputes are not the big picture.

[Martin Hash]

I'm with you on all that, Stephen. Pose me a specific question?

[Stephen mosier]

Okay.

The facts are these: I am a Christian who believes that the world and all the wonders of it are the Creation of the one God who is my Father in heaven. I am commanded by God not to take His name in vain and not to engage in idolatry. I understand idolatry to include, among other things, giving glory (or credit) to other than God for that which God has done and is deserving of the glory for. I understand the teaching of evolution as not only contrary to my religious convictions but also that it gives glory to “nature” for all that exists and denies that glory to God, and that it denies that God exists. Therefore, I understand the teaching of evolution to be an act of idolatry which I am commanded of God not to engage in.

The state takes from me against my will, money (property tax) which the state uses to teach both children and adults that evolution is the cause of all that exists and the giver of life. Thereby, I contend that the state is compelling me to help the state do (teach evolution) that which my conscience forbids me to do.

Do you view the state’s action as described above to be a violation of the separation of church and state? If not, then why not?

[Martin Hash]

As you know, I personally (scientifically) have problems with the "theory" of evolution, especially as taught, where it is not questioned, nor can anyone question it without censure - very much like a religion. However, huge parts of evolution are scientifically provable - and important to teach in our schools because "Why are we here?" is the most fundamental question of life.

Competing theories would need to have similar scientific evidence before our public education system begins indoctrinating impressionable children. (What children learn during their formative years is almost impossible to eradicate.) All due respect to your religious beliefs, they do not meet the standard of evidence required. I assume your children attend organized religious services where your beliefs are taught, plus they have you, their father, to impress your credibility, so it's a fair fight.

However, the State could abuse its special privilege, such as espousing the views expressed by Richard Dawkins. In that case, I would be in the picket line along with you.