Time to Pray

It’s always time to pray. And this political season makes the need even more urgent.

But today I’m talking about a specific threat to religious freedom.

I got word yesterday from a friend about a situation at our local school district board meetings. These meetings have begun with prayer since the school district began. All of the board members (mostly not conservative, or not as conservative as the population in our area) want to keep the prayer. But they have been contacted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation with the threat of a lawsuit if they continue to allow the meetings to open with prayer. The district lawyer has recommended that they change from prayer to a moment of silence, in an effort to avoid spending taxpayer money (that should go to educating students) on defense against the lawsuit.

image from here

My friend is recruiting people to attend the meeting and recite The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) during the moment of silence.

For local readers who might be interested, the meeting is this coming Monday, September 12^th, at 6:00 PM at the Instructional Support Center, 10300 Jones Road, Houston, Texas.

There has been some back-and-forth on an email loop, which I’m finding enlightening. I have a few overarching questions:

·         What religion is being established by the US Government when a local independent school district in Texas has a prayer, offered by citizens of various religions, to begin their public board meetings?

·         Why is the threat of a lawsuit treated as a lawsuit lost?

·         Why are people who are so intolerant that they organize and sue to stamp out any vestige of religion in their country—even in a place where they are not present and have no interest—not held accountable and thrown out of court for their attack on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens?

From my friend’s email, here is what we know so far (edited to omit names):

At the last school district Board Meeting, the traditional prayer was replaced by a Moment of Silence. When I asked why the change, I was told that the school district was contacted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and that they threatened the school district with a lawsuit if they did not discontinue the prayer at the Board meetings. Speaking with the Superintendent and the Board Chairwoman, I was told that the Board was unanimously in favor of keeping the prayer; however, the CFISD attorney recommended that the Board not put the taxpayers at risk, therefore the Board decided to end the traditional prayer at the Board meetings.

As a result of that decision, I have contacted several organizations that specialize in religious liberty and found one, the American Center for Law and Justice (Jay Sekulow’s Group), that was interested in the issue, but needed to speak with someone from the Board, and I forwarded that information to the school district attorney.  So far, I have gotten no update from the Board on this situation.

My friend explains how this foundation could even know whether we have a prayer at these meetings:

In the State of Texas, School Boards in cities with a population over 10,000 people are required to video their Board Meetings and make them available to the public.  This makes it easy for groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation to target school districts even through the group doesn’t represent anyone within those districts.  The Superintendent told me that our school district was the largest ISD [independent school district] in the state that still had prayer as a part of the Board meetings.

I believe it is time that we stand up to liberal organizations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation before they systematically remove all mention of our nation’s religious heritage from our schools.

There has been some communication since the first email with the district lawyer. She says,

I will give the caveat that I think proliferation of a discussion about planning to pray during the moment of silence could possibly be used against the school district in the future unfortunately. 

Another friend in the loop offered additional suggestions:

It would seem to me that if a group of citizens wish to speak, as is always available on the school board agenda, at an open Board meeting, and that speech is a prayer supporting the students, teachers, and leaders of our community, that is a positive action for all.

The courts have routinely affirmed that if prayer or other expressions of faith is student initiated, that is a clear First Amendment right.

A group of us doing the same, expressing our faith in support of the community at a Board meeting, is a parallel—citizen initiated. A simple, routine traditional event in our culture.

Then if the Freedom from Religion Foundation wants to stop it, they need to take action against our group and not waste tax payer money. Obviously, they become the aggressor against first amendment rights. The Board can be passive as the courts have repeatedly declared.

I think this writer has a good point. There is more that can be done in future meetings. And there’s something to be said for citizen-led action.

The lawyer does later respond to our current plans, with due lawyerly concern:

The audience reciting a prayer during the moment of silence gives me legal concerns for two reasons.  First, there is case law that invalidates moments of silence if they are a pretense to prayer.  If citizens audibly pray during the designated silence, this could call the practice into question and give rise to a challenge to its constitutionality.  Second, the meeting of the Board is a meeting in the public and not of the public.  As such, we routinely admonish audience members who interject during the meeting.  If we allowed audience members to recite prayers during the moment of silence, but did not allow other types of speech to be interjected during the meeting, I am concerned this could be challenged as an endorsement/establishment of religious speech.

The first, about case law: I think that means the way previous cases were ruled determines what the law is considered to be—rather than what the law actually says. Our supreme law, in case you’ve forgotten (apparently some judges have forgotten), says, as the first point in the First Amendment, that the Congress shall make no law that establishes a national religion, and Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Courts, in theory, can only rule on what the law is; they do not make it. So, of course the judicial branch of the federal government can make no law prohibiting the people in northwest Houston, Texas, from opening a public school board meeting with prayer, as they have always done.

As to the second point, the public does have a process for speaking at the meetings. It may require coming early enough to sign up to be put on the agenda. A person could sign up, ask to be placed first on the agenda, and then offer a prayer as their contribution to the meeting. Some out-of-state group observing only online (and only for the purpose of finding something to sue about) would have a hard time proving that the Board was complicit in the supposed sin of allowing prayer, since the Board doesn’t know what anyone is going to say until they get up to speak. Even if someone did that meeting after meeting, to disallow that person to do it would be to presume the person planned religious speech and disallow it on that basis, which would clearly violate the First Amendment.

Another email from the group reminds us that the US House has an Office of the Chaplain, and the House still opens its proceedings with prayer.

It simply is not illegal to pray in a public setting in America. It cannot even be claimed to be offensive to non-religious people who aren’t present and don’t belong to the community.

So why give in to the threat?

Because justice in America is expensive. Deep pockets often win over justice.

But we have a lawyer. I am making assumptions here about this lawyer’s daily workload, but isn’t this what we already pay her for?

Plus, my friend has already been recruiting nonprofit experts, such as ACLJ, who take on just this kind of case. They are able to do their pro bono work, because concerned citizens donate to the cause. (Just like concerned atheists donate to the cause of trying to eliminate religion from America.) We might be able to win justice without sacrificing taxpayer dollars intended to educate students.

This Freedom from Religion Foundation has spent exactly nothing threatening a lawsuit. The least we can do is let them spend their hard-begged-for donations on an actual lawsuit. We shouldn’t get the vapors at the first breath of a threat to our most essential basic freedom of belief.

image from here

Maybe we should use that belief, and trust that our God is a mighty God. We will honor Him. We will ask for His guidance in our Board meetings and other public gatherings. And maybe He will help us fight this battle.

It starts with a prayer, this coming Monday.

Religious Freedom Day

Here in Houston we have an ongoing discussion about the Astrodome, one of the modern wonders of the world (the 8^th, specifically). But, as modern buildings go, it’s old. It was built in 1965 and hasn’t been used for baseball or rodeo since 2002. If it weren’t considered historically significant, the building would simply be razed and replaced with something more currently useful.

But because it is historically significant, the debate goes on. Should it be restored? Used for some other purpose? Maybe a museum? Who should pay for whatever is done with it?

A couple of times the people have been faced with an ultimatum: pay big bucks for some specific purpose (which they may not prefer) or it will be destroyed. Even when the big bucks aren’t approved, however, the destruction doesn’t happen, and the debate continues. Eventually the people will need to answer the question, does it still have value?

celebrating religious freedom
image from LDS.org/Newsroom

I’m using this as a metaphor for the way our larger society has been tossing around the idea that religious liberty is maybe historically precious, but can we afford to bother about such things in a modern world?

This ought not to be in question. Unlike a physical building, which may or may not have utilitarian or nostalgic value to various people, religious freedom’s actual value is beyond price.

Who should control what you believe: you, or some distant ruling authority?

If you think you should be in control of your own thoughts and beliefs, then you value religious freedom.

 It’s not some quaint tradition, for those people who care about such things; it is the essence of being who you are, instead of having everything about you, even your thoughts, enslaved.

This Saturday, January 16^th, marked National Religious Freedom Day, which has been happening annually since 1993. It consists of a presidential proclamation on the subject. And possibly something schools and churches might bring up. (study guide for schools here).

I believe I’m pretty involved in the support of religious freedom—our first God-given right in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But I wasn’t aware of this designated day—which in some years has coincided with Martin Luther King Day, being celebrated today. But Saturday I came across a video on Facebook, shared by my religion about Religious Freedom Day. I'm unable to embed, but it's available here.

The video has a link to this page on Religious Freedom. This page has several additional videos and resources, and ends with a list of What We Can Do:

·         Learn about religious freedom—what it is, how it works and the issues that threaten it.

·         Practice religious freedom—respect the religious beliefs of others and the beliefs and opinions of those with no religion. Be civil in your conversations and interactions, both face to face and on the Internet.

·         Join with others to promote religious freedom—get involved in your community wherever you feel comfortable. Use the Internet and social media to help others learn about religious freedom.

In Ryan T. Anderson’s book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, he talks about the recent threat to our religious freedom. I’ll just share some of his words from chapter nine:

In recent political memory, religious liberty was a value that brought together conservatives, libertarians, and progressives. As recently as 1993, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by a nearly unanimous Congress and signed by a Democratic president. Today, the same value is a political liability. Bakers, photographers, and florists are being ruined, adoption agencies shuttered, schools threatened with loss of accreditation and nonprofit status. So what happened? Why is religious liberty now losing so much ground?

Three historical developments explain our current predicament: a change in the scope of our government, a change in our sexual values, and a change in our political leaders’ vision of religious liberty. An adequate response will need to address each of these changes.

First, government has changed. The progressive movement gave us the administrative state. Limited government and the rule of law were replaced by the nearly unlimited reach of technocrats in governmental agencies. As government assumes responsibility for more areas of life, the likelihood of its infringing on religious liberty increases. Why should government be telling bakers and florists which weddings to serve in the first place? Why should it tell charities and religious schools how to operate and which values to teach? Only a swollen sense of unaccountable government authority can explain these changes.

Second, sexual values have changed. At the time of the American Revolution, religion and liberty were so closely linked that Thomas Jefferson could affirm, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” Meanwhile, his French contemporary Denis Diderot, expressing sentiments that would culminate in a very different revolution, declared that man “will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” In our own time, however, the sexual revolution has shattered the American synthesis of faith and freedom, setting religion at odds with “liberty”—or more accurately, license. Now bakers, florists, adoption agencies, and schools that uphold what Americans have always believed about marriage find themselves at odds with the law.

Third, religious liberty has changed. Our Constitution protects the natural right to the free exercise of religion. But some liberals are trying to drastically narrow that right by redefining it as the mere “freedom of worship.” If they succeed, the robust religious freedom that made American civil society the envy of the world will be reduced to Sunday-morning piety confined within the four walls of a chapel. They have even gone so far as to rewrite the U.S. immigration exam to say that the First Amendment protects “freedom of worship” rather than the “free exercise of religion.” True religious liberty entails the freedom to live consistently with one’s beliefs seven days a week—in the chapel, in the marketplace, and in the public square.

These three changes represent a rejection of the American Founding. Progressive politics and a radical view of human sexuality are combining to coerce compliance at the expense of a bedrock human right. And of course much of this has been enabled by judicial activism, as in Obergefell.

Anderson talks about what we can do. First, fight for courts to interpret and apply laws fairly. And, outside the courtroom, do all we can to limit government. And then, correct the faulty anthropology; restore a sound understanding of human nature and the laws of nature—combining the efforts of churches and synagogues, schools and universities, and other organizations. He says, “We need groups like this to push back on the sexual revolution and remind people of the law written on their hearts—a law that points the way to true, ordered liberty, not license, when it comes to human sexuality and the family.”

In an earlier chapter, Anderson refers to Pope Benedict XVI, who said, in Anderson’s paraphrase: “While intellectual arguments are important, people are moved more by beauty and holiness. The first thing we need to do is live the truth about marriage ourselves.”

His book is mainly about marriage, but also how changing what marriage is affects religious liberty. So, we could take that last statement and apply it to our religious freedom: The first thing we need to do is live the truth about our religious beliefs ourselves.

We who are used to doing that quietly, as a natural part of our peaceful lives, may find ourselves needing to do it more boldly, more firmly. Because we must not allow someone—anyone—to enslave our beliefs, which would enslave our very selves.

Religious freedom isn’t something nice to have, if we can afford it, and if “regular” people decide to tolerate that in believers. Religious freedom is the essential freedom of our minds and hearts.

The Free Exercise of Religion Clause

One of my most popular posts (in fact, the second most viewed) is my 200^th post, in January 2012. It was a little grammar lesson about the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment. It's short, so I'm about to re-post some of it:

First, let’s do a little grammar practice. This is what the 1^st Amendment to the

Constitution says concerning religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There are two parts. So how would it read if we clarified by making each part its own sentence?

·         Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

·         Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It’s not really that difficult, grammatically. The second has been violated many times because of some twisted misunderstandings about the first. What would it mean for Congress to establish a religion? It would mean that they would make one particular religion (sect) the preferred religion—they would “establish” that religion as “the” official religion of the nation. Adherents to that particular faith would have preferred status under the law. Our founders didn’t prevent particular states from establishing their own state religion, and in the beginning several did indeed have state religions. But the Constitution prevented that from ever being done at the federal level. (And states figured out on their own it wasn’t a good idea at their level either.)

There is nothing about getting all religious expression out of public life. In fact, getting religious expression out of public life would indeed violate the second part; it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

So what about non-believers, or different believers? They get to tolerate differences in religious beliefs, just like the rest of us.

I wrote that the week the Supreme Court voted unanimously to sustain a parochial school’s right to terminate an employee who refused to sustain their religious beliefs. Usually the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious freedom. More Obamacare mandate cases are coming up this spring.

In the past, religious freedom won on religious exemption for churches, and religious exemption for religion-affiliated non-profits, such as Catholic schools. The First Amendment also prevailed on exemption for closely held corporations, such as Hobby Lobby. Still to come are rulings on Little Sisters of the Poor, an independent non-profit serving the elderly poor, clearly formed and run by religious people—but the administration refuses to give them an exemption as a religious entity. We also don’t have any exemption in sight for larger corporations that were formed based on religious people and are run by board with those religious principles in mind.

The federal government has no business forcing anyone to purchase any service. But aside from that, forcing someone to make a purchase that goes against their religious beliefs is clearly in violation of the first amendment protection of religious freedom.

Let’s be clear: the Constitution does not grant religious freedom. God gave us religious freedom. The First Amendment is a declaration to make it crystal clear that the limited powers granted to the federal government do not include any power to prohibit the free exercise of religion. We would still have those freedoms, even without the Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments were put there just in case there came a time when the people no longer understood what was self-evident to the founders.

We are living in such a time.

I’ve written a few times on business people who are being forced to perform services against their religious beliefs, most often regarding same-sex “marriage,” a movement becoming more and more coercive against religious people. We’re on a knife-edge, waiting for SCOTUS to rule on same-sex “marriage” this term. Oral arguments will be heard April 28^th. They’ve allotted more than the usual hour, planning to determine two issues: Are states required to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples? (It’s often erroneously worded as, “Are states allowed to ban same-sex couples from marrying?”) And also, are states required to recognize same-sex “marriages” of couples “married” in states where such “marriages” are legal?

In Texas there’s a bill in the legislature, HB 623, making it clear that officials cannot grant same-sex “marriage” licenses against Texas constitution and law. (Breitbart had a piece on the bill when it was filed.) Lest you think there will be confusion, we already don’t recognize illegal marriages; for example, in some Middle Eastern countries, polygamy is legal; if such people move to the US, only one wife is recognized as legal. In addition, within the US, some states recognize common law marriages, but not all states are required to recognize such marriages. So there’s already precedent for handling marriage law differences. It’s a state’s rights issue, regardless of what SCOTUS rules. But we can still pray that the rulings go the right direction, to minimize the momentum of the hate-religion groups, chief among which are LGBT activists.



Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone
AP photo found at Wall Street Journal

Another religious persecution case came to my attention this week. Catholic schools in San Francisco. As you would expect, teachers in Catholic schools are supposed to uphold the doctrines of the religion. That includes “denouncing masturbation, pornography, same-sex marriage, contraception and other issues that, in line with Catholic teaching, are described as ‘gravely evil.’” Seems totally unsurprising, if you know anything about Catholic doctrine. But some California senators and assemblymen took issue with the statement of belief, and are asking for a discrimination investigation of the archdiocese. Ryan Anderson wrote about this, and a list of other attacks on religious institutions. He included these:

·        Gordon College, a religious school, with a conduct standard (I believe for students and employees) of chastity—no sex outside of marriage—is being investigated for discrimination based on that behavior standard.

·        Notre Dame and Wheaton College being forced to provide contraceptives according to the HHS mandate.

·        Washington, DC’s private schools, including religious schools whose beliefs would be violated, to be required to recognize LGBT clubs and host “gay pride” events on campus.

I went to a large religious-affiliated university. I can't imagine any of these coercions being submitted to there. But the need for defiance may be simply a lawsuit away. I don't know.

What is clear, if you read the First Amendment with any basic understanding, is that the federal government is making laws (or making up meanings of laws) prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

North and South Comparison

In the Spherical Model, north on the sphere is good—where we want to be—and south is bad. But throughout history, countries that maintain freedom, prosperity, and civilization have been the exception.

I believe it is a part of our nature to want the northern good—ultimate good. But many people don’t see the possibility, and just try to get some sort of tolerable in the southern hemisphere. Evidence shows the southern hemisphere methods don’t lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization; they lead to various levels of tyranny, poverty, and savagery. But rather than looking upward for better methods, the people just keep re-trying what doesn’t work, apparently thinking a little tweaking to bad policy will suddenly result in their envisioned perfect world. It won’t and can’t happen.

If you look at many of the stated goals, you’ll find counterfeits of the actual northern hemisphere. I wrote a two-part post [here and here] on southern hemisphere counterfeits. Many have to do with misunderstanding what a right is.

Today I thought it might be useful to list the comparisons side by side.  

Southern Hemisphere Version	Northern Hemisphere Version
Everyone deserves equality, so the government forcibly takes from those who have earned more than they need and gives to those who earn very little.	Everyone deserves equal opportunity, so laws protect a person’s right to what he earns, and all are permitted to choose their legal means of earning wealth.
Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford it, so government takes from those who have plenty and pays for the food and shelter of the less fortunate.	Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford to provide for themselves, so people who have enough and to spare freely give charitably to those who would otherwise go without.
Everyone deserves medical care, so government forces everyone to buy health insurance that the government determines is best, at the cost the government requires, regardless of specific individual needs or preferences, or ability to pay.	Everyone deserves to be able to seek medical care, and for those unable to provide payment for themselves, philanthropy can offer aid. Free market helps provide better service at better prices, which is good for everyone.
Gun violence is bad, so people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, or ownership should be strictly controlled by government. Law enforcement personnel should be depended on in all circumstances to protect against outlaw violence.	Gun violence is bad, and cannot be completely prevented by law enforcement, so people retain the God-given right to defend themselves—as long as they are sane and law abiding. Otherwise the unarmed innocent are at the mercy of the armed perpetrators of violence.
Marriage is a statement that people are in a sexual relationship and live together at this time, and therefore deserve tax advantages and other privileges expected by any married persons. Banning anyone from marriage is bigotry and anyone with such beliefs should be prosecuted and/or ostracized.	Marriage is a permanent and exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, forming the basis for a family, and is to be protected and encouraged, since it is the basic unit of civilization—the best way to safely raise children, educate them, prepare them for productive adult life, and inculcate in them the principles of civilization. Redefining marriage as anything else damages the family.
Religion is allowed for those who think they need it, but they shouldn’t expect public policy to support religion in general, nor should they be allowed to express their religion in public places, such as on public property or in the workplace.	A religious population is essential for a free and prosperous civilization. People get their rights from God, and govern themselves in accordance with God’s laws. Religious freedom, therefore, is essential for civilization, and should be encouraged in public policy, so that the free exercise thereof shall not be infringed.
Government knows best what information it needs in order to protect everyone, so it should have free rein to gather data and use it as it sees fit; no one should have the expectation of privacy in today’s world.	People should feel secure in their persons and papers, without any illegal searches or seizures. Law enforcement officers must have legal warrants for searches, and no data not pertinent to a pending case should be retained if gathered inadvertently.
Everyone deserves to have a job that pays a living wage, so government can force employers to pay what the government deems necessary, regardless of the business’s ability to profit under those requirements. The government knows best what a minimum wage should be, and assumes all employees are in need of a wage to support themselves free of family or other help that have traditionally been provided for young workers gaining skills.	Everyone is free to exchange their work for pay as they see fit, according to their skills and value to an employer, and the employer is free to exchange pay for work, as it values the contribution of that employee. This reduces unemployment and offers employment that gives experience that may lead to better opportunities in the future for a worker who shows his worth.
Government may favor people of various races, ethnicities, or genders, because government knows best how to make up for perceived past generational disadvantages. People not meeting quotas put forth by government should be punished and labeled as bigots until they conform, and may be labeled bigots even after they conform.	People should be valued according to the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin or some other characteristic.

 We could go on. Maybe we will another day. Most of the southern hemisphere examples above relate to the statist side of tyranny (southeast quadrant), rather than the chaos side, since that relates more closely to government policy. Maybe another day we’ll do a chaos comparison with civilization.

What we do know is that, no matter how the southern hemisphere argues about people deserving this or that, as the government decides, real freedom, prosperity, and civilization can only be obtained by living the principles of the northern hemisphere.

Candidate Q&A

We’re a half year away from mid-term primaries. There’s a November election coming up, but it will consist mainly of small races and issues, like school boards and bond proposals. So why talk about elections now? Because there’s time now to consider principles, so we can prepare before there’s pressure and heightened emotion.

We’re already hearing from judge candidates at all of our Tea Party meetings. We live in a decidedly conservative area of red-state Texas. Nobody’s going to get elected around here by announcing they’re influenced by liberal/progressive ideology. And it is an unfortunate characteristic of politicians that they seek approval, which is likely to translate to votes, which is what gives them power. So, while we do indeed see a number of sincerely principled, effective candidates, we also encounter some who just try to convince us they’re one of us.

So, well ahead of decision time, I thought I’d list a few questions that might reveal what a candidate truly believes, so you can be a better informed voter.

We’ll start with judges. They talk about their experience (often impressive), their families and character. And they assure us they’ve been active in local GOP politics for a long time. But among these are a number we haven’t seen at district or state GOP conventions, or at our Tea Party meetings, until they became a candidate. This doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t been active and long-time principled. But how do we know?

A friend, active in party politics, suggested asking about their voting record, so I think I’m going to start asking this: Who did you vote for in the past two presidential and governor races—both primaries and November elections? What was your reasoning for those votes? And how do you feel about those votes now?

A vote for Obama in 2008 might not be a deal breaker, depending on the reasoning—even though those of us paying attention knew what a disaster he would be and were not taken in by the ridiculous hope-and-change blather. But they’d better be able to explain articulately what they were hoping to accomplish with that vote (“It was historic” is simply racist; preventing John McCain from being president might be an acceptable answer). And they had better be very clear at this point what a mistake an Obama vote was.

A vote for Obama in 2010 would absolutely be a deal breaker. Unawareness of just how conservative and effective Romney was might be understandable, considering the negative lying press in the pocket of the Obama campaign, but that sure wouldn’t be a plus for someone who’s trying to convince us of their discernment and wise judgment.

I would ask about primaries for governor because (besides verifying that the candidate voted in the GOP primary) it gives an idea of ideology. Not everyone loves Governor Perry, but he has done a great deal of good. If the candidate supported a Perry opponent, for example, we’d need to have an explanation much deeper than, “I just thought he/she would make a good governor.”

When we’re looking at legislative and executive offices—governor, state representatives and senators and other state offices, as well as US representatives and senators, we can probably ask some questions provided by the Spherical Model concepts on politics (limited to the proper role of government), economics (free enterprise), and civilization (support for religious freedom and strong families).

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

Additionally, asking about a few specific issues might be helpful:

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget? 

 

I’m sure this list isn’t exhaustive. But it’s a start. Good luck getting a candidate to answer even a few. Maybe if we divide up the list, and each ask a question or two to every candidate, we’ll be able to share responses. Because, truly, we need the best candidates we can possibly get, before any more damage is done.