Political Compromise is often about Compromising us!

It doesn’t seem to matter if its the State or the Federal Government, the misuse or perhaps intentional misdirection of the word compromise seems to be more and more prevalent.

Generally the word compromise is thought to mean reaching some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints in order to reach a workable solution.  It is supposed to be a place where both parties can agree while not surrendering their core principles and values.  More and more, however, today we see  the compromise concerning conservative principles that requires surrender of our principles and values.  Not only are were expected to be tolerant of these laws and regulations that violate the core tenants of what we believe, we are expected to pay for them through taxation.

At the heart of the debate on Paycheck Protection is the argument that our tax dollars should not be used to provide for the collection of the Dues of members of Public Sector Unions; dues that are often used to advance candidates and issues that go against our conservative principles.  That same debate extends to most of the Right To Work related debate.  We aren’t saying the unions can’t or shouldn’t exist; we aren’t saying that these Unions shouldn’t have the right to financially support whomever they choose or back whatever issues they decide, what we are saying is that people who disagree with those positions shouldn’t be forced to participate in those organizations and that laws should not exist that force an individual into an organization supporting issues the disagree with.

January 16 of this year recognizes an important event in history. January 16, 1786, was the day that the Virginia Assembly adopted the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, finally ending the official state-established church in Virginia. It provided that (1) all individuals would be free from any punishment for not conforming to state-established religious mandates, and (2) one’s religious affiliation would no longer affect the civil privileges he could enjoy. In short, in Virginia it legally secured religious toleration and protection for the right of religious conscience.  While the bill was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 it took another 9 years before Madison would reintroduce the legislation and see it through the legislative bodies.  Jefferson’s original resolution demonstrated what Jefferson meant by separation of Church and State and its nothing like what the progressive revisionists have turned it into. In some state, affiliation to a particular church was required for government office, which Jefferson saw as a violation of our natural rights.  These same churches also enjoyed an ability to levy taxes or tariffs on individuals who did not subscribe to that particular denominational view.  Again Jefferson saw this as a violation of our natural rights.

Jefferson wrote: Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others,

Jefferson was not trying to restrict or even diminish religious convictions.  He actually referenced the Almighty in this proclamation of natural rights.  He recognized that government had no right to interfere in the religious conviction of the individual and that each of us had a right to support the religious convictions of our own heart and, at the same time, not impose those on others.

Today, Jefferson’s application of the role of government has been so dismantled as to be unrecognizable by corrupting what he intended when he declared there is a wall of separation between church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Government, in the view of Jefferson and Madison, should never be used to coerce an individual to support a cause that conflicts with their treasured principles and values.  One can easily see how this applies to the protections afforded us in the 1st Amendment in our Bill Of Rights.  We should also notice that, once again, Jefferson acknowledged where our natural rights originate in the establishment of this principle of freedom of religious expression: instilled in us by the hands of the Almighty.

At the core of most issues that have generated controversy, whether that be Right To Work, Right To Life, Right To Property,  there is this advancement of a coercion of people to force them to support, through taxation, regulation or law, things that are in violation of the peoples individual faith principles.  It doesn’t matter if you you are an Atheist, a born-again Christian, an agnostic or a devout Catholic….if you believe in the sanctity of human life any legislation that forces you to pay for the abortions of children is a violation of your natural rights.  That same principle applies to Right To Work, it doesn’t matter from where your faith perspective originates, you should not be forced, through taxation or through government law, to provide for supporting an organization that is working against your principles and values.

In doing background studies on Property Tax Elimination I spent a lot of time reading the regulations over our local school districts and while I was partially aware of the protections afforded to Public Sector Unions, I was not prepared for the extent to which these protections extend on both The Pennsylvania Public School Code established in 1949 or in Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code.   A large portion of these massive regulatory manuals are unfunded mandates with regard to protecting the Public Sector Unions at the expense of everyone in the state and passed down to them through local taxation through the school districts School Property Tax.  Prevailing Wage, Paycheck Protection, Right To Work, Building Codes designed to benefit certain Unions, Contract Negotiations and their Procedures, Hiring and Firing of teachers, Disciplinary actions for teachers, Pensions, Salaries…all mandated, albeit unfunded,  at the state level and forced on us through the coercive School Property Tax.   The School Districts role is compliance, not choice.   Even Curriculum is controlled by the state giving local schools limited options in the choice of curriculum.  That Curriculum is even more limited because of the Standardized testing policies that force school districts to make certain choices to meet the standardized testing obligations and some of what is in that curriculum regarding founding principles of government would shock most parents.

As the right to life issue has degenerated into the ridiculous notion of a woman’s right to choose, as though we are trying to restrict their choices, nothing could be further from the truth.  In reality there are always restrictions on what we can choose that exist for the protection of another individual.  I can not choose to steal from my neighbor; I can not choose to assault my neighbor; I can not choose to shoot my neighbors dog no matter how much that dog barks…in fact I can not even choose to shoot my own dog, and yet, somehow, when it comes to human life, supporters of “a woman’s right to choose” expect that choose to include the termination of the life of a child and that right extends to forcing others, who find this action to be totally abhorrent, to help provide for it through law and through taxation.

The governments coercion of forcing its citizens to subsidize a business like Monsanto who exists to genetically manipulate and alter food and then, using force, shut down producers of all organic food products is again an example of this type of coercion through taxation that violates our core beliefs while removing our choice.

Madison said in Federalist Paper 14 regarding property “In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.  In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

The primary function of government is for the mutual protection of our right to this concept of property, not to be the coercive force of power that can dictate what we belive or how we choose to express that belief.  It is never a compromise when legislators force us to compromise our most basic rights to property in the support of things that are not only inviolation of the core tenents of what we believe but certainly not in the realm of supporting ideologies that repulse us.

As we were reminded during last months General Meeting, the true authority of government resides in “We The People!” and from there it moves up through our municipal and county government to our State Government and then finally to the Federal Government.  It was never intended to be the top down ditatorial government we see today but a bottom up form of government that begins with us: with we the people.  This is the concept of “consent of the governed” and we most certainly would never consent to principles or ideologies that are so repulsive to the core tenants of our natural rights in the property of what we believe.  Doing so is to surrender that to hands of a Government attempting to assume more power than Almighty God exerted over us.

The recent orchestrated shooting of the publishers who printed cartoons mocking Mohammed demonstrates this divide in Political thinking.  I have found that most conservative leaning publications abhor the actions of the terrorists that committed this atrocity.  On the other side, the progressive left, whose mantra is tolerence, excuses are being made for the terrorists.  When they tell us that these French publishers had this coming once agin they are restricting the choices of what we can believe in support of an action that actually denied human life.   While mocking the Muslim belief, no Muslim is forced to accept the publication as factual…no Muslim is forced to change their religious views to even support the magazine that published them.  The 12 dead people, their choices have been removed.

As a Christian I am repulsed when non-believers create “art” that mocks Christ.   I am disturbed at the views of Atheists when expressing those views in the media.  I am not saying they aren’t entitled to those views, I do believe, however, that my taxes should not be used to subsidize their activity or the media that promotes it.   The government isn’t protecting a particular viewpoint when they use our taxes to subsidize it.  The government is actually promoting that ideology in violation of the natural rights of every one else who opposes that viewpoint.  That’s not a compromise, it is forcing a viewpoint on others and making them pay for the support of that viewpoint, something that our founders tried very hard  to extinguish.  Our freedom of expression does not include a right to have the government fund that expression….that for the private sector through other individuals who choose to support those efforts, never through forced coercion from government through law, regulation or taxation.

By failing to adhere to this simply principle of just government, our leaders in government have used this abuse of our rights to advance all sorts of non-essential programs in violation of our natural rights.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Political Compromise is often about Compromising us!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s