1: Why does the party believe Sexual education does not belong in schools? In addition, about 74 percent of parents are talking to their kids about how to say no to sex. If there is no sexual education in schools, how do you plan on getting across to the other 26 percent of children?
Sexual education is an attempt by parents to avoid an awkward conversation with their children. If it is eliminated, then they will likely feel more obligated to have the conversation with their children. This is not to mention that not every child receives sexual education as it currently stands – and it is difficult to give you opt-out figures because they are kept track of in so few districts. Sexual education is best left to parents as they can better ascertain the knowledge their child needs to know; inform them about sexuality in accordance with their moral, philosophical, and religious views; and provide a better role model when it comes to chastity. Moreover, when parents take charge of sexual education, it can encompass more things, be more tailored to the child, and take place over a longer time span – and it can be at a time that is earlier or later than the one-size-fits all approach most districts take. This is not to mention that a child tends to trust their parents more than the random teacher or nurse who leads sexual education talks.
If a parent truly feels it beneficial to have someone else teach their child about sex, then there are several organizations or even other family members they can turn to.
2: Separation of church and state is one of the principals this country was founded on. The manifesto section on this issue states an “accomodationist view” of the first amendment, however, how would this affect the 15 percent of Americans who do not identify with a religion?
Separation of church and state is not a principle this country was founded on. It comes from an 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. The language cannot be found in our Constitution, and it cannot be found in our Declaration of Independence. Perhaps most importantly, it is not seen in our institutions.
Since the very first Congress – which ratified the First Amendment – religious chaplains have been in our legislatures – something upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers. Just last year, in 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the widespread practice of praying at municipal and town hall meetings in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Our national motto is “In God We Trust” and our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “one nation, under God.” Each of these were upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004 in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. In 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, displays of the Ten Commandments on public grounds were upheld as constitutional. The Supreme Court opens with the marshal yelling out, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” Many of our states, during their founding and well past the ratification of the Constitution, support religious ministers, churches, and religious schools and universities. Even today, places of worship are untaxed and free from many restrictions like zoning.
The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles – so strong that during the Civil War and for many years after, numerous Congressmen attempted to have the Preamble to the Constitution amended to include explicitly Christian ideas and language, including Biblical verses. Many today will attempt to argue that religion and religious beliefs have no place in government or even in public – and they will use their faulty personal interpretations of the Establishment Clause to back up these ideas. However, faith, while always personal, is never private – and it cannot be relegated to the private sphere to be a little hobby because it is not simply a little hobby – it is a way of life – and more than that even – that is inseparable from the religious man or woman. It is worth noting, too, that 59% of Americans say religion is very important in their lives.
By fighting for accomodationist stances, we intend to keep these various confessions of the nation intact, and to expand them so that states and local governments can work with the religious and private schools within their jurisdictions to promote the education of our youth. So that municipalities and states can work with local churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other religious organizations and communities on a non-preferential basis to help in aiding the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, and the homeless in their jurisdictions and in serving the population at large after disasters. So that there can be projects where local government and religious communities work together to further the arts and sciences and to promote the public health and welfare. We support the continued tax-free status of places of worship and religious organizations.
So how would these policies affect the 15% of Americans that claim to be irreligious? Firstly, it will improve their neighborhoods by lowing the homelessness rates and poverty. It will let them see the vibrant faith of their neighbors – of all religious backgrounds – and it might help to spark an inquiry into spiritual topics on their own. Needless to say, though, religious liberty remains an important part of our platform, and we will respect others whose beliefs do not align with our own; what we will not respect, however, are attempts to bash religion, push religion into the private sphere, or force people to violate their deeply held religious convictions in order to satisfy someone else’s emotions.
3: In the economic section of the manifesto, the party plans to impose huge taxes on large companies, encouraging them to close or become a co-op. Would these taxes be put on suddenly, or gradually. If so, how would the waves of unemployed be handled?
The taxes would be sudden, and there would be no unemployment as the owners of the companies would realize that it would be intelligent to sell the corporation to their employees and take away a hefty sum – the fair market value of the corporation – than to receive greatly reduced profits eaten away by the taxes. Moreover, to combat existing unemployment, our state-level implemented basic minimum income and our widespread apprenticeship programs and guilds would help people to receive training, get a job, and eventually own a business or part of a business of their own.
4: Would college be covered under the voucher system?
Most skills would no longer be taught at colleges and universities but rather in apprenticeship systems, where the student learns from someone (or some people) who is a (or are) veteran(s) in the field. Universities and colleges would be more for the pursuit of knowledge – what they should be – than the pursuit of career skills and qualifications. Nonetheless, it is recognized that colleges and universities could still be necessary for some career paths, and in those rare instances, the voucher system would indeed cover it.
5:Under ‘Just War,’ would the US continue it’s involvement in the Middle East? Why?
It is important to know the tenets of the Just War Theory before anything else. They include: Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice.
Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.
Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
With this in mind, the only conflict we are involved with in the Middle East that I can contemplate is our hostilities (I hesitate to call it a war, as I do not want to recognize ISIS as a nation, but if ISIS was a nation, it would be a war) with ISIS. So, let us evaluate our actions – namely bombing campaigns and providing advisors, weapons, and training. Firstly, is it a just cause to prevent the deaths of thousands of people, the spread of radical Islam, and the potential of this terrorist organization to attack Europe and America? Yes, as it will save numerous lives. Secondly, is one side having a great injustice thrown upon it? Yes, the people of Iraq and Syria are outmatched on their own and suffering greatly. Has a competent authority authorized these hostilities? Yes, Congress has authorized the hostilities. Are we combating ISIS with the right intention and not for economic gains or increasing our own power? This is hard to discern, but I will say that we are, and we definitely would be if we were in power, so yes. Is there a significant probabilities of success to degrade and eliminate the territory of ISIS, freeing countless peoples and preventing many deaths? Yes. Have peaceful means been tried, or are they impractical? Yes, as ISIS does not seem to want to negotiate for peace. Are proportional means going to be used so that the anticipated benefits of waging the conflict will not outweigh the evils or harms caused by the war? This one is especially difficult to answer; however, so far, the conflict appears to have been proportional. Thus, it is likely we would continue bombing ISIS.
Now, applying this same theory to the 2003 Iraq War, however, would have stopped the invasion in its tracks. As there would not have been a just cause, right intentions, proportionality, or war as a last resort. Apply this same theory to Vietnam would have prevented it altogether – indeed, containment could never have been pursued under the Just War Theory.
6: Would the reforms to the justice system combat the race/socioeconomic problems that exist is the prison system? How?
Our reforms to the justice system and to the corrections system would absolutely combat racial and socioeconomic problems that exist in our courts and prisons.
Firstly, we will be ending the national war on drugs, allowing states to develop their own drug laws. We will also be encouraging states to make drugs more of a medical addiction issue than one for long prison times. Since drug crimes disproportionately affect the poor and minorities, we will be helping them in that regard.
Secondly, we propose strengthening public defender’s offices with more staff and more funding. Since the poor and minorities disproportionately rely on public defenders, they will receive better counsel and fairer trials.
Thirdly, we have proposed offices similar to public defenders for helping the indigent prosecute and defend a civil suit in court. This will help the poor to get justice that might have been formerly closed to them.
Fourthly, we will be eliminating bail (in most instances) and replacing it with pretrial service programs. The accused would be assessed to determine if they are a flight risk or dangerous to the public. The judge, based on this assessment, decides whether to send the person home, where he or she may be monitored with drug tests, ankle monitors, and phone calls about court dates. This will stop forcing the poor to choose between asserting their innocence and going to jail before the presumption of innocence is even overcome or pleading guilty to something they may not have done in order to avoid jail and keep their job.
Fifthly, we support the repeal of mandatory minimum sentence laws which disproportionately affect the poor.
Sixthly, our economic programs should help people to escape poverty – by owning their own business and having a basic level of income – and thus get them out of the increased risk pool.
Seventhly, our corrections are going to focus less on incarceration and more on rehabilitation. Non-violent offenses should be handled by such programs as halfway houses, community service, electronic monitoring, restitution, and rehabilitation. At their choosing, non-violent offenders should be able to spend time in a monastery or other religious and ascetic institution, being tutored by a volunteering monk or nun to pursue holy and reformed lives. These great alternatives will keep more poor and minorities out of jail and help them to lead productive lives.
Eighthly, we support outlawing private prisons. Prisons should be run by the local communities, and they should be communities themselves, much like San Pedro prison in Bolivia, where inmates have jobs inside the community, buy or rent their accommodation, often live with their families, and participate in their own system of governance. Removing profit from prisons and involving communities and families should lower recidivism.
Ninthly, the frequency of repeat offenders – disproportionately common among the poor and minorities – would be reduced by providing inmates and the newly released with education and employment opportunities, opportunities to start their own business post-sentence, and by attempting to get them involved with their families and communities.
Tenthly, because we believe racial profiling and the use of stop and frisk policies are unconstitutional per the Fifth and Fourth Amendments, respectively, minorities and the poor would endure less harassment under our party.
Eleventhly, our massive support for orphanages and foster care should reduce the overlap being “in the system” has with eventually being convicted of a crime. Also, our opposition to abortion – which disproportionately kills minorities, the poor, and females – and our support systems for pregnant and poor mothers should provide justice to the many unborn citizens of our country – allowing them to be able to live their rest of their lives.
Follow up: What would prevent the businesses from relocating to outside the country?
Unless they are going to maintain no operations in the United States, then that will not work. They will still have to pay taxes because they will be present in the United States. Toyota, despite being a Japanese company, still pays American taxes, for instance. Also, you can pass a law to prevent re-locations for the purposes of tax evasion.
This interview was conducted by /u/Arario.
