“I was raised to never question three people,” I explained to Donald Pomeroy as we rode the train home that evening. “Never question three people: Jesus, Generals, and Bear Bryant.” Pomeroy and his wife were seated behind me as we pulled into D.C.’s Metro Center red line stop after a day at the FRCAction’s 2007 Values Voters Summit this October. Their second annual, the Family Research Center’s weekend convention pulled in thousands of America’s right of right neoconservatives from all stretches of the country. Pomeroy, his wife, mother, and sister-in-law had all come in from South Carolina.

Pomeroy recognized me from the afternoon’s breakout session, “The Double Threat of Islamofascism,” where I had asked a question that didn’t go over so well with the group – particularly with the session’s leader. My question was about the military and why we, the audience, were being encouraged to not stand in support of our military – and given the audience, I still couldn’t understand why my question was so unpopular. The boos made it clear, though, that my inquiry was absolutely uncouth.

But it isn’t always kosher to ask what you’re thinking – especially as an openly liberal journalist in a hotbed of Christian conservatism. But it was in that culture that I grew up, and many of its precepts (Sunday church and a strong salute) are things I’ll never lose. So when a traditionally pro-military group has gathered to hear why our military should fight Muslim extremism in all corners of the world, I couldn’t help but find the incongruence in being told to abandon the military’s opinion on other matters that affected them.

But that’s just what Frank Gaffney did. Gaffney is the founder of the Center for Security Policy, a right-wink think tank based in Washington. While the religious right attendees had come to hear a treatise on the evils of Jihad (if not all of Islam), Gaffney had them sidetracked at the end of the discussion by a specific call to arms.

“If there’s one thing I can tell you today before we leave, if there’s just one change you can make, it has to be to stop a UN treaty,” Gaffney said. “They call it the Law of the Seas Treaty, but I call it L.O.S.T. Because that’s just what we’ll be if it passes – lost.”

And on those words, the audience bobble-headed in anticipation. “Go to this website!,” Gaffney called, without yet explaining anything about the treaty. “Do you have something to write this down? Write this down! Go to this website! And sign the petition to stop Congress from approving this law.” After everyone had grabbed a pen and paper and the website had been repeated at least five times, Gaffney finally got to explaining the law.

The United Nations Commission on the Law of the Seas - UNCLOS to some, LOST to Gaffney – is a much-needed revision to the 1980s standards on economic boundaries in international waters. The last twenty years have brought a thirst for natural resources and the technological capacity to find than laws written two decades ago could have covered. Today, Russia claims the North Pole as theirs, and by previously held standards, all 20 miles of water around it and all the resources there held belong to Russia, too. Add to that hundreds of miles more underwater in economic interest – all resource-rich and minable. When it comes to claims of natural resources yet unused, the race for ownership not be more heated – especially in the Caspian Sea; the battle in the North pales by comparison.

In recent years in the Caspian, where historic Baku is still a hub for natural gas and oil, there have been military stand-offs between Azerbaijan and Russia, forced imposition of Russian territorial control over formerly Soviet states, and heightened military tension between Iran and Russia. As worldwide powers vie for energy self-sufficiency, clear rules for economic activity in international waters are desperately needed. And so UNCLOS, which clearly delineates the guidelines by which all nations would agree to work, has been welcomed in political circles the world over. As Gaffney railed against it, the treaty had already been ratified by over 150 countries, supported by leaders on both sides of the political aisle in Washington, including the President of the United States, and even the Navy.

“If they pass it, if they pass the Law of the Seas Treaty, we’ll be lost!,” Gaffney reiterated at the conclusion of his speech. And – much to my surprise – heads throughout the audience once again bobbed in agreement. I raised my hand.

“I’m not sure,” I began, “why we’re so quick to discount the guidance of the military.” Gaffney guffawed, and from the stage, began to tell the audience that the Navy was wrong to support the treaty. “Are you saying that we should abandon the highly capable opinion of our Navy?,” I asked. “That they, who have kept our seas safe since Pearl Harbor, don’t actually know what’s good for us?” A few heads cocked. Gaffney was silent. I continued.

“I don’t know much about this area, I’ll concede, however, I do know that when it comes to natural resources, especially gas, the Caspian Sea is like the breadbasket of the world. Without strict control and clear delineation of its waters, we’re opening it up to places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, even Iran – places you have just spent two hours telling us we need to render powerless – to control. I’m not so sure that just ignoring our Navy without good reason---,” and I was cut off.

“LOST doesn’t affect the Caspian!,” Gaffney yelled from the stage.

“Yes it does,” I countered. “It absolutely does, and if we’re going to abandon the advice of our Navy on it, I’d just like to know why.”

A mumble rose from the audience, and Gaffney conceded the point. “This young lady has a question. An important question, maybe. Why do we ignore the Navy? Because they don’t know what’s best for them.” I struggled again to ask for a reason why, when a woman from the audience stood up and asked that Gaffney ignore the press and take questions from those who actually paid to be there that day.

But what confused me then – and confuses me now – is why my question wasn’t something those who paid to be there were asking on their own. Aren’t the Values Voters typically Southern voters? Aren’t they typically those Southern Christian conservatives? Aren’t they usually pro-military?

“They are very pro-military,” said Natalie Davis of Birmingham-Southern College. Davis is an expert in Southern politics – particularly in public opinion. And according to her, that favorable opinion of the military hasn’t changed. “It’s still a source of pride to have your son join the service – Army or Navy. There’s no reason to question their allegiance towards the military. With the war in Iraq it has gone down a little – but not a lot. Compared to the rest of the nation, Christian conservatives are still more likely to support the war. They love the military.”

And with love of the military comes a respect for its tradition and expertise. So why, in a room full of Baptists from below the Mason-Dixon, was there no one standing up in support of the Navy? If the Navy supports UNCLOS, wouldn’t they?

“I don’t know. If Frank said it’s something bad, and the Navy’s for it, I’ll really have to think about it,” said George Robinson of Dallas, Texas. Robinson and his wife attended the conference but missed Gaffney’s breakout session – they went to “Science Friction: Clones, Human-Animal Hybrids, and Stem Cell Research” instead. But Robinson was surprised that the Navy’s opinion should be disregarded so quickly – and also the President’s. “If our Commander-in-Chief says so, I don’t know. I think Bush has been doing a good job. I trust him.” And Bush supports the treaty.

So does Mike Huckabee, a Values Voters favorite who nearly won the summit’s straw poll, missing by less than one tenth of a percentile to Mitt Romney, another UNCLOS supporter. But reverence for Ronald Reagan’s anti-internationalist politics fostered by neoconservatives today, like Frank Gaffney, conflicts with this traditionalist pro-military history. Among Reagan conservatives, United Nations treaties have notoriously little traction - in this case, even those that affect international waters.

“This treaty, I don’t know,” Davis said as she thought about the Values Voters and the treaty. “But if the Navy supports it, I imagine so would they.” As well they should, particularly if the tenets laid out in Gaffney’s polemic against Islamofascism (a speech that mainly argued that power of resources, as a whole, needs to be kept out of the hands of Jihadists in the Middle East) matter to them. “Without clear rules that define to whom the resources belong in the Caspian – and throughout the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf, and the North Seas – there will be mayhem,” said Albert Bininachvili, a London-based energy expert. Bininachvili is also a regular reporter for the BBC and annual guest lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Speaking to a group of students there he continued, “What happens without these rules? You get two Russian naval ships sitting off the coast of Baku threatening to blow up their degasification plants. Deals with Turkey and Georgia for pipelines going straight under the Caspian in the hardest conditions. Iran struggles to provide its people with gas, and Russia ships it all to Germany, passing over all the countries where it got the gas and going to Europe. Iran becomes more militarized to deal with Russia, and the whole region destabilizes. We think we have problems now… Ho.”

But the international complications that would ensue without UNCLOS weren’t on the minds of the Values Voters in the room that day – or at least, they weren’t in their mouths. After having been rebuffed, I was asked to sit down and spent the next hour avoiding the eyes of those around me. When the session was over, I left.

On my way out the door, a man from Alabama pulled me aside. He had has son with him, a good-looking thirteen-year-old who said he had so far enjoyed his time at the conference and that he had “learned a lot.” His father turned to me and said, “You know, my father was in the Army. I was wondering the same thing.” After he left, I wondered about those in attendance that day. Growing up a pro-military tradition makes it difficult to just abandon that reverence, even when Frank Gaffney says to.

Donald Pomeroy echoed that concern. He explained to me that he’d grown up an army brat, and not listening to the Navy on a Navy matter – even hearing them out – was hard to swallow. But what bothered him more, it seemed, was how quickly the questioner could be shot down.

“You know, at this event, they tell us to stand up for what we believe in,” Pomeroy said. “Stand up for what you believe in. You did, and just look at how they treated you.”

Perhaps UNCLOS isn’t just “L.O.S.T.” to Frank Gaffney; perhaps the allegiance of his followers is lost on him.