In retrospect, I understand how you could take what I wrote the way you did. I’ll try to be clearer in the future; given it was my first day on the site, there was a lot of ground to cover and I thought getting my positions out there would have been preferable to leaving everything blank so there would be no doubt that my posts are legitimate and I really do want to have a discussion about the state of the country.
1.) I understand your point about the wording of the bloodline and see how that could be confusing; I hope that I made it abundantly clear that I do not approve of or support abortion. (For what it’s worth, that wording came from a discussion I’ve been having with an orthodox Christian friend of mine regarding God’s order to smite the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15; we were trying to work through how, if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, he could order that even the infants and children be slaughtered for the sins of their great-great-great (ad naseum) grandparents. They were being killed because of the bloodline despite their innocence yet, on the same note, Christ was born through the bloodline of Solomon who was born the product of David’s sin with Bathsheba. Since that’s been the conversation that we’ve been having on this particular topic, the vernacular of that discussion found its way into my writing on the subject. I completely see how that is confusing and would appear odd without context. I’ll take that out of my About page so other people aren’t confused.)
2.) Regarding my comments on Ted Olson and his legal strategy: I love politics and I love the law. When I was in junior high, I stayed home to watch the Clinton impeachment trials, just as I missed a couple weeks of school during the Bush v. Gore mess. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the merits of someone’s position, I have tremendous respect for intelligence (it’s the reason my library’s filled with biographies of history’s worst men such as Mao and Hitler; having respect for and learning from their strengths in no way implies I agree with them on anything because clearly the world would be better had they never been born. As C.S. Lewis put it, those with the greatest capacity for good also have the greatest capacity for evil). Given my understanding of the court’s past decisions and the novelty of the argument he was presenting, I was caught off guard by the simplicity of his argument. In two weeks of launching his case, he had put together a brief that made everyone who came before him on the issue look like they had been writing in crayon. My position on whether or not it would be successful was, and remains, that is has never paid to bet against Ted Olson. The man, it seems, always wins. Again, given that I was new, I understand how that could be taken the wrong way.
As I’ve said before, my generation does have a different - I don’t want to say perspective, but we struggle with this. Let me provide an example as to why:
My grandfather died several years ago but shortly before he did, he and my grandmother got divorced. This was extremely hard for the family. My grandmother met a widower (they are both in their 70’s). They dated for several years and wanted to settle down together. This older man was a Catholic and his religion was extremely important to him, just as my grandmother’s was to her as an evangelical. When they went to get the union blessed by the Catholic church, they told my grandmother that she would have to annual the 40+ year marriage to my grandfather, declaring all six of her children (including my father) bastards. As an evangelical, she believed that she could not do this because it would be a lie; she had taken a vow before God, honored those vows, and had a wonderful family. To say that it never existed would have been intolerable. The result: The Catholic church would not marry them because it violated their dogma. Of course, this was devastating, but it didn’t stop them from going down to the courthouse on the town square and getting married in a civil ceremony.
As a born-again Christian, I have my specific beliefs. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he came to Earth, died for my sins, and rose from the dead three days later. I believe that because of his sacrifice, and not my actions, that I’m forgiven. Those are my beliefs. Those are sacred to me, and to other Christians, to the point that we’ve literally staked our soul on them. (This is not a passive conviction!)
My question is this: Those beliefs are sacred to me and my family, just as the Catholic church truly believed my grandmother should not get remarried unless she annulled her prior marriage. Because we live in a republic, and not a democracy, she still had the right to go get married to take advantage of the social security benefits and hospital visitation rights that were extremely important to both of them because of their age. As someone who really, deeply believes in the American model of government, how can we deny two people certain property and contract advantages comparable to civil marriage if they have no personal beliefs on the matter?
This is the conversation most of my friends are having. The problem is, for the most part, we can’t discuss it with our parents (mine are an exception but we used to debate social security at the dinner table so that’s not normal) or the olders members of our church because they provide a standard one-line answer (”no”), without giving any other rational explanation as to what we do with a massive portion of the population (even if it’s as little as 3%, that’s still more than 9 million people - can you imagine if someone tried to pass a law that had a direct effect on the lives of every single person in Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Maine *combined* and we said, “It’s only a tiny portion of the population - who cares?”). You walk into a church youth group, or a young adult’s bible study program at most of the churches in the suburbs and ask for honest, no-holds-barred opinions of this. The book we’re reading now, called unChristian by David Kinnaman, talks about this generational disconnect from the perspective of those inside the church and why it’s an issue for us younger Christians (http://www.unchristian.com/). It really does sum up the divide perfectly because when they were detailing the beliefs of the younger, modern evangelical, we’re all sitting around nodding our head; you really should read it because it will explain what I mean more eloquently.
What my generation is saying is: What do we do with these people? What, as Christians, is our goal? No one is answering that question and that’s why you see so many college students and young adults baffled by the passion the older generation feels on the issue. (And seriously, I want to know your opinion on this because I don’t have any answers): Do we want them to end up married to women? I don’t buy that some guy is going to wake up and want to sleep with a woman if he’s gay and, even if he did, why would a woman want to deal with that baggage? Do we want to tell them that they can live as they wish but if one of them dies, they have no legal protections? Even if I don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle, I know how hard it is to build a business; the idea of a cousin or sibling coming in and taking something such as a house or car after a death ticks me off because I hate when people don’t work and they expect everything to be handed to them.
This is not rhetorical: I am asking you as a younger, Christian Republican: What is our answer? We have to have some game plan or proposal; merely saying no or we are against something isn’t going to get us elected and return to power. There is a demographic crisis brewing in the Republican party and I really don’t want to see all three branches of government controlled by Democrats for the next ten years.
In terms of personal importance, you’re right: I get possessive of my employees, friends, and family. My personality has always been to protect the people around me (one of my weakest moments in life was when a woman who owned a small business in my hometown made my mother cry so I opened a jewelry store next to hers, put my mom in charge of it, and ran the women out of business; I know it was wrong, I still feel guilty, but I just get protective). The fact that I personally know two people who will be directly affected by the issue does make it more important to me (frankly, I didn’t give a crap about it prior to realizing the legal and financial toll it took on them because there were more important things for me to deal with every morning). This is why I asked how we, as Christians, address the issue. It’s no longer academic; the real world consequences for both side can’t be avoided.
3.) On the businesses: I understand how you took my statements that way. Please realize that we are all influenced by our environment and I am no different. Here’s my daily perspective: Two of my mentors include an investment manager on the east coast who controls $5 billion in assets, and a regional bank President that manages hundreds of millions of dollars. These are the older guys I call when I’m learning how to structure a derivatives trade or buy my first apartment building. My numbers, although substantial to a lot of people, are literally rounding errors to them. That’s my daily reality. At some point, you forget that this is not the reality for most people. I can say with a clear heart that it didn’t even occur to me making a factual statement about a set amount of money could in any way, shape, or form be taken that way by anyone on these boards because that’s just not my daily reality. The old saying “birds of a feather flock together” is completely true. Please understand that I am no different in terms of being shaped by my experiences. You take my brother, who is fighting in the middle east right now as part of the Air Force, and he has no debt and more than $50,000 in cash saved from his time in the service. He’s barely 24 years old and we never received any inheritance. This is our family’s culture - we’ve always been entrepreneurs that believed every generation sort of had to prove themselves and go out in the world. The way we “proved” we had succeeded was to become financially independent through honest, hard work.
On some level, we all think that every family is like ours. Probably 99% of my discussions on Free Republic will be in the economic forums and deal with finance, accounting, or business. I understand that I can use hypothetical scenarios or abstract, third-person constructs but that seems so disingenuous. If someone is asking a question about a specific financial instrument, such as a derivative, and I have first hand knowledge of it, isn’t taking the time to make them feel better nothing but political correctness? I can’t even manage to be politically correct in my day-to-day interactions with friends, how on earth will I manage it on a political forum?
4.) In closing: I’ve figured one area of life out and that is money. It, and my Christianity, are the paradigms through which I see the world and through which all issues are framed. As a young man, there are a lot of things I don’t understand - I’ve haven’t been blessed to get married or have children yet, so when I do, I’m going to be relying on the friends and family who are older and know how to deal with teenagers to help me get through it. The same goes for a lot of other areas. On 90% to 99% of issues, we’re going to agree wholeheartedly from the economy to health care to missile defense systems. What I want to know is on the handful of social issues that we must confront as citizens of the United States in 2009, a rational explanation of proposed actions plans for our position. As a party, if we are going to return to power, we cannot just be against something; e.g., being against socialism isn’t good enough - we have to be *for* capitalism, and we have to sell that to the public. I want to know - what are we proposing??? Again, the question I’m asking are not rhetorical - I really want your thoughts and input.
(P.S.: I called Brownback right-wing because, like me and virtually everyone else on these boards, he is on 90% to 99% of issues. That’s not a pejorative. That’s just where we fall on the political spectrum.)
But I was up FReeping till about 2:30 AM and went shopping most of the day with my wife. Just got home 5-10 min ago.
I'll respond tomorrow.
Cheers!
While I still have some significant differences from you on some of the issues (I am to the *right* of you!), I'm not going to start a fight. Instead, in keeping with the request at the end of the page, I'm going to throw in a couple of more topics into the mix for you to discuss, should you feel so inclined.
1) U.S. support for Israel
2) non-proliferation (What to do about Iran, North Korea)
3) offshoring / outsourcing (sending jobs overseas or importing H1-B or L1 workers to increase your profits).
4) Evolution; teaching of creation in the schools
5) Roe v. Wade -- repeal to return to the states, or not?
6) Illegal immigration
7) Welfare reform, social security, "The Great Society"
8) Strategic defense initiative and related. Weaponization of space.
9) Restoring the tax-deductibility of research for US corporations
10) Premarital sex.
11) Contraception in the schools.
12) Sex education in the schools.
13) Abstinence education in the schools.
14) Home schooling.
15) Prayer in school, "separation of church and state"
16) Legalization of drugs.
17) "War on drugs" in general -- asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, etc.
18) Most-favored nation status for China.
19) "Free trade".
20) The "bailout bill" and "stimulus bill"
21) Nationalization of GM
22) de facto nationalization of banks
23) nationalization of health care
24) Obama's birth certificate
25) 2nd amendment -- individual right or not, should the bill of rights binding on the feds be held to be binding on states?
26) Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, etc.
27) Sarah Palin
28) Third party?
29) Who do you favor for President in 2012?
30) Throw the RINOs out or work within the GOP?
31) States rights / 10th amendment
32) War in Iraq / war in Afghanistan
33) 9-11 truther (some *very* respected Freepers have left FR over this issue)
34) Reparations for slavery?
I'm sure I can come up with some others.
But these ought to keep your secretary busy for a week or two.
Cheers!