Responding to a Friend...

TP:

I have read this entire document, GOP 2016 Platform , and I am not able to align myself with this thinking. Especially regarding “family”. I believe family is how each of us chooses to define it. I also believe in the constitution of the United States of America and the bill of rights. I can not find where the US is a “Christian” nation to be ruled by Christian beliefs. I think the constitution offers each of us to choose, or not, any religion we want and do so without persecution. I think we are allowed to have our beliefs and do so without persecution. Therefore, if a religious book has specific teachings, we are allowed to believe in those teachings and it is up to each of us to follow what we believe. If someone believes same sex marriage is a sin, then they should be marry the same sex. At the same time, they should also not be condemning others for not following their belief, nor should they be writing laws to fortify and harm others with different beliefs.

VH:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding the Republican platform. I appreciate your being willing to engage again on political topics. I’ve lost a friend that I cherished once, simply because he read one of my posts, and disagreed with my point of view. I don’t think politics should come at the cost of valued relationships, though it sadly often does. Your message covered topics that are important and are very difficult to give comprehensive responses to without offering a lengthy read. I take your reaching out with your commentary as a sign that you are really interested in what I think. So, I’ve taken time to offer something that I hope you’ll find valuable.

I agree with your assertion that family is how each of us defines it. The government has no place in defining our relationships, nor their value to each of us. Having said that, I think it would be folly not to consider the lessons we’ve learned about society through observation when considering what produces a strong society. The Republican platform sites the observation that children tend to have healthier lifestyles when raised in two parent homes, avoiding many of the pitfalls that often plague children of single parent homes. This observation does not state that it is due primarily to the sex of the parents (though they call the male/female pairing the cornerstone of the American Family) yet, I am convinced that the sex of the parents does play a role in healthy child and ultimately adult development. I believe that alternative family structures can indeed produce healthy adults, however this is often a greater challenge to achieve when one of the sexes is missing from the parental dynamic. 2 moms and 1 dad in the parental dynamic would be better than 1 dad only, or 2 moms only. Though successful child rearing is not an impossibility with alternative approaches, they do have their challenges.

I like to look at it this way. Males and females produce different influences on their children, serving different roles during their child’s development from one another. If one part of the male/female dynamic is missing the child misses out on the influences that sex could have brought to the development. I also believe that it is possible to adjust, to provide some approximation to compensate. For example, I as a human male have certain developmental stages that I am bound to pass through simply because of my DNA. At the age of 39 the stage I’m in is that of child rearing age. I believe that children place parents under pressures and stresses, forcing maturation and evolution of character, which often occurs within my age demographic. Not having children therefore denies me the experience of the sorts of pressures they place on one’s life, and subsequently leaves me with a choice. Either I seek out parenthood, I find alternative ways of accomplishing the same sort growth and development, or I simply live out my life as a stunted man-child. I could get a pet to compensate, or I could open a business, perhaps find some other form of purpose in life that produces similar pressures and stresses. However, none of those options will ever be able to fully compare to the effects of parenthood. The growth experienced from those approaches may have great value for my life, yet still will never be the experience of parenthood. I can sell my business one day, would have to put the pet down at some point, and life’s purposes can often be fleeting. I concur with efforts to preserve and support the traditional family structure in society, as it has proven it’s-self to proliferate healthy adults most consistently, without the need for compensation of missing influences in a child’s life. That statement is not intended to imply that all male/female parental pairings are successful in producing healthy adults. I recognize that much more than the sex of the parental unit affects outcomes.

I don’t advocate for any law that mandates a specific family structure, nor does the GOP platform. In the “Values” section of the platform it states that they are the party of  “independent individuals and the institutions they create together- families, schools, congregations, neighborhoods- to advance their ideals and make real their dreams. Those institutions standing between the citizen and the power of government, are the pillars of free society.” Individuality is made paramount in their platform so as to preserve a free society. I’ll sum it up by saying that the status quo is not enough for me. While I agree with the Supreme Court’s moral argument behind the decision to legalize gay marriage, I think the federal government needs to step out of the marriage aspect of our society all together. I feel that it’s overstepped the bounds of it’s responsibilities. I agree with the platform’s position that the foundation of our nation is the American family, and that the institutions that we create are the bulwark against the encroachment of the Federal government into our lives when allowed to serve their proper roles in society. Public service is derived from the strong families, strong communities and communal institutions. Not Federal mandate.

I‘m very glad to know that you see value in the American Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I think our founding documents are crucial to the preservation of our Democratic Republic, which is why I advocate for supreme court nominees to be strict Constitutionalists, rather than partisan activist judges.  I also understand your point of view regarding the freedom of religious practice as granted to us not by the Constitution, but by the laws of nature, which existed prior to any government. It is the Constitution that protects this right, along with the other unalienable rights it enumerates. Taxation without representation was not the only catalyst for the founding of our nation, but too the religious restrictions found in the man-made religious organizations of the time. For example, under the law of the king, English bibles could not be printed by any but the church. I suspect this was to prevent subversion of the King and the Church’s version of the word. It was only after the founding of our nation that English bibles began to be printed on this continent. Guess who printed it. The United States Congress, for the use of schools. They also printed a version of the bible called the American Revolutionary Bible.

When people make the statement that the United States is a Christian nation, it is not meant to say that America mandates a Christian religion. Nor is it intended to mean that the United Sates is comprised of only Christians. The founding fathers clearly did not want the institution of a mandated religion, so as to protect the individual right to practice as one wishes. But too, they believed that when the Christian values are presented in a free market of ideas, they will win out above others. They believed that the Christian faith was the best path for humans and, when one sees that one is likely, though not guaranteed to choose it. There was no need in their minds to mandate Christianity. 

Now, allow me to take a step back and share what is actually meant by describing the United states as a Christian nation. Though the Founding fathers were not all comprised of the same Christian denomination, they were all guided in their daily lives by Christian values, all derived from the basic set of morals found in the 10 commandments. We are all taught that many of them were actually Deists, but when we look at ancillary writings from the lives of the founding fathers we discover that they reference a Christian god repeatedly. The peace treaty that sealed our independence from the British Empire in 1783 has written at the top of it “In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.” The Trinity is a uniquely Christian hierarchy, and this treaty was signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay. Benjamin Franklin even used Christian imagery when describing his idea for the great seal. Then too, John Adams wrote the following to Thomas Jefferson in 1813 -

““The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.””

Which sums up exactly what is meant by the Constitution being a Christian one, or America being a Christian Nation. Even the Name of our country translates into something like the Estate of the Kingdom of God.  The Constitution and the Declaration of independence both are built on Christian principals. The principal of Free will is a Christian one, and is from where the concepts of Freedom, Individual responsibility, and personal governance come. This is at the heart of our founding documents. The ideas that were put into the Constitution did not arrive from out of a vacuum, the Founders pulled from examples in history, and from their Christian faiths to create something that would limit the tendencies of man and government (that man requires limitations in it’s self is derived from the Christian concept of free will).

Having shared this information, I think it only fair that I disclose that I am not personally a Christian. I simply do not deny that our system of laws has Christian underpinnings, or that our Founders envisioned a society that focused on faith. There is a preponderance of evidence for this, and much of it shared by people like David Barton of Wall Builders and columnists like Douglas V. Gibbs I would encourage you to find out for yourself about the Founders and their original intent. In fact, David Barton has written a book called just that, Original Intent -The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion- where he discusses the founders original vision for our country, referencing several original documents from their time. Another resource is a book called the Five Thousand Year Leap -28 Great Ideas that Changed the World- by W. Cleon Skousen. It discusses what the founders believed were the proper roles of government and religion in society along with other aspects of American society that are derived from Christian principals.  

As to laws that harm people who are not Christian, heterosexual, Republican or fortify either group. I cannot find anywhere in the Republican platform where such is advocated. If you wish to interpret that to mean tax laws that benefit child rearing families, then I can’t stand with you on that one. As I said before, I support the American family as I think it is the source of a healthy society. The less of a family’s money taken by the government the better chances of raising happy healthy children and ultimately adults participating in society. When it comes to gays, the fact is that legal marriage rights for gays is the law of the land now. The Republican platform does not denounce homosexuality, but neither is it required to advance the idea that homosexuality is moral. I can support their platform despite our difference here, as the issue has been resolved by the Supreme court when it comes to systemic institutions, plus much else in the platform is in line with my principals and ideology. I am not a single-issue voter, as I believe compromise can move a society forward.

One does not have to share the Christian faith in order to live by Christian values. I view them as universally preferable, and as an integral part of our society. If you sit and read through the ten commandments, can you find anything that infringes upon your personal rights? I will venture to say “no” in your stead as I am certain that is the point of the commandments. Peaceful living. To advocate for the these values is not to advocate for the institution of a specific religion.