Evangelicals and Homosexuality: A Response to Rachel Held Evans

World Vision had a crazy go of it last week.

On Monday, March 24, they announced that they were revising their policies that barred married, same-sex couples from working with their charity organization. World Vision argued that this was a path that encouraged inclusiveness and they also stressed that this decision was not to be interpreted as a theological endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Following that announcement, and after intense backlash from the evangelical Christian community, World Vision changed course and reverted to their original rule. Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, apologized for their "mistake," acknowledged that the decision was made without the consent of the World Vision board of directors, and thanked the Evangelical community for speaking out against their error.

Like I said, it was a crazy week. Both for World Vision, and for Evangelicals.

On one hand, World Vision received immense backlash over their decision and subsequently lost an enormous amount of financial support.

On the other hand, the Evangelical community got a thorough lashing of its own by individuals who saw their response as cruel, narrow-minded, and discriminatory.

The Uproar

I watched all of this controversy play out on various social media outlets. I had many friends who posted pleas on Facebook for people to pledge financial contributions to World Vision and I also had many friends who took to social media to express their intense frustration at the church's response. Similar themes popped up again and again. My friends and acquaintances wondered how withdrawing financial support from impoverished children was showing the love of Christ? Others asked why Evangelicals would expect an ecumenical (non-demoninational) organization to hold a strong stance against what is a very controversial theological perspective?

In all of the conversation swirling around the World Vision controversy, popular author and blogger, Rachel Held Evans, wrote a blog post explaining why she supported World Vision's controversial decision. Obviously, after World Vision's change of heart, Rachel again took to the internet to express her disappointment. This time her outlet was CNN's Belief Blog.

The blog post, titled "How Evangelicals Won A Culture War and Lost a Generation" was a scathing indictment of the Evangelical movement and the post served as Rachel's public renunciation of the evangelical mantel.

Leaving Evangelicalism Behind

In her article, which you can read in its entirety here, Rachel argues that the Evangelical community has a disproportionate fixation on homosexuality. She suggests that this fixation has caused the Evangelical church to set aside Christ's mandate to love one another, and this blunder is evidenced, in her opinion, by their continued opposition to same-sex marriage and, most recently, by calling on Evangelicals to withdraw their financial contributions from World Vision. Because of this, Rachel announced that she no longer considered herself Evangelical.

Rachel suggests that Evangelical priorities are "misaligned" and goes on to suggest that, "When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong."

As an Evangelical who opposed World Vision's original change, I take issue with Rachel's assessment. What I see are not misaligned priorities by the church, but a misunderstanding of love and of the purpose of the Evangelical community's stance on Rachel's part.  This misunderstanding is particularly evident in the series of questions that Rachel poses to the church. She asks:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church? 

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

The glaring problem here is that Rachel views the Evangelical outcry over World Vision's actions as a battle against the LGBT community and against gay marriage. This is a drastic over-simplification of the situation and one that is actually quite misleading. This wasn't a political endeavor against gay marriage or the Constitutional rights of the LGBT community. This was a theological disagreement and one that is significantly more important than whether or not a gay couple is legally allowed to marry. Rachel's article has minimized the importance of this debate by bringing the issue down to the political realm, and by refusing to acknowledge that there is a legitimate theological discussion at play.

The Church is responsible to uphold the Word of God and to defend the faith. When a Christian organization as large and influential as World Vision takes a stance that moves away from orthodoxy, it is the responsibility of the Church to call that stance for what it is.

This is a primarily a theological issue, not a political one, and the issue has profound implications for the lives of individuals world-wide. The ultimate question that Evangelicals are asking is: What does it matter if we feed the poor, but we so mar the gospel of Christ that the poor are lost for eternity?

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

Of course, no one is arguing that the recipients of World Vision's charity are gaining the whole world. They are being provided with basic food, clothing, and shelter. But what if in our attempt to provide these basic necessities, we also communicate a gospel that doesn't save? This is the heart of the Evangelical outcry against World Vision.

An Unbalanced Perspective

Ultimately I believe that Rachel's definition of love is unbalanced and this unbalanced understanding is what is limiting her ability to understand the true motives of the Evangelical community. 

When God became flesh, he loved people. He loved the outcast, the downtrodden, the hurt, the sick, the poor. How did he love them? He loved them in two distinct ways:

1. He loved them, first and foremost, by dying on the cross and rising from the dead, thereby providing a way for the lost and downtrodden (i.e. all of us) to have a relationship with Him (i.e. the God of the universe). - (Rom. 5:8, John 14:6, 1 Cor. 15:3-6)
2. Secondly, He loved them by caring for them. By becoming their friend. (Luke 8:1-3, John 19:25) By healing them. (Matt. 8:2-3) By feeding them. (Luke 5:4-10) By bringing them into close relationship with himself.

While the second example of love is important and is greatly emphasized by Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 22:34-40), the first example is an imperative that cannot be ignored or diminished.

When the question of homosexuality was first encountered by the modern church, it often appeared as if they focused on the first type of love to the almost complete exclusion of the second type. Homosexuality was a sin and without repentance and acceptance of Christ, one would spend eternity separated from the Creator. However, after preaching this Gospel message, the Church seemed to forget that Christ also loved sinners through acts of service, through kindness, through care. Instead, what the Church seemed to offer up was a self-righteous proclamation of the first type of love that was accompanied by, not loving acts of service, but by mockery and repulsion. The Church seemed to forget the words of Paul, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love I am a noisy gong or a clanging symbol."

This was an unbalanced understanding of love. 

In response to this misunderstanding by the Church at large, many churches and individuals began an attempt to resolve this imbalance. They stressed kindness, relationship, inclusion, and acceptance. They were so keenly aware of the lack of love shown to the homosexual community that they wanted to emphasize the reality that the Church is loving, and so they loved. However, this approach also became imbalanced because in this attempt to show the true love of Christ, many within this group began to question how it could be loving to call homosexuality a sin. They wondered how a loving God could condemn someone from acting upon their natural desires and affections. And in an attempt to show love, this group began to move away from a steady proclamation that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and moved towards an emphasis on Biblical love through acts of service alone.

This also is an unbalanced understanding of love.  

Finding the Right Balance

Christ-like love without the gospel, or without the full gospel, is an incomplete love, because it marginalizes or diminishes the true needs of the soul. We have physical needs that ought to be met by Christians every where, but more important than our physical needs, we have spiritual needs. To emphasize our spiritual needs to the detriment of our physical needs is not Christ-like, but emphasizing physical needs to the detriment of spiritual needs is short-sighted, has grave eternal consequences, and is ultimately unloving.

So, to respond to Rachel's questions:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support, worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church, and worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

For a victory against gay marriage, maybe not, but this isn't a political stance against gay marriage on the part of the Evangelical community. This is an attempt to protect the Biblical understanding of sin and man's need of redemption. Is this fight worth it? Absolutely, because it ensures that those thousands of needy children, who are in need of salvation and nourishment, will have access to the only information that can save their souls.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby- A Guess

Today the Supreme Court continued to hear oral arguments regarding the case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. While the case has many facets, the crux of the dispute concerns whether it is constitutional for the government to require a for-profit business to violate their religious conscience by providing their employees with health insurance that pays for all types of contraception (even contraception that potentially terminates a fertilized egg.)

A nice summary of the case by NPR can be accessed here.

 I don't think that the importance of this case can be overstated. I'm linking to several articles below that aptly discuss the implications of this case for the religious community and for constitutional freedoms at large. My goal today is to flesh out a few guesses regarding how the Supreme Court will decide this case.

I'm no constitutional scholar and these are merely guesses, but hopefully this exercise will help us to view the case from multiple vantage points, thereby creating a more robust understanding of the issue.

Disclaimer- While we can postulate about the outcome of the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby case, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court often has a mind of its own. One notable example is their objection to the government leveling a fine for not having health insurance and then suggesting that calling it a tax would be acceptable. That makes complete sense.

Option #1: An Obama Administration Victory

The Supreme Court could very well side with the Justice Department and argue that since the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is not specifically targeting religious organizations, the law is valid and Hobby Lobby must provide the same level of health insurance to its employees as any other for-profit business operating in the United States.

I am skeptical about the likelihood of this outcome for one major reason: the Court already made this statement in the case Employment Division v. Smith (1990) - You can read a summary of this case here. The Supreme Court doesn't revisit cases that they agree with. If a previous decision applies to a new case, the Court will let the precedent speak for itself and they will refuse to hear the case. An easy victory for the Justice Department in the Hobby Lobby case is unlikely because it would require the Court to say or decide nothing new, and that is not the purpose of the Supreme Court.

The Court could also hand over a win to the Obama administration by taking a stand on reproductive health and argue that contraception is a public health "necessity." However, I find this option unlikely since even with the sweeping decision of Roe v. Wade the Court argued a right to "privacy" and made no specific statements on women's reproductive health.

Option #2- A Victory for Hobby Lobby

One option here would be for the Supreme Court to roll back its decision in Employment Division v. Smith. As I wrote in an earlier post, the Smith case greatly curtailed religious liberty in that it gave the government broad powers to create law without having to consider the implications that law would have on citizen's ability to freely practice their religion. As long as a law was not intended to restrict liberty, the law was valid. The Court could roll back the decision in Smith and return to the more restrictive approach that was in place prior to 1990. This more restrictive approach put heavy burdens on the government to ensure that the laws passed by Congress do not interfere with the free practice of religion.

I think that this is a possibility, and we may see glimmers of this in the final ruling, but I am not optimistic that this ruling is going to radically alter the constitutional landscape for religious liberty. One major reason I am skeptical about this outcome is because a reversal would require all 4 conservative votes and one swing vote (Kennedy) and that would mean that Antonin Scalia would reverse his original ruling that he wrote in Smith. While Scalia may be willing to alter or clarify his earlier ruling, I find a full-scale reversal unlikely. 

Option #3- A Renewed Discussion of Citizens United

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a highly controversial decision known as Citizens United. Prior to 2010, corporations were prohibited from using their private funds to create and air any communication that was intended to influence elections 60 days prior to the election.

Citizens United is a conservative political organization who filed a grievance with the FEC in 2004
because they argued that Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, violated this prohibition as it was advertised and released in the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election. The FEC disagreed with this claim and in 2008, Citizens United created a documentary about Hilary Clinton and attempted to air advertisements for the documentary on national television and broadcast the entire film on DirectTV. They were barred from doing this and subsequently filed suit in federal court.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Citizens United and argued that the First Amendment provides free speech protections both to individuals and to corporations (for-profit and non-profit). The reason Citizens United could come into play in the Hobby Lobby case is because in Citizens, the Court affirmed that corporations have First Amendment rights. If for-profit corporations have their speech protected under the First Amendment, can they also seek protection from laws that would force them to violate their religious views?

I think that we may see aspects of this argument crop up here, and my expectation is that it will be used by the Hobby Lobby camp. While this decision was certainly divisive, it was strongly supported by not only the 4 conservative justices, but the opinion was written by Kennedy, who went even further in his opinion that Chief Justice Roberts originally intended.

A Supreme Court Cop-Out

 

As riveting as a landmark Supreme Court ruling would be, the reality is that most decisions handed down are fairly limited in scope. While it might seem like the Court could make its life easier by making a sweeping statement that clearly defines how the government should interact with religious liberty, that's not actually the purpose of the Court. The Court is to hear cases about specific events and specific laws and they are to comment on that law. Most cases that are brought before the Court are limited in scope because the situation is specific and particular. Some of the most controversial rulings are when the Court steps outside of the parameters of the case to make broad statements. This isn't to say that there aren't times when broad rulings are necessary. However, it is in our best interest as Americans to have a restrained Court that operates on a case-by-case basis instead of using cases to further some ideological goal.

All of that to say, the Court could narrowly rule in the case, which means that they could limit the ruling to a particular type of corporation or take issue with a small section of the ACA (they could even suggest a re-wording that would be constitutional).

Final Thoughts

 

Based on yesterday's hearings and on the information that I discussed above, my guess, my very hesitant guess, is that the Court will side with Hobby Lobby, but will do so in a limited fashion. Were the issue at stake blood transfusions or hip replacement, I think that the Court would be less likely to side with Hobby Lobby. Abortion, however, is not just any medical procedure and I think that the nature of the government mandate, along with the enormous fines imposed for non-compliance, place an undue burden on a corporation that, according to Citizens United, has religious protections under the First Amendment.

Obviously this is just a guess and there is a plethora of routes and opinions the Court can take on this particular issue. Please feel free to disagree or offer new thoughts/ideas about this case!

Sources and Recommended Reading

 

Hobby Lobby Contraceptive Case Goes Before Supreme Court- NPR
Religious Liberty is America's First Freedom- Rick Warren for The Washington Post
Obama Administration Suffers A Drubbing in Hobby Lobby Arguments- Forbes
Supreme Court Women Raise Questions on Contraception Coverage- Time

SB1062: A History

"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic." -Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

Today, Jefferson's quote is my guide post. My goal is to make myself more of an informed citizen and if you want to join me on that quest, you are welcome to come along for the ride.

I'm a knee-jerker. I often read one article, feel like I have the gist of the situation, and then proceed to form a staunch position on the subject. It's embarrassing, but I have a hunch that I'm not alone in this folly. After reading about Arizona's amendment to their Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I began to consider where I stood on the issue and how I would present my opinion to others. However, as is so often the case, the more I looked into the issue, the more I realized that my knowledge of the law in this instance was insufficient. The purpose of this post is to explain, as best I can, the legal history behind religious freedom that preceded Arizona's SB1062. I can't cover everything, but what I can do is try to summarize the important issues at stake.

For the sake of clarity, I am going to write this blog chronologically. I can't possibly cover everything and I am going to try and be both thorough and concise. However, I am going to link to as many sources as I can and if you find information that you think deserves consideration, let me know.

History of Religious Freedom:

The First Amendment grants Americans five basic freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Out of the five, the protection of religious liberty is given the longest treatment. This protection is made up of two clauses:

1. Establishment Clause- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
2. Free-Exercise Clause- "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

While there are a host of current debates surrounding the Establishment Clause, our current concern is the Free-Exercise Clause. Congress can't pass a law that limits the free exercise of religion. What in the world does that mean? The following examples are just a small sample of the types of questions that arise in an attempt to define the Free-Exercise Clause:

• Can a state pass a law that requires students to recite the pledge allegiance even if their religion prohibits that type of action? - West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
• Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a citizen who was fired in relation to her religious beliefs?- Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
• Can Congress pass a law requiring businesses to provide health coverage that includes services religiously opposed by the employer? - Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

For decades, the Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner was the standard and it provided an interpretational framework by which Congress and the states could determine whether or not their laws infringed upon someone's religious liberty.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Adele Sherbert

In Sherbert, the Supreme Court acknowledged that sometimes government must infringe upon a person's religious freedoms. However, the Court set forth very stringent guidelines as to when that action was acceptable. In what became known as the "Sherbert Test" the Supreme Court stated that only "the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation."

Furthermore, the Court stated that the government would have to demonstrate a "compelling interest" if they were to limit the free exercise of their citizen's religious beliefs. In this case, the Court ruled that denying Adele Sherbert benefits because she was fired from a job due to religious reasons was a violation of her First Amendment freedoms as it forced her to choose between practicing her religion and receiving state benefits.

This standard imposed a very strict test upon the laws passed by Congress and the states and was the established precedent until 1990.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

In this case, Smith and Black, Native Americans, were fired from their job at a drug rehabilitation clinic because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic substance, during a religious ceremony.  They applied for unemployment benefits through the state of Oregon and were denied due to the nature of their termination. They sued the state of Oregon and won. The Supreme Court's ruling greatly backtracked on the Sherbert ruling. Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia stated that while the government cannot ban an action based solely on religious considerations, but:

Antonin Scalia

The [Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.

Furthermore:

The [Sherbert] test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief. 

In short, as long as a law is not directed specifically to a religious practice, the law is valid even if it requires a citizen to act in a way that is contrary to their religious belief.

Sources:

Cornell Law

Oyez.com

Congress Responds and is Rebuffed

Following Smith, the United States Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The vote was unanimous in the House of Representatives and was opposed by only 3 Senators. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 16, 1993. Specifically, the law refuted Scalia's claim that religiously neutral laws did not deny a person's religious liberty. The law reinstated the Sherbert Test for both federal and state government.

In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the RFRA that applied to the states and in response, many states, including Arizona, passed their own version of the RFRA. SB1062 is a revision to Arizona's RFRA law that was passed in 1999.

Sources

City of Boerne v. Flores- 1996

The Difference Between "Is" and "Ought"

Of course just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it ought to be that way. I'll stop my history lesson here and I hope to have my personal perspective on SB1062 published soon. In the meantime, feel free to leave comments and feedback!

Sources and Recommended Reading

Supreme Court Cases on Religious Liberty- Find Law
Arizona's Religious Freedom Debate and the Sherbert Test- Constitution Daily
Was Vetoed Arizona Bill Misrepresented? What Constitutional Scholars Say- CSMonitor

Passing the Buck Professionally

There's been a lot of discussion recently about how much politicians know about the scandals that threaten their political career.

• Did President Obama know about the IRS targeting conservative groups?
• How extensive was President Obama's knowledge of the NSA's spying program?
• Was President Obama aware of the calamity surrounding Healthcare.gov?

And finally...

• Did Chris Christie know about the Washington Bridge lane closures?

It all becomes exhausting, really.

Some people will argue, "of course he knew," while others may shrug and choose to let the story unfold.  

What is all that scandalous about a corrupt politician anyway?

While I will certainly be waiting with baited breath to see the documents that supposedly prove that Christie was complicit in the Washington Bridge scandal, my thoughts have been focused on a larger question: why are politicians refusing to take responsibility for the mistakes that happen in their administration?

In 1945, Harry Truman popularized the phrase "the buck stops here." He was so committed to the concept that he was personally responsible for the actions of his White House, that he kept a sign on his desk with those words engraved as a reminder. In his farewell address in 1953, Truman said, ""The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job." Truman recognized that no one else could make the decisions that he made and therefore, no one bore the responsibility that he did. 

 That perspective seems rather quaint now. 

Over the past year, there has been a growing trend of leaders relying on the argument of "I didn't know!" when it comes to scandals in their administration. No personal responsibility is taken and guilt is passed down to their subordinates. The problem with this response is two-fold: it is not true leadership and it undermines the politician's credibility.

Leadership is about taking ownership. You don't become President of the United States or Governor of New Jersey by luck. You've spent time convincing your constituents that you have the vision and the ability to make the tough calls and usher in needed changes. Leadership is inspiring those who work and vote for you. Leadership is about simultaneously giving people an ideal to aspire to and being sympathetic and relateable. Leadership is not being so self-absorbed that you throw your loyal supporters under the bus when hard times arrive. Who wants to work for a guy like that? Furthermore, who wants to vote for a politician that apparently thinks more of his own well-being than that of the individuals who have devoted their time and energy into making his administration successful? It lacks character and it reveals a rather childish perspective on life.

Furthermore, passing the buck down to subordinates seriously undermines the credibility of the politician in power. When a politician asks me to believe that they didn't know what was going on with major sections of their administration, what they are really asking me to believe that they are an incompetent leader who shouldn't be trusted with power. You want me to trust you to oversee the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapon arsenal, but you were clueless regarding the problems with Healthcare.gov? You want me to trust you to bring crime down in a state rife with violence, but you were unaware of a plan to close the world's largest bridge? It's too much. You're asking me to believe in your ignorance on the one hand and your competence on the other. 

The problem, it seems, is that politicians are happy to take credit for the good in their administration but refuse to take responsibility for the negative. It's an immature way to function and it's a quality that I would prefer to not have in my politicians.

Sources and Recommended Reading

Chris Christie's Botched Attempt at Bridgegate Character Assassination- Business Week

Chris Christie's Office Targets Former Ally in a Memo - New York Times

What Didn't Obama Know and When Didn't He Know It- American Thinker

Sebelius: President Didn't Know of Obamacare Website Woes Beforehand- CNN

And there you have it...

Mitt Romney is not running for president in 2016. As I wipe away a tear (purely for sentimental reasons) I am forced to wonder if Damon Linker at The Week is correct: will Jeb Bush be the Republican nominee in 2016?

These are serious topics to ponder my friends. 

 That was a joke.

Sort of.

Mitt Romney: "I'm not running" in 2016- Politico
It's Over: Jeb Bush will be the GOP nominee in 2016- The Week

Memories with Mitt

I supported Mitt Romney for President.

I supported him when he dominated President Obama during the first presidential debate.

I supported him when he gave his bold and controversial speech at the NAACP.

And yes, I supported him when he introduced Paul Ryan as "the next President of the United States." A cringe inducing moment indeed.

In fact, it appears that a lot of people still support Mitt Romney. 

In a recent polling of New Hampshire voters, 25% answered that they were most likely to support Mitt Romney for president in 2016. Rand Paul and Chris Christie came in 2nd and 3rd with 18% and 17% support, respectively.

And it seems that this support is not limited solely to Republicans. In November, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that were the election held in November 2013, instead of November 2012, Mitt Romney would become president.

The numbers are quite interesting. In 2012, President Obama had an 11 point lead over Romney with women voters. In 2013, that lead diminished to 1%. Among young voters, President Obama's lead dropped from 18 points to 2.

Of course, these numbers don't mean a whole lot. The presidential election isn't being held this year and people are being asked a hypothetical question. What these numbers do show is that votes can change and voter's opinions can change.

I've spent the past year reflecting on the 2012 election and considering 2016. The Republican party failed Mitt Romney in 2012 and in order for us to meet with success in 2016, we have to be aware of our failures and move forward.

Ways We Failed Mitt

1. We bought into the lie that a candidate can and should have it all.

This is a larger problem within the Republican party as a whole. The Tea Party was enormously powerful in 2010 and it still has enormous power in the House of Representatives. Their power, however,  hasn't brought about change, it has brought about stagnation and fear. They've become the bullies of the Republican party and their attitude has impaired our ability to be pragmatic. Not every Republican looks the same and the Tea Party has acted in a way that demands conformity, or else. Conform, or we'll oust you in the next election. Conform, or we'll threaten to pull your funding. Conformity, not compromise has become the order of the day, and it is ruining our ability to win elections.

Ideology is great and is a necessity in politics, but to believe that one candidate will have a perfect ideology is bogus and to punish a candidate because he doesn't share every point of your ideology is fool-hardy and short-sighted.  

In regards to Mitt's candidacy, of course he was a flawed candidate, but so was Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich. Mitt took a lot of flak during the primaries for his evolving positions on political issues and the Republican party as a whole could never put those issues behind them and support a man who, at the end of the day, was incredibly qualified to be our nominee. If we as a party can't unify around a candidate, then we are sunk because, contrary to what MSNBC would have us believe, there is a lot of diversity in the Republican party. We've criticized the President and Democrats in Congress for refusing to compromise, but on this issue we're hypocrites. We demand compromise from our political opponents, we should also demand compromise from our allies.

2. We lost sight of the objective.

By demanding perfection, we diminished the reality that the goal is the White House. The goal is conservative Supreme Court nominees. The goal is a chance to reduce the deficit, pay down the debt, and better the lives of Americans by supporting businesses that put people back to work.

The old adage "don't miss the forest for the trees" is appropriate in this instance. In 2012, we became so focused on individual differences and discrepancies between ideologies and opinions, that we lost focus on the larger goal and the benefits that would come from attaining that goal.

3. We became irrational and illogical.

The basic tenets of federalism are the bread and butter of the larger Republican mindset. We love small government and we specifically love a small federal government. Our constant response to the over-reaching that comes out of Washington is "let the states decide!" Why then, did we castigate the former governor of Massachusetts for implementing a state-wide strategy to reform health care? He didn't push this idea on the nation and he did it with the support of his constituents. Isn't that what we want from government? Local solutions to local problems.

Why then, did we penalize a man for addressing the needs and wants of his constituents in a way that conforms to the larger Republican ideology of federalism? We castigated Romney as a fraud and a traitor, but he was modeling one of the principles that Republicans hold dear. It was irrational to think that just because the Democrats stated that ObamaCare was modeled after Romney's Massachusetts plan, that RomneyCare was something to be ashamed of. This was a knee-jerk reaction fueled by an anti-Obama sentiment that was so gripping it robbed us of the ability to be thoughtful and objective.

Looking to 2016

The Republican party is a fractured party that is being held hostage by the tension between the need for change and the status-quo. There are real problems that need to be addressed and, one way or another, some group is going to be left out. After considering the bitter defeat of 2012, I genuinely believe that in order for the GOP to survive, we have to learn to coalesce around our nominees. Let's fight it out in the primaries and support the candidate that we most agree with. When the fighting is done however, we need to learn to compromise and focus. It's the only path that leads us to the White House.


And yes, I am planning on watching Mitt's documentary this weekend. Watching and weeping for what might have been.

______________________________________

Sources and Recommended Reading

President Romney? Yes, If the Election Were Held Today
Mitt Romney is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner
7 Things We Learned from Mitt Romney's Sundance Doc
Despite Some Red Flags, 8 in 10 People Satisfied with Healthcare in Mass.
RomneyCare Facts and Falsehoods

Phil Robertson and Anti-Discrimination: A Case Study in Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot

This is a guest post written by Nathaniel Simmons
____________________________________________

Though it may not be popular, I think it will be helpful to start this post with a confession. I believe A&E has should have the right to fire Phil Robertson. I don’t fault them for that decision at all. But we should also learn a lesson from them: anti-discrimination laws are a shoe that doesn’t fit when they’re on the other foot.

A Quick Review 
In case you aren’t familiar with the story, Phil is the father of the Robertson family and one of the stars in the hit reality TV show called “Duck Dynasty.” The show is wildly popular in part for the zany antics of the Robertson family and in part because of the family values that characterize the show.

Phil recently got into some trouble over some remarks regarding homosexuality made during an interview with GQ magazine. A local newspaper in New Orleans summarized his most offensive remarks in the following paragraph.

"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine."  

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." (His comments about preferring heterosexuality over homosexuality, based on respective male and female anatomy, were pretty graphic.) 

The A&E network quickly responded to distance themselves from Phil’s comments. In a press release they stated,

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. (Quote taken from Al Mohler)

So, to make this long story short, A&E has fired, or at least temporarily suspended, Phil Robertson for clearly and publicly stating his religious and moral views concerning homosexuality.

Can they Do This? 
It seems to me that this could be the fodder for a rather tricky legal debate. Many people will suggest that this is a free speech issue and appeal to the First Amendment, however I think the First Amendment is only tangentially related. The real sticking point will be the anti-discrimination laws that began with Title VII of the Civil Rights act in 1964 and is still being debated with acts such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which essentially extends the protections of the Civil Rights Act to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people.

The reason that these laws appear to be relevant is because Phil Robertson is clearly being fired for expressing his religious views. As A&E made clear in their statement, they are supporters of the LGBT community and they believe that the religious convictions that he shared are offensive to that community. This is the reason they have fired him. However, anti-discrimination laws (EEO) make it illegal to take retributive action on someone because of his or her religious views.

The Shoe On the Other Foot 
I see a heaping dose of irony in this whole situation. The LGBT community has championed these anti-discrimination laws, particularly in the face of small businesses that refuse to participate in homosexual weddings. One recent example is the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because it violated his religious convictions. The Civil Rights Commission brought suit and a Colorado judge, Robert Spencer, found that Phillips was in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Phillips was put under a court order to bake the cake or face up to 12 months of jail time.

However, now A&E wants to discriminate against Robertson for the same reason Phillips wanted to discriminate against the homosexual couple. Phillips felt a responsibility to distance himself from a homosexual wedding, so he refused to produce a wedding cake that would promote, celebrate, and involve him with something he felt was immoral. Similarly, A&E feels the responsibility to distance themselves from someone who is religiously opposed to homosexuality. They do not want to produce a show that would promote, celebrate, or otherwise involve them with Phil Robertson's ideas. It’s the same shoe, it’s just on a different foot.

The Way Forward 
I am thankful for the progress that came with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think it was morally reprehensible to refuse a person dinner because of the color of their skin. However, I believe that today we are seeing that the Act, in its current form, is untenable. It is wrong to force a baker to be involved in something he believes is immoral, even if he is wrong. It’s would be just as wrong to require a company that is decidedly pro LGBT to produce and promote ideas that are contrary to their message.

Tolerance is a virtue. But tolerance isn’t accomplished by legally requiring everyone to promote the other side's ideas. Give the Colorado baker the freedom to bake cakes that don’t violate his conscience and give A&E the freedom to produce and promote shows and actors who don’t violate their conscience. Let’s trust progress to come through the conversation, not through forcing everyone to wear the same shoe.

______________________________
Sources and Suggested Reading:

Joe Carter, "Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality," The Gospel Coalition, December, 2013.

Ken Kewklowski, "Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same Sex Wedding Cake,"  Breitbart, December 2013.

Drew Magary, “What the Duck?,” GQ, January 2014.

Al Mohler, "You Have Been Warned: The Duck Dynasty Controversy", albertmohler.com December 2013.

Russell Moore, "Duck Dynasty?," Moore to the Point, December 2013.

James Poniewozik, “Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty,” TIME, Wednesday, December 18, 2014.