When friends disagree...

We had an interesting thing happen to us this week. I was going to blog about it when the first part happened but I am glad I waited because the ending was much different than I thought it was going to be.

P & I have these friends that we have known since college. (I've mentioned them before). We've been friends for over 15 years and they have been good friends, particularly in the past few years since my diagnosis. About 10 years ago they became b o r n a g a i n C h r i s t i a n s. (done that way to make it less search able). At first we were perplexed and shocked but over the years we've come to accept it. We have tried to not be judgemental but rather tolerant of their beliefs. They have never tried to push their beliefs on us. We've been to their church and actually enjoy the sermons given by their pastor. We've had some religious conversations but more on the philosophical side and some spiritual. We have, for the most part, stayed away from the "hot button" subjects.

This week that changed.

On Wed this week our friend K forwarded out an email requesting that we call our representatives in Congress to tell then to not support a certain bill. The email itself was not really inflammatory (although I disagreed with the opinion and actually supported the bill) but it was the fact that the original email came from a group called ~A m e r i c a n ~ F a m i l y ~ A s s o c i a t i o n~ . This group is a radical "~c h r i s t i a n~v a l u e s~" group.

We were shocked that he would be associated with such a group.

P called me when it came in and we discussed. P has had direct "conflict" with this group before through his work. They are not a nice organization and they are known for spreading fear, hatred, and intolerance. Anyway, he said he wasn't going to respond because he was going to give K the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, he sent it to us in error. He had never sent anything like this before. I, on the other hand, could not. After reading the bill, I realized that they were completely off base with their assessment. So, I sent a simple email to our friend K asking him if he had actually read the bill and saying that I didn't agree with the assessment. That was it...no attack, no asking him to not send me things like this, no judgement...

This is what I got back:

> So you agree that this overly burdensome reporting scheme is good for
> "grassroots" organizations? Why would larger firms with paid lobbies
> not have to do the same reporting on their activates? I believe, as
> does the A F A, that this is an attempt to silence opposing views to the

> larger well funded liberal voices setting public policy these days.
>
> Yes, I read the bill. As confusing as it is, ultimately I believe it
> will restrict organizations like the A F A who simply do not have the
> resources to manage the mountain of paperwork associated with this
> action. I also believe it infringes on the First Amendment rights of
> these organizations:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> Perhaps this will more every American from their complacency and serve

> as a "Call-to-Arms" to get involved with local, state, and national
> governance. Then again, maybe not! President Lincoln in the
> Gettysburg Address highlighted that the Civil War involved an even
> larger issue which we still deal with today. This he stated most
> movingly coining this phrase: "that we here highly resolve that these
> dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall
> have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the

> people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This bill
> is not "for the people."

My response to this when I forwarded it to my husband was a simple...WOW.

At this point, P could no longer just sit idly by. Now, he had to respond.

He sent the following:

> Yes, J and I agree that this amendment is good for all
> organizations. What this bill aims to do is close a loophole in
> existing federal lobbying regulations. Larger firms with paid lobbies

> are not exempted. This bill will actually tighten restrictions on
> paid lobbying activities as well. The portions of the bill being
> opposed are targeted to organizations that pay to influence more than
> 500 people and receive or spend more than $25,000 in a quarter on such

> activities. All not-for-profit organizations are required to submit
> certain reports regarding their activities including 990 reports,
> w-2's, 1099's to the IRS, and various other state and federal reports.

> Some reports are required for bureaucratic reasons and others are
> required for public disclosure so tax payers understand the finances
> and activities of the tax exempted organization. The reporting
> requirements in this bill are not onerous and are accomplished with a
> simple report to be filed quarterly. An organization that can afford
> to spend more than $25,000 in a quarter to lobby more than 500 people
> should not have difficulty fulfilling the requirements.
>
> As for rhetoric like "...well funded liberal voices setting public
> policy these days." I will only say that it has been the conservative

> party that has controlled the congress since 2002 and the White House
> since 2001.
>
> I don't believe that the proposed legislation has anything to do with
> silencing opposing views or free speech. Groups like the ~A F A should
> have no issue with public disclosure of their lobbying activities.
> The ~A F A~ though engages regularly in attempts to silence or shut down
> those with actual or perceived views opposite of theirs. This has
> been felt directly by myself and my colleagues when the ~A F A~ organized
> a campaign against us. Prior to that
> situation I was aware of the A F A ' s attempt to reduce N a t i o n a l
> E n d o w m e n t f o r t h e A r t s funding because of their opposition to various
> work partially funded by the N E A. While I could not more vehemently
> oppose the positions that the A F A takes on many issues I firmly
> believe they have the right to express those opinions even if they
> include the spread of fear, hatred, and intolerance. My prayer for
> A F A and other groups like them is that they use their gifts to promote

> peace, tolerance, and love in the true spirit of Christ.
>
> "Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody
> knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public
> places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means
> impropriety."
> -Woodrow Wilson
>
> "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of
> acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps,
> both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean
> to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which
> knowledge gives."
> -James Madison 1832
>
> James Madison and Woodrow Wilson saw the problems with secrecy in
> government and I'm sure Abraham Lincoln did as well. "We the people"
> should know from whom and for what our government officials are being
> lobbied. That should include all lobbying activity including
> "grassroots" lobbying.

I was so proud of him. I thought he pointed out the facts (and the fact that he felt that K was just blindly following them) but did not personally judge or attack K.

The first response from K was:

At this point we should just agree to disagree. I do not want to lose a friendship over a political issue.

P responded with a simple: Agreed.

The next morning (around 10ish) we received the following:

I was wrong.

After a more careful look at this bill it makes a lot of sense. And
while I believe there is some concern for the added burden placed on
small organizations, I agree transparency is always a good thing.

Sorry for ruffling your feathers.

We were shocked and moved. That was the friend we knew.

P responded:

It takes courage to say what you did so thank you. I'm glad you came
to your opinion based on a careful analysis. Spirited debate is
healthy and it's great that we share a passion for our country and
being involved citizens. Plus it's not often you will find an e-mail
thread with quotes from the First Amendment, James Madison, Woodrow
Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address :)

We have not heard from him again. I think all is going to be well and they are still our friends. It was just an eye opening experience.

I realized that there must be so many others like our friend K who just blindly follow what these groups say...without questioning.

I just do not understand how someone can not think for themselves...how they can not seek out all the information before making a judgement or decision.

Definitely a lesson.

Toodles.