Matt (00:00.626)
Hey everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It's so good to be with you this week. I'm your host, Matt, with me as always is Sean, and we're so excited to have Levi back. Levi, welcome back.

shawn (00:09.775)
Goat Levi the goat

Levi (00:11.616)
I'm excited too.

Matt (00:14.258)
Every time that Levi's on the show, Sean's a little bit happier. He loves all of our guest hosts, but he seems to love Levi just a little bit more.

Levi (00:23.63)
We got history. We got history, me and Sean.

shawn (00:23.953)
We were in the trenches. Yeah, we got history.

Matt (00:26.244)
Yeah, yeah, that's okay. Hey, I didn't like any of the comments this week listeners You should do better at writing comments because I liked zero of them So I'm not even gonna read them last week I read a stupid one just to get mad at people and this week I'm reading none of them because

shawn (00:41.169)
So by you not liking them, means that you just disagreed with what people said.

Matt (00:46.13)
They can do better, that's all. They can do better. Our listeners can write better comments. If you want to comment, step up your game. We don't just read any old comments just because you decide to write trash into our show. You gotta write good stuff worthy of our show, right Sean? Yeah.

shawn (01:01.657)
Yes, stop being dummies.

Levi (01:03.182)
That's a rigorous peer review process here. We take this seriously. We're not just three guys sitting in our various attics talking about nothing.

Matt (01:05.65)
Right.

Matt (01:14.502)
Right. We have a loyal audience. We have a loyal audience that demands better from you guys. Okay, but that's, go ahead and write. Like just because I don't like it enough to read it doesn't mean I don't want to hear from you. I love reading your garbage. But if you want me to read it, it's gotta be just a little bit better.

shawn (01:15.537)
Passionately.

shawn (01:29.581)
And it doesn't mean that when we read it, doesn't make us think. Like, at least me. At least me.

Matt (01:34.193)
Yeah, that's true. There's a weatherman here in Idaho Falls that I love. He's just so entertaining. He gives out his personal phone number and he says to the audience, just call me and leave a voice message. Tell me whatever you're angry about. And then people will leave him voicemail and he'll just play the voicemail on air as people complain about whatever they're angry about. And his name's Jeff Roper. I love Jeff, but

Like that sort of content's no good. I don't wanna hear it. Just here's people left angry voicemails on my machine. Like I'm not into that.

shawn (02:04.08)
There's a lot to unpack in the comment you just made, Matt. Like, the fact that you've reached the age where you have a favorite weatherman. This is so pathetic, man. Come on! We were on a mission together, dude. You were a cool young guy. You were cool young missionary, and now you have a favorite weatherman.

Matt (02:11.41)
I

Matt (02:15.41)
You

Matt (02:18.98)
If you don't have a favorite weatherman, you're not watching enough television, Sean. I don't know what you do with your time, but clearly you're not doing enough TV watching.

shawn (02:27.012)
Levi, your favorite weatherman?

Levi (02:27.694)
I have a list of the top five. They sometimes bump each other. You yeah, I keep a running list of my top five weathermen.

Matt (02:36.754)
All right, here's our first topic this week. Chick-fil-A is famous for closing on Sunday so workers can rest or worship. But recently the EEOC, that's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a government agency, says a worker told the company she could not work on Saturdays because of her religion. She is a member of the United Church of God, which observes the Sabbath on Saturdays. At first, the company allowed this, but later the company tried to schedule her on Saturdays.

The EEOC says the company offered her a lower paying job if she wanted to keep Saturdays off. She refused and was fired. So the EEOC has filed a lawsuit in federal court and wants the company to pay the worker for lost wages and other damages. It also wants the court to stop the company from future religious discrimination. So here's the question. Is this Chick-fil-A franchise denying their or are they infringing on their employees first amendment rights to practice freedom of religion?

shawn (03:36.816)
Man, I had to do a little research into the EEOC, Matt. What do think my opinion would be of the EEOC?

Matt (03:40.828)
Okay.

Matt (03:44.882)
You don't like him because they're a government agency.

shawn (03:47.76)
I don't dislike all government agencies, but the nature of the EEOC, like take a guess. I don't know. Why? Yeah, that's what I want to do that. Why?

Matt (03:53.895)
I love the EEOC. They're there to make sure that companies don't violate people's constitutional rights.

shawn (04:01.584)
So was on their website and they have updates on the latest actions that they take. Do know what the most, the latest one they took was? I did see that there's a little reference to that, but there is a $21 million reward for anyone at Columbia University who felt discriminated against, any Jewish students.

Matt (04:07.876)
It's not this Chick-fil-A one.

Matt (04:26.29)
Well, that's because the head of the EEOC was appointed by Trump. And so in the Trump administration, the EEOC is targeting religious violations of religious freedom. Under the Biden administration, they would target probably more affirmative action or racial, like if you're discriminating based on a minority status. But the Trump administration wants to focus on violations of religious freedom.

shawn (04:44.537)
Okay, so.

shawn (04:48.858)
So this is kind of before, I'm sorry, I'm not dodging the question, but so you like that there's an agency out there who has this vast power that will, depending on the administration in charge, will use it for their various, I guess, beliefs?

Matt (04:52.071)
No, it's okay.

Matt (05:05.81)
I think that there are a lot of people like say, let's say Sean, work at Chick-fil-A and they do something that violates your rights. It's going to be costly for you to go get an attorney to fight them in court to try to protect your rights. So I'm okay with there being a government agency that says we're going to look out for the rights of workers.

shawn (05:18.499)
OK, all right.

shawn (05:22.626)
Interesting. Well, I guess to answer the question. So your question specifically is, is Chick-fil-A franchise denying infringing on the employees first amendment freedom to practice religion rights?

Matt (05:33.178)
Yes, I'm making them work on Saturdays.

shawn (05:38.001)
I got a guess, my first guess would be this, for every one of these stories, my guess would be there are another 20 where employer and employee are cordial to each other and they can work that out. Like it's odd to me that they couldn't solve that. So to me, it's probably not the most common practice. Yeah, I think it's a failure on Chick-fil-A's end to be like, no, we won't accommodate this. We will accommodate.

Matt (05:54.31)
Yeah.

shawn (06:05.038)
those of our own religion. mean, on the one hand, I'm like Libertarian and I'm like, they're private company. can do whatever they want. I don't care. But on the other hand, I'm like, yeah, but don't be dumb with it. Like be smart and offer the same blessings to everyone. So yeah, I see it both sides, I guess. How do you see it, Matt, Levi?

Matt (06:23.824)
What do you say Levi?

Levi (06:26.731)
Chick-fil-A franchises or they their franchises, right? So this is some individual chick-fil-a Somebody yeah, probably just somebody did it did it bad. I Yeah, yeah, it just it seems like a shame. Is it a big? Yeah, I sometimes I think I don't know why I Don't know if it still serves us to treat religion so Special so uniquely right that like what if somebody just had

Matt (06:30.96)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

shawn (06:31.246)
Yeah, correct. Yeah.

Levi (06:56.488)
They their family just got together on Saturdays and they that's just their tradition. Could we make it you know, could we make a space for that as well? I don't know like is religion still need to be super special. The thing that. No, this is Matt. Why is religion special yeah?

Matt (07:07.994)
No, no, it's Levi.

shawn (07:08.964)
No, think...

Matt (07:12.938)
of the thing that's in the First Amendment. The First Amendment says it's special. That's being like, why do we have to treat speech so special? Because it's in the First Amendment. Speech is special.

Matt (07:26.746)
Well, well this is what I say. I say the US Constitution limits the ability of the federal government to do things that violate a person's freedom of religion. And then after the 14th Amendment, the courts have held that the First Amendment applies to states. But nowhere does it say the Constitution applies to private businesses. And so if I own a business and I want to violate your freedom of religion,

shawn (07:26.864)
Commencement.

Matt (07:55.012)
I have every right to do that as a private business in the United States.

shawn (07:56.858)
Okay, my first libertarian feeling was the correct one.

Matt (08:01.722)
I don't know if that's correct. I don't know what that means, but,

shawn (08:04.164)
I believe you. I believe you on this because I'm on the fence and so I usually will tilt to one of your sides and it makes sense.

Matt (08:08.864)
I see what saying. Yeah, well, so again, if I want to like, if I want to say at Advance Auto Parts, we only serve Catholics, I can do that. If I want to say we only serve people that have shirts and shoes, we can do that. If I want to say we can only serve men, we can do that. Like this idea that the Constitution should apply to private businesses, private organizations is very, very recent, like the last 50 years. And I don't think it's consistent with the founding principles of the nation.

shawn (08:22.564)
Yeah, I agree.

Matt (08:38.0)
And I think that to the extent that we want to try to say the Constitution applies to every person and every business, we risk losing the value of our democracy. Like the idea that you can like pass laws to force other people to do things you don't want them to do is a really dangerous thing and sort of anti-democratic to me.

shawn (08:58.032)
Okay Levi, he's thoroughly convinced me, but I haven't heard your side yet, because I don't think you're going to agree with him. Or maybe you are.

Levi (09:02.312)
Yeah, no, no, I like that too. Yeah, I guess I guess I'll go with that. I mean, it's is it a dumb thing for this chick-fil-a to do? Sure. Right. Like my religion special and your religion's not. That's that sort of sucks. But do we need the government to step in and stop that? I guess I'm yeah, I'll go with Matt on that. We don't necessarily need the government to step in. And yeah, I wish Chick-fil-A would stay out of politics. But yeah.

shawn (09:28.238)
Well done, Matt. didn't think you'd take that stance. I didn't think you'd take that stance, Matt, but you convinced me. You get the points.

Matt (09:35.283)
Where it gets dicey is when we start talking about could I fire someone because of their race? And we have federal laws that say you can't, right? We do say you can't hire and fire on the basis of those things, but you should be able to have your own policies. Like if I wanna say we're gonna be closed on Sunday, so everybody has to work on Saturday, I should be able to say that as a business. And you know that coming in when you take the job.

shawn (09:42.382)
Yeah.

shawn (10:01.968)
You good with that Levi?

Levi (10:03.476)
Well, but that was part of my issue with this is that it is a shame to pull the rug out from somebody. Like it sounds like in this situation, they were doing okay. They were giving her Saturdays off and then suddenly said, whoop, not anymore. And that's, that's kind of too bad. I mean, they should have a real conversation about that. They should say, Hey, you know, I know we've been allowing this, but things have changed and we need to make a, yeah.

Matt (10:20.112)
Yeah.

shawn (10:29.54)
Yeah, Matt, we don't know the details, right? On the face of it, if this is a good employee and a good employer, there's got to be some details in there that we don't know about. In the end, terrible PR move to me. Like give them the Saturday off. What are you talking about? Like it would have been a great branding and PR move for them to do that. And it would have been kinder to the person.

Matt (10:47.602)
If I

If I had to guess based on the context, Chick-fil-A probably has some policy that like if you're a manager, you're salaried and you have to come in on Saturdays to cover shifts when people call off or something like that. And they probably said something to this person, like, if you want to make sure you always have Saturdays off, you have to be one of these hourly employees and not a manager. My guess is it's something like that. Yeah.

shawn (11:06.714)
That's right. That's right. Yeah, that makes sense. Now that's very pragmatic.

Levi (11:10.922)
Yeah. Now we could talk more about... Go ahead, Sean. Yeah, very pragmatic.

shawn (11:16.324)
was a man that was very pragmatic thinking of you. Well done.

Matt (11:19.026)
Thank you. All right, let's...

Levi (11:19.806)
Yeah, we could talk at some point about this idea that the only government needs constraints because I know I've made this point before that like economic power is power and it corrupts just like political power. So I do I do see a problem with you know, where we're constantly watching out making sure that government doesn't overrun anything. And then we just throw our hands up at businesses. We just sort of wink at all the all the abuses that businesses are about.

Matt (11:49.713)
Yeah, I think I probably should have been more, I should have been more specific in like what I was saying. So I'm not saying that governments should not be able to pass laws that tell businesses what they can and can't do. Clearly they do that all the time. I'm opposed to somebody saying the U S constitution protects me from a business doing that. So if you want to change laws and say like Chick-fil-A has to protect people's religious liberties when they're, when they're making schedules, pass that as a law.

Levi (11:50.309)
yeah.

Levi (12:05.598)
Mm-hmm.

Matt (12:17.5)
But the courts and the constitution isn't the way to have that fight.

shawn (12:20.57)
Hmm. that's good. That's clear.

Levi (12:22.762)
Well, I'd imagine the EEOC was established. Oh yeah, okay. EEOC was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So of course the Republicans hate it. No, but...

shawn (12:31.781)
That's right,

Matt (12:32.082)
Mm-hmm.

Well, no, the Republicans are using it right now.

shawn (12:36.154)
They're using it. Yeah, they're embracing it and using it.

Matt (12:41.915)
Right.

Levi (12:42.462)
Yeah, okay. Okay, wink, wink. are, yeah.

shawn (12:42.724)
But Matt Levi, you had popped out for a minute. Levi, you, no, no, no, you popped out for a minute and I asked Matt, I said, what is the, I read the history of the EEOC and in the end, Matt's answer was fascinating to me. Yeah, you missed it. He said, basically, look, when the Trump administration has an agenda of, on the face of protecting religious rights, they use the EEOC to protect religious rights. Whereas under the Biden administration, it's all about DEI. And so I asked Matt, I'm like, really? Isn't this an example of a terrible?

Government organization with too much power because it can just go from one administration to the other they can use it However, they want and Matt defended it, but that's there That's right Levi if you like the EEOC to protect DEI rights under a Democrat Then you should be okay with a Republican using it to protect religious rights,

Matt (13:18.086)
Yeah.

Levi (13:29.578)
Well, they're never protecting religious rights, but yeah, but yeah, I mean, they're like, you protect people who don't punch down is the principle, right? Don't say we're the dominant religion in this country. 65 % of the country belongs to this religion and lo, look, aren't we so poor and abused by everybody? That's dumb. Don't do that.

shawn (13:38.032)
So the latest.

shawn (13:51.217)
So Levi, I went on their website and I read the latest updates. The latest update is this, Columbia University begins payout of a $21 million EEOC settlement for discrimination against their Jewish students.

Matt (14:04.806)
Yeah, Levi, they're not punching down. 
Matt (15:00.594)
All right. All right. So next topic, the courts are making it harder to use race when drawing election maps. This matters because the Voting Rights Act has often been used to help minority voters have a fair chance to elect candidates they support. Yet recent research shows that minority representation might still be protected if partisan gerrymandering were stopped. Partisan gerrymandering means one political party draws maps to help itself win more seats.

Levi (15:03.05)
you

Matt (15:28.742)
But recent research shows that the Voting Rights Act isn't needed for minority representation in the South if partisan gerrymandering were checked. The problem is that partisan gerrymandering is often allowed in federal court. The Supreme Court has said federal courts generally cannot decide partisan gerrymandering claims. That can make it easier for politicians to draw maps that help their party, even if those maps also hurt minority voters. So here's the question. We talked before about the Voting Rights Act and

racial gerrymandering, but how about this? Is partisan gerrymandering morally wrong?

shawn (16:04.41)
So need a little help, Matt. I'm an idiot, and I need a little bit better disk. Help me understand this more. What's the difference between partisan gerrymandering and regular gerrymandering?

Matt (16:08.241)
okay.

Matt (16:13.626)
Okay, so in the state of Utah, let's just say about 40 % of voters are Democrat and about 60 % of voters are Republicans. But the state of Utah is mostly controlled by Republicans in the House, the Senate and the governorship. And so when they decide they get four people to go to the House of Representatives, and when the state of Utah draws up the boundaries to decide which person represents which district in the state of Utah, they draw them in such a way

that it divides that 40 % that are Democrat into districts where they're always gonna be 30%, 40 % and never really have a chance to win. Whereas they could just say, look, all the Democrats live in Salt Lake City, let's just let Salt Lake City have its own district and then there'll be these other three districts for the voters. So you could do it geographically where you're just trying to like create districts that are like representative of a geography, but parties tend to say, let's draw it up in such a way.

shawn (17:02.928)
Yeah.

Matt (17:11.11)
that maximizes the vote for our own party so that we get more of our own party in the house and fewer of the other party in the house.

shawn (17:18.608)
But all of that is just gerrymandering, right? It's not political gerrymandering or partisan gerrymandering. What's the difference?

Matt (17:22.374)
Well, it's called partisan. So, yeah, so when that went to the Supreme Court, some people said, hey, this isn't fair. They're drawing boundaries in a way to make it so say Democrat voters don't count as much. And the Republicans in this particular case said, I feel like the most important thing in drawing a boundary is to benefit Republicans. And so that's the way we're going to draw them. And the Supreme Court has said, if you want to draw a boundary in a way to benefit your own party, that's fine. And so that's partisan gerrymandering. When a party says,

Levi (17:37.715)
you

Matt (17:51.869)
we're gonna draw the boundaries in a way just to benefit our own party. The courts have said that's okay. But if they were to say we're gonna... Well, some gerrymandering is okay and some gerrymandering is not okay.

shawn (17:58.001)
Thought that was just gerrymandered.

shawn (18:03.566)
Like what's an example of a not good gerrymandering? That's not okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. I see. Okay. So partisan gerrymandering is just if you're basing it on political maneuvering, but anything else, if you're trying to eliminate the rights of black people, wrong and unconstitutional and illegal. Got it. Okay. So what's the question?

Matt (18:07.534)
say we want to have all white people then

Matt (18:16.402)
party.

Matt (18:22.894)
Illegal. Yeah.

So the research says that if all you did in the South is get rid of partisan gerrymandering, you would get rid of all the other problems with gerrymandering too. Like you wouldn't have to worry about creating majority minority districts because 98 % of black people vote Democrat. So if I'm a Republican, I can just say, I'm trying to advantage the Republicans and in so doing, I'm also disadvantaging black people in the South. So they're like, if you just said partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional,

then you get rid of all of these other problems that are happening.

shawn (18:57.791)
I see. Okay, okay, okay.

Levi (18:58.218)
It doesn't even have to be unconstitutional. It could just be illegal. We could just pass a regular law that says, we don't even have to amend the Constitution. We can just say...

Matt (19:01.488)
Yeah,

shawn (19:07.364)
Both of you defend Jerry, maybe not defend gerrymandering, but you've justified gerrymandering in the past. Is that not right?

Matt (19:13.628)
Well, so the question is, partisan gerrymandering, is drawing up the district just to benefit one party instead of another an immoral thing to do?

shawn (19:21.616)
Which to the layman like I'm the idiot layman. That's to me what gerrymandering has always been I've never considered that there's someone evil enough to sit down and go let's draw lines to disenfranchise a Mexican person or a black person like to me that is so ridiculous and stupid that to me it just doesn't exist. So when you differentiate between partisan gerrymandering and regular gerrymandering it blows my mind.

Matt (19:47.716)
I see. Well, that's because I, yeah, I'm a political scientist.

Levi (19:49.63)
I think that distinction is only important when they're trying to skirt around the civil rights legislation, right? So, I mean, they don't care. Like they really are probably just doing this in a partisan way, but then somebody brings up a challenge and says, hey, you know, I don't know why you drew these maps, but the way you've drawn these maps,

shawn (20:00.494)
Yeah. Yeah.

Levi (20:16.318)
black people aren't going to get the representation in Congress that they ought to have. And so let's fix this. And then the Republicans come back and say, that wasn't, there's nothing racial about it. It was just partisan. And so that's, that's where they draw the distinction. Yeah.

shawn (20:21.946)
just despite your motive like

Matt (20:30.148)
Mm-hmm.

shawn (20:30.19)
Which is why, Matt, you're asking the question so that no one can use the partisan excuse anymore for whatever motive they've got. Your question is, should we make that illegal?

Matt (20:39.76)
Or is it immoral? Is it an immoral thing to do? Levi, you're going to say gerrymandering is—partisan gerrymandering is immoral?

shawn (20:41.56)
is immoral.

Levi (20:47.455)
Yeah, of course. Yeah, I think we all are right. Do any of us think partisan gerrymandering is a moral thing to do?

Matt (20:50.595)
No.

Matt (20:54.939)
I do, yeah.

shawn (20:56.654)
Why?

Levi (20:57.418)
Because you think that, I mean, I could see that you, you know, pay less attention to the partisan nature because you want districts to be compact or because you want districts to be competitive. I could see those things, but I can't see, I don't know. So I can't see intentionally trying to gerrymandering, calling that a good thing. Do you?

Matt (21:18.524)
Well, I would say it's not immoral is what I would say. I would say that every single state boundary was drawn up for political reasons. Every single thing we have in the United States of America was done for political reasons. And so for me to say partisan gerrymandering is immoral, I have to go back and say all of these other things are immoral too. Like everything we've ever done, the state's rights that we do, like everything in the Constitution.

is done for political advantage of one side versus the other. so to me, it's not the end result. Partisan gerrymandering to me is focusing on the wrong thing. It's focusing on this end result. And it doesn't really matter in the end. It doesn't matter if in the state of Utah, those 40 % of Democrats never get to have someone represent them in the House of Representatives. What matters is are the elected officials going to be responsive to their constituents? That's the moral question, not how did they draw up the boundaries to get there?

So I don't think drawing up boundaries to give yourself an advantage over somebody else is a moral or an immoral thing to do. It's just the natural thing to do. It's the logical, reasonable thing to do that you would try to create a district that makes you a safe elected seat. So.

shawn (22:32.848)
Wow, that's blowing my mind right now.

Levi (22:35.711)
What so but do you is it immoral to draw so safe seats as one is another reason that people gerrymandered right is to is to draw a district that they can't lose So we'll give you Democrats one that you can't lose and here you Republicans one that you can't lose Instead of making two districts that could potentially be lost Is that immoral Matt? I mean it seems like that makes That makes him less responsive. Do you think does that make?

Matt (22:59.26)
So

Matt (23:04.498)
Yeah, so the question is, the question is responsive to who, right? I think that, I think that it's actually, I'm not afraid of having elected officials who sit in that seat for 20 years, 30 years. In my district in the state of Idaho, our member of Congress has been in his seat for probably 30 years and could stay in there until the day he dies. But that doesn't mean he's not responsive to what we want as voters.

Levi (23:05.194)
Does that make representatives less responsive?

Levi (23:10.921)
Mm-hmm.

shawn (23:24.336)
Jeez. Jeez.

Matt (23:30.512)
And that doesn't mean making him like fight every two years in a primary election or something like that, or in some competitive race is going to make him a better representative. So I think it's actually fine that they draw boundaries in a way to keep their seats safe because it allows, in my opinion, it allows members of Congress to focus on long-term goals and long-term objectives and not worry about the whims of the voters every two years, which I know sounds bad, but it's helpful.

shawn (23:55.854)
Wow.

Matt (23:59.429)
It's like a president can only be there for eight years. And if I'm a member of Congress and I know that I've got a 30 year spot, I don't have to worry about what Trump says or what he might do because if I'm in a safe place, I don't have to worry about him coming in and trying to get me voted out in the next election.

shawn (24:14.532)
So, so Matt, you're judging as gerrymandering as something that's not immoral. Do you feel like it's the best way to? Okay, okay. Okay, sweet.

Matt (24:23.214)
No. No. But I don't know that there's a better way.

shawn (24:28.144)
Well, if there's not the best way, then there is a better way.

Matt (24:31.218)
I mean there's other options you could do but they all have their negatives that go along with them.

shawn (24:35.35)
Levi, Levi, what would you do if jerrymandering is, partisan jerrymandering is immoral? How would you organize it?

Levi (24:44.223)
Well, the mathematicians would do it. You make these nonpartisan, like you get these wonks out here that say, okay, they've got all these metrics. Sean, you should look at these websites like gerrymandered.princeton.edu has all these, all these metrics and they're drawing there, like they read them by compactness and they read them by competitiveness and they draw a million different maps and they say, okay, what would these like they, they seriously have computers draw a million maps. And then they say, okay, so

Matt (24:57.788)
Sure.

Levi (25:13.226)
What how does this compare how does this existing map compare to these other maps you just have the mathematicians do it You just say here's the criteria make them competitive make them

shawn (25:18.832)
But Matt...

Levi, can you remove, can you remove like what ulterior motive or what secret motive or what motive is is is behind drawing the math just doesn't answer. You have to have some reason or purpose for

Matt (25:33.2)
Right.

When Levi says, let's have the mathematicians do it. We know what that means is that's artificial intelligence is going to do it. And that's going to take all that GIS software and you're going to tell it the parameters you care about. And then it's going to create it for you. And I don't think that's better than having people where I know what their motives are, have them do it.

Levi (25:54.964)
We don't have to AI do it. We can just have mathematicians do it, and they'd do a great job.

Matt (25:58.07)
You

shawn (25:59.451)
But what's the motive that the mathematicians who are, is it, what parameters, motive parameters are they putting in there? What's the principle behind how to draw a fair line?

Levi (26:07.826)
Yeah, we want we want and I and I disagree with matt here. I want competitive districts, right? I want I want people that have to listen to their constituents or they're going to lose their next election so competitive districts and know and and I do want states to to Approximately, you know show up with the right number of members of each party. Yeah

Matt (26:31.75)
What about race? What about race and gender and sexual orientation?

Levi (26:39.403)
Yeah, do I want race to matter more than I guess I do want race to matter but just because of our history in this country I guess I don't care about that forever necessarily Well gender and Jen people tend to like air are there gender imbalances? They're probably very few districts or counties that have gender imbalances. Are there right? Are there more ladies in New York, maybe I don't know where do all where do all the

Matt (26:48.006)
gender?

gender?

Levi (27:06.942)
Where is there gender imbalance? What city has a gender imbalance?

Matt (27:07.356)
Well, there's there's certainly electorates that are there are certainly electorates that have historically been more open to vote, electing women to office than not electing women to office.

Levi (27:16.99)
Mm-hmm. Yeah. I don't care who is the representative I see I think that the metric that we should be looking at like especially when we talk about race is we like the question to ask is If I'm an average black voter, what's the frack? What's the what's the probability that I will be represented by somebody that I voted for and if that's significantly lower than the Than the probability for for somebody who's white

Matt (27:22.674)
Mm-hmm.

Levi (27:46.084)
I think that's the metric we should sort of be trying to measure. But I don't care who they...

Matt (27:49.852)
Then shouldn't we be redrawing state boundaries Levi? Because the state is where that matters the most, the Senate.

shawn (27:53.936)
Levi (27:56.05)
Yeah, should we be retro yeah should California be three states yeah it should yeah should Puerto Rico be a state yes should.

Matt (28:01.83)
Right, well, so what I'm...

shawn (28:04.048)
Should the South look completely different than it is today?

Levi (28:07.914)
Should Montana and Wyoming be one state? Yeah. North and South Dakota? Why do need two Dakotas? You don't need two Dakotas. One Dakota's enough.

Matt (28:10.982)
Did you know that there are

shawn (28:14.522)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Matt (28:17.258)
The smallest state when the US Constitution was ratified was, I think it was Rhode Island, and they had, I think it was 3 % of the US population at the time. We have somewhere in the realm of 24, 25 states right now that have smaller than 3 % of the US population. So most states in the United States are smaller in population than the smallest state was back in the day. So there are a lot of people that get way more representation in the Senate.

than they would have at the founding of the nation. But the reason I mention that is just to say like every single boundary we have benefits some people more than it benefits other people. And I think it's immoral to try to say we're gonna draw boundaries in a way to try to make sure that everybody's voice is equally represented because that's not the system we have. If we want that system, then we need to just change the whole constitution into a totally different system.

shawn (29:13.288)
this is an amazing discussion, man.

Levi (29:14.89)
I don't think we need to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we can say, okay, here's where we are now. Within these constraints, let's do it a little bit better. Let's do a 10 % better.

Matt (29:27.164)
All right, I'll give you the points Levi. I'll give you the points for that. I'll give Sean the points too, Sean. Yeah, okay. All right Levi, it's time for your question.

Levi (29:31.74)
I also liked your

Yeah.

shawn (29:38.398)
boy.

Levi (29:38.99)
right. Okay. So we had a couple that we wanted to talk about, you guys read an article or an excerpt from an article about Pride Month. This was a couple of weeks back. And they use the phrase biological parents, which always just boils my blood, this phrase. I have an adopted daughter who's not a biological relation to me. And when people come with this phrase, like that it's important that children be raised by their biological parents,

I get angry at that because I feel like they're saying that I am less her dad or she's less my daughter because we're not biologically related. I mean, we are sealed by the priesthood. She is legally my daughter. And so if you come at me with this biological parent to tell me that she's not my daughter, you're going to come back with a stump. Don't do that. And so my question is, I know that the

Matt and Sean, you both have experience in your family with adoption. I'm interested to hear your experiences. And then I guess the question would be, to which circle of hell will God send those who insist that biological parents are better than adoptive parents?

Matt (30:55.708)
Well, just to be clear, think people misread the Proclamation to the World on the Family because I don't think it says in there anywhere that biological parents are better than not biological parents, right? Yeah, so I think that this is a mistake that members of our church commonly make where they say, look, biology matters. And I think it's probably because they're trying to find a logical reason why same-sex couples

shawn (31:08.688)
Correct. It does not say that.

Matt (31:25.5)
don't make as good of parents as heterosexual couples. But there's no evidence to support that idea.

shawn (31:32.484)
And Levi, I honestly have never heard a member of our church make that argument. And maybe I'm ignorant. I've never heard it. again, I live in California, so maybe that is...

Matt (31:37.665)
I f-

I've heard general authorities make that argument. That's why I don't want to talk about what circle of hell they'll go to because I don't want to like criticize it. But yes, general authorities have said that.

Levi (31:48.586)
Well, they won't say it to me because I'm heterosexual. They won't say to me because I'm married to a woman. they and so but I don't like them using it against you know, I don't like them using that phrase to exclude anybody. I feel excluded by it and I and I don't like them excluding gays with it either.

shawn (31:50.863)
Like.

shawn (32:08.816)
I mean, it's a hard argument to make in the church, right? The whole nature of Christ's church family is half at least through adoption, right? There's the chosen people who live in the covenant and the idea at one point for people was, well, if you're not a member of the family, then you're not in it. But then Christ threw that completely away and said, no, no, adoption into the house of Israel is the point. Like we're all a member of the family. There's no.

Matt (32:32.39)
Yeah.

shawn (32:35.674)
So I mean, in principle, at least, there's no leg to stand on in the church for anyone to make that argument.

Matt (32:40.722)
I recently became an empty nester. And so I'm at this stage of life where I sort of look back and like we had really hard times when the kids were at home and they're out of the house now. And I'm sort of enjoying having them not around. And it's not to say we won't have our problems in the future, but like this was just maybe it was actually just yesterday. I was sitting in the temple, just thinking about how happy I am about my life and my kids and all of that stuff. And I realized like every single one of my children is a miracle.

shawn (32:46.224)
with success.

shawn (33:03.258)
Good man.

Matt (33:07.312)
My wife was only ever pregnant one time and that's with our daughter. And our sons always say like, she's the miracle baby. But the truth is each of our sons that we adopted were all miraculous processes. We didn't have the money to adopt them. We didn't have the knowledge. didn't have like everything about adopting our three sons was a miracle. And so I just say, it's kind of like in the scriptures where it says, what God hath put together, let no man divide asunder.

Levi (33:16.842)
You

Matt (33:35.185)
I think that that's the same, like it doesn't matter that two people come together and choose to get married, they become a family. It doesn't matter how the family comes to be. When God puts a family together, they're a family forever. And we should not criticize or judge or feel like we have any right to decide how the family comes together and how that matters. Because God put my family together and whether, for them, I agree with you Levi, for someone to imply that biology matters.

Sure, like there's times when I wish that my kids understood me a little bit better. And I think if there was some more biology, maybe that would help. But it doesn't matter in any kind of like meaningful eternal way.

shawn (34:16.9)
Levi, you, and the question is based in, I mean, you recognize there's other reasons people may give for, I guess, arguing against gay marriage in general, but you're saying that this obviously, this obvious, there's no leg to stand on for this biological argument, not even close.

Levi (34:38.258)
Yeah, I do think that they that they end up backing themselves into a corner and they they say well, I mean we need to preserve Heterosexually heterosexual marriages and the question is why and then they say well because they can You know, that's where children get raised and then somebody says yeah But I my neighbors have you know two dads and they seem to be doing just fine and so then you know then you got to bring in biology to like

back out this conclusion that you wanted to reach, which is that only heterosexual marriages need protection or need state sanction. Yeah. I don't think that they believe the biology thing either. I just want people to know that it hurts my feelings. But I don't like them using it to exclude anybody else. But also, yeah, stop it. I hate when you do that. Don't do that. Listeners, stop it. Don't do it.

shawn (35:27.44)
Yeah.

Matt (35:28.05)
You

Matt (35:34.26)
You

Matt (35:38.707)
So I have this weird thing. I collect old LDS scholarship that's really, really bad. And because I just love it. And so there's this book, it's on my shelf back there. It's called Mormonism and the Negro. And it was published in the 1960s. And it's these two BYU scholars. they say, on this question of race and the priesthood,

shawn (35:55.152)
Go!

Levi (35:56.286)
Mmm.

shawn (35:59.629)
no.

Matt (36:07.282)
there are only these three logical options. And we don't like this option and we don't like this option because we don't think that they make sense. And so we're gonna argue for, we're gonna try and take on this question of why theologically black people don't have the priesthood. And so they go through and they basically make the argument that black people must have been less righteous in the pre-mortal life. Otherwise they couldn't possibly have this particular situation today. And there's a number of things like that, but that's just the one that I...

shawn (36:27.672)
jeez.

Matt (36:35.664)
It's a short little book and I like to show it to my students sometimes when I don't think it will offend them. Just to remind people that like when we try to make sense today of some policy that's happening today and we're up against like an infinite being, God, who knows everything, like beginning, now and the future. And we want to try to like defend his policies or defend whatever's happening in a way that makes sense in like arguments with friends or whatever. We're going to always come up short.

And I think what I would say to people is God doesn't need you to defend his policies. I don't see president Oaks up there defending the policies. They don't even tell you about him anymore. They just publish them in the online thing and that's it. Like if they don't need to defend the policies, then we don't need to defend the policies. God doesn't need us to go tell the world why all of this stuff makes sense. It just is what it is and we just need to be okay with it.

shawn (37:05.316)
Wow.

shawn (37:22.455)
Wow.

shawn (37:30.114)
Wow, Matt, you're blowing my mind. That's amazing what you just said. I gotta think about that a lot. That's incredible.

Matt (37:37.316)
I think we get in a lot of trouble when we try to use logic to make sense of things that are happening in the church right now. Because I don't know do you think about that Levi?

Levi (37:49.098)
My okay, I to think about how much I I want to say here I it is it I am NOT comfortable in I mean I'm comfortable with some uncertainty But I'm not comfortable with somebody that says that's the policy You just shut up about it. Like I don't I don't like that at all. And and and I do I do want to probe the mind of God

and get to know what's he thinking? What are they thinking? That's an important question for me. And that doesn't mean I have to, yeah, that doesn't mean I have to kick against the pricks or anything, but I do like to ask those questions.

shawn (38:26.0)
Kind of a Grooves Levi, man.

Matt (38:29.542)
I'm not saying you...

shawn (38:29.616)
Kind of agree with Levi.

shawn (38:35.088)
Matt, the scriptures often refer to the fact that there are eternal truths that are mysteries, but that does say if you diligently seek, the mysteries of God will be revealed to you. So if we diligently seek the word of God and we pray and fast and we diligently seek, the scriptures themselves say the mysteries can be revealed. I don't know, Matt. I love what you said. I really love what you said, but I also think that I love what Levi said. I don't know, man. don't think God has commanded us to

Matt (38:55.142)
No way. No way.

shawn (39:04.41)
diligently seek him. He says he will not upbraid when we need wisdom. He will not make fun of us and he will be liberal in his answers to us. So if I really deeply want to understand the priesthood ban, I think it's possible.

Matt (39:17.828)
I didn't say you can't ask the question. What I said is God doesn't need me to defend him. That's what I said. Sean. Yeah.

Levi (39:21.108)
Yeah, yeah.

shawn (39:23.28)
What about the Bible that says, hold on, hold on, contend for the faith? Paul says, contend for the faith.

Levi (39:25.138)
Yeah, that is different. That's true.

Matt (39:31.987)
Preach nothing but repentance, Sean. Preach nothing but repentance. Look, there are people who have a role to defend policy. President Oaks, the Quorum of the Twelve, maybe even the Seventy, they have an obligation to help people understand policy. That's not my job. And if I need to understand how it applies to my life, 100%, go seek wisdom and understanding to know how it matters to you. But that doesn't give you the right to go tell the world the answer that you found, because it maybe isn't the right answer for them.

shawn (39:34.08)
Okay, okay.

shawn (40:02.106)
Levi, I'm giving you all the points because you asked a question that led into a discussion that is like, I'm all excited about, man. I get like giddy about this. This is a great discussion.

Matt (40:10.862)
Okay, Levi gets the points.

Levi (40:12.682)
I like that, Matt. I do like that perspective that we can, because I am the kind that does feel that compulsion to like go out and defend it and say, you're wrong about this and here's why. And it's just my better angels just say, Levi, chill out. You don't need to go defend that. I like that. I should be more like that.

Matt (40:32.572)
No.

shawn (40:32.697)
Yeah.

Matt (40:39.086)
Listen, if you write the policy, you better defend the policy. But if you just woke up one morning and it was on your phone, come on, that's not your job.

shawn (40:41.933)
You

Levi (40:49.386)
that's so relaxing because Matt, I really have spent many, many hours and so much brain power trying to defend some of these policies, like trying to come up with, why would they do that? here's really the reason. And it, it, would have saved me a lot of energy to just say, man, I don't know.

It's not my job to defend that, yeah.

Matt (41:11.258)
Yeah. All right. Let's move to the big question. So the Manhattan Institute, I think that they're a liberal policy think tank, but they conducted a survey of people who voted Democrat in the last presidential election. So there's Democrat.

shawn (41:25.572)
Just a warning listeners, just a warning, Matt, who's an empty nester who loves, who has like favorite weatherman now is gonna about, is about to throw at us a bunch of numbers.

Matt (41:36.079)
Not too many. I'm going to try to not. I put a lot there for you guys to help you prep for the question, but I'm not going to say them to all the listeners. There's a link. You can. You're welcome to go look at the survey. But, basically the question for this group is they wanted to know people who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, what are their policy views? And so they go through a whole range of things like open borders. They want to know about police. They want to know about transgender rights.

shawn (41:37.291)
A lot of numbers.

shawn (41:43.428)
Okay.

Matt (42:02.482)
And what they found was that people who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, most of them, 54%, think that the government should focus on deporting undocumented immigrants who commit crime. 75 % support rules to limit abuse of welfare, right? They don't want welfare fraud and abuse. 55 % are supportive of the police. 59 % said schools...

should tell parents if a child asked to identify as transgender or change their pronouns at schools. So many Republicans I talk to believe that Democrats have views that are completely different from their own. But if you look at the survey data generally, Democrats and Republicans broadly have a ton of areas where they overlap. They think that, like most people think there's no common ground between the parties, but the reality is among the voters,

There's a ton of common ground. So my question is, what should people do to avoid believing stereotypes about the views of those in opposing political parties?

shawn (43:08.6)
I really am dying to hear Levi answer this.

Matt (43:12.06)
Well, think Levi, like, I think this is one of the beauties of the podcast, right? Like Levi at times is way more conservative than I would expect him to be. And Sean is way more liberal than at times I would expect him to be. He just calls it libertarian. But I think that like the reality is like most people are like us that maybe Levi is a little left leaning, but it's not like he fits this caricature that people want to paint of the democratic party. And yet most people would say, liberals think this and this and this.

shawn (43:42.18)
Levi, when you read this.

Levi (43:42.642)
Yeah, my least favorite debates, my least favorite debates are the ones where somebody tells me what I believe and then says why that's wrong. I'm like, wait a minute, I'm right here. Why do we have to preempt my? But you know, I look at those questions, I'm to the left on all of those. you know, do I want totally open borders? No, but I do sure want a path to citizenship for people that are here, however they got here.

know, lots of different, on all those I seem to be kind of left.

shawn (44:15.44)
Rephrase, hey, you skipped out, Levi. Rephrase it again, because this will be an interesting exercise, because if I'm on the right, I think I agree exactly with what you just said, which proves Matt's stupid survey points. Say it again.

Levi (44:26.611)
sorry. Well, I was just saying that I'm, I'm to the left on all of these questions. So when we talk about, when we talk about immigration, when we talk about police, you know, when we talk about welfare, I'm almost always to the left of all these questions. By the way, Manhattan Institute is very much a conservative think tank. Yeah. Yeah. They're like free market, you know, school choice, those kinds of

shawn (44:32.854)
But immigration.

Matt (44:46.989)
thanks, I didn't know that.

Matt (44:55.014)
Mm. Okay.

Levi (44:56.394)
those kinds of issues. But like I do think it's about, and I was debating this question as I was, you know, walking the dogs this morning. I do think we've moved so much of our life online that we, and that's a shame, right? I think we used to have a bunch of spaces where we would go and we would interact with all kinds of different people. maybe it's not true that we do that less, but I think the solution is to

touch grass a little bit, right? To go out and meet one of these scary liberals and see what it is they actually think and do and feel. And you're right, Matt, that they're not that different.

shawn (45:35.057)
So what do you do then guys, when I've got a friend and we love each other, but they don't like talking politics because we were talking once and she's very left leaning. And I said, hey, now what do you have against, say the Republican party? And her immediate reaction was every Republican is a racist. You're all racists and I don't like you, you're racists. I immediately was like, well, how do I have a discussion with that?

Matt (46:03.398)
Right.

shawn (46:04.144)
Like, what do I do when people are so extreme in certain, I mean, is there evidence that every Republican is racist? They're clearly going on the internet and reading some headlines and just believing it. What do you do?

Matt (46:18.401)
Well, I think this goes back to the question we talked about last week a little bit about identities, right? And what we have to do is we have to strip away our identities and stop thinking of other people in those terms. Because even though, Sean, you might vote Republican in lot of elections, and even though you might be registered Republican, to think of you as the stereotypical Republican removes the humanness from you. It defines you in ways. And same thing with Levi, to say, he's

even if he has progressive views on a lot of issues to think of him as like this stereotypical Democrat, it removes the humanness away from the person. so in football, I have to not think about people as Patriots fans because I will hate them. Right? And so I have to learn to look past that and be like, there's so much more to other people than their party identification. And so when I talk politics, maybe don't talk about it terms of Democrat and Republican.

Just talk about it in terms of member of the church and member of the church. Or when I think about what does it mean to be a Republican, don't think about it in terms of the stereotypical Republican, but think about it in terms of the people you know who might be Republican and try to guide your thinking in that way.

shawn (47:31.388)
Yeah, I agree with you, Matt. Identity, back to that former discussion, identity, clearly scripture teaches us that the first identity we need to have is that you are clearly the same species as the Almighty God. You are a son or a daughter. You're a daughter or a son, first and foremost. And build off of that because, I agree with you. The biggest mistake I see in anyone who's miserable in this life is when they build their, wrap their identity around these man-made, power-driven, profit-driven,

political parties. The people I know whose identity is based around that, they are miserable, unhappy people.

Levi (48:04.296)
Wait, now, did you just disparage Profit Motive, Sean? You leave Profit Motive alone. Profit Motive's taken enough abuse.

Matt (48:13.916)
This is the-

shawn (48:14.05)
No, that's not what capitalism is about. It's not about profit motive. It's about value.

Levi (48:16.49)
You

Matt (48:18.034)
And this is the other thing I would say, in addition to what Levi said about interacting with people in person, you really should go to a Republican Party event, a protest event, an event of people who disagree with you and just go spend some time there and see who they are and see how they behave. Because what actually happens at those events is so different than how it's portrayed on television. Even go to like

a Republican party convention or a Democratic party, go to some party meeting or something like that and just go observe. And I think that the more that we do things with people in person, the more it helps us to overcome stereotypes about people.

shawn (49:00.57)
Hmm. Get to know people. That's right. That's right. Love your neighbor. Get to know them. Respect them. That's right.

Matt (49:06.544)
Levi goes to all of these no-kings protests. Levi takes his kids and his family there. Levi, is the news an accurate way to portray what happens at those events?

Levi (49:16.81)
I know, what does the news say?

Matt (49:18.578)
Well, Levi. Right, you're there. You're in Portland, Oregon at protest events where Antifa is rampant burning down federal buildings. Is that the sort of stuff you see when you're at those events?

shawn (49:19.246)
Depends on the news source.

Levi (49:20.17)
were lighting dumpsters on fire.

Levi (49:30.678)
Yeah, well, I and I remember like we went to many many Black Lives Matter protests and and even you know, like we were tear-gassed and and we didn't take the kids to those ones, but Yeah, and and it was kind of funny to watch the news coverage because it didn't represent it very well at all I mean that mostly I mean that there was a small set of people that the news coverage would focus on and that was

I think that's pretty typical, but, but I, I invite all kinds of people to all these protests and it really like, you know, there's always activity, in Portland lately down at the ice building in downtown Portland, but it's like, it's, it's kind of a fun vibe. Yeah. There are people there. They're going to use some cuss words and stuff, but you know, it's, it's actually pretty fun. There are people playing music and having a good time. So I'd say, yeah, definitely go out.

shawn (50:27.002)
So Levi, what advice do you give? Because when I think of someone who's liberal, the people that I love the most, you're my favorite because I love you so much. I know so much about you. so close. And it's like, okay, then look, can have a someone who has great faith in Jesus Christ, someone who's a wonderful person and they can be liberal. And I'm like, yeah, great. But Levi, my love, you also have a

a visceral, almost like your father.

like reaction to the capital R word to any time you talk about a Republican, it's angry. So I'm not supposed to have that to a liberal. Why are you allowed to have that to Republicans? I need to understand this because when you told me that you growing up, your father was so dogmatically Republican and you told me that you decided I'm not going to be that, but it does seem like you've done become that a little bit on the other side of the spectrum.

Is that not true? I know that's a little vulnerable to ask.

Levi (51:33.418)
Yeah, that I that I don't like It's a good question. It is it is a little introspective to say like do I? Do I have a hatred of republicans? I know actually a lot of republicans. So I interact with a lot of individual republicans All the time. I don't I I don't have much respect at all for republican politicians somebody who You know is going to make it their living to

Matt (51:34.149)
Yeah, Levi.

Levi (51:59.634)
ruin people's lives in that way. think that's a really trashy way to spend your life. But yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I do think that they...

shawn (52:04.176)
That's what I'm talking about right there. You've clustered every Republican politician into a box as opposed to treating them each as an individual. Like you just got through saying, they play cool music at these rallies. They're great people. So that's one extreme way to describe it. Then you go to a political party on the other side and go, they're despicable. All of them. I don't understand that,

Levi (52:22.76)
Yeah. Yeah.

Levi (52:33.259)
Yeah. and like when we talked about, yeah, we talked about, you know, we're talking about gerrymandering and we want, you know, we want representatives that represent the people. I feel like we have just watched the Republican party just collapse, just surrender and sell out every value that they ever had, right? The last whatever, since 2016, we just watched them.

Matt (52:58.098)
eight years.

Levi (53:00.9)
One by one abandon every principle that they ever claimed to have and I I just don't know how you can have Much respect for a political party that like that anymore. Like I don't even know Yeah, yeah And and it but it is confusing because I watch people that I know people that are that are good Who are staying in the Republican Party? I just don't know why I just don't know why they would do that

shawn (53:16.494)
I'm confused. I'm now more confused.

Matt (53:25.702)
Well, because Levi, not everybody lives in Portland. And if you want to win elected office in Idaho, you better be a Republican. And if you want to win an elected office in rural Oregon, you better be a Republican. So it's just a strategic choice based on where you live.

Levi (53:39.902)
You think the like meaning I meaning I have a desire to be to be a state senator and what what party shall I join? I'll just join the one that that's likely to win. That's how you do it.

Matt (53:56.231)
Yeah. Yeah. That's 100 % what Donald Trump did, by the way, right? Lifelong Democrat and saw he could never be president of the United States as a Democrat. So he picked the Republican party. No, it's a hundred percent true. that's, that's how people are. That's how all that's how well it's how every politician is right. Like, okay. Like it's just a strategic choice and

shawn (54:05.776)
Don't say that! Don't, Matt. Don't say that. You're gonna make...

Levi (54:11.686)
We definitely should, we definitely should emulate that then.

Matt (54:22.32)
And you just have to like, sure, they say there's these broad values that I agree with, but guess what? The broad values that Republicans share, so do Democrats share most of those same broad values. And most of the votes that Republicans take that they kind of have to hold their nose to take that vote, it's because they want to be in power because they think they can do good in their community. And they look at these, the things that you're using Levi to define the Republican party, most elected officials that are Republicans are like,

in private saying, I wish I didn't have to vote for that, but I need to do that in order to do this other stuff that matters more to me. So it's just a strategic choice on both sides. There are plenty of Democrats voting for things and supporting things in the Biden administration that they would have rather not supported, but they did it because they had to in order to keep the seat that they had.

Levi (55:12.872)
You think to the same extent Democrats had to sell out?

Matt (55:15.694)
No, of course not. Not to the same extent because Donald Trump and Joe Biden are not the same person, right? But when you have a, when the leader of your party demands loyalty the way that Trump does, then it requires more of you in that regard. But the analog to Donald Trump is Bill Clinton. And there were many, many Democrats that had to support things that Bill Clinton did that they did not like because that's what they had to do.

Levi (55:23.69)
Yeah.

Levi (55:43.4)
Yeah, I mean, but you're talking about things they had to like move right on. Yeah. That they had to support, you know, Republican light policies. Yeah.

Matt (55:48.593)
Well, yeah, well, whether it's move run or support, I would call it sexual assault in the White House, right? When he has sex with an intern. Yeah, right. Like so. So to me, it's in all cases, it's just a strategic, the elected officials, it's just a strategic choice. Where can I win? How can I win? What do I have to do? And if I'm in Texas, it's much easier to win as a Republican than as a Democrat.

shawn (55:56.944)
I'm to

Levi (55:57.55)
yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Matt (56:17.008)
And so why not just go the Republican route? See if I can, see if I can move them in the direction I want to move them in Texas.

Levi (56:26.772)
Yeah.

shawn (56:27.048)
Levi, I will give you the points too on this because there's no person that I know more who lives the life of a what their convictions are. And I love that all most of your convictions are just there. They're they're of God. They really are. And your motives and so so I watch you and I learn from you. And I love that. Even though, like, I don't understand a lot of the political leanings or the political passions.

I still like you get the points because I learned from you so much and Matt, you too, so it is nice to have a discussion about the different political what, what, what we in different political parties believe or don't believe in what we have in common. But I like even better to push those aside and just learn from each other. So I think that's the latter day lens is stop making our identity around a political party. And instead

Let me learn from Matt and let me learn how different differentiates from Levi. And I love them both. So I'm going to learn from both.

Matt (57:29.328)
Yeah, I think that that's what we're trying to do on the podcast. And that's why I try to bring this stuff up. But we do have new listeners that join us from time to time. And so I do think it's important to point out that like, whatever stereotypes you have about people on the other side, stereotypes are at the same time, both completely true and absolutely false at the same time. so believing stereotypes is always a bad thing. And I think that the prophet and church leaders are always urging us to try to get past that stuff.

because it stops us in our spiritual development. And so I think that's why I love doing the podcast. Levi, you get the last word.

Levi (58:05.854)
Well, my last word is an apology. mean, Republicans, you are good people. I know you are. I know you. You're in my words. I work with you. Republicans are very good people. We happen to disagree on a lot of political things, and I do think that you're doing a lot of damage right now. But I believe in a time when the Republican Party comes back to its senses and will be a force for good again.

I'm sorry I was so mean.

Matt (58:35.763)
Boom. Levi, you're the best. Talk to you guys next week.

shawn (58:37.424)
You're the best.

Thanks guys.