Friday, December 7, 2007

Romney's "Faith" Speech

I listened to Romney's "Faith" speech, and I read the transcript, and I have to say I really do admire how slippery the guy is. His thesis is that religion doesn't matter in politics, except when it does. We shouldn't ask people about their religious beliefs, except when we should. He was absolutely masterful in how he precisely he calibrated the level of attention one can give to his Mormon beliefs. All the weird or bizarre parts are ruled off-limits to discussion, but he gets to take credit for his "faith" in general. So no discussion of how some of us get to be gods of our own planet someday, or whether he wears the funny underwear, but he gets to talk about all the "values" stuff where he agrees with the Christian conservatives.

Here's a key passage, which nicely illustrates his balancing act:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.


Romney wants to stay the heck away from the "distinctive doctrines" of the Mormon Church, because Evangelical Christians would think him an apostate, and people not familiar with the more eccentric aspects of the Mormon faith will think he's a weirdo. Objectively, it's no weirder than any other religion, but, like Scientology, it's got a bad science fiction vibe to it. This hilarious video gives a primer:



Romney doesn't want to get into all that. Instead, he wants to focus on shared moral beliefs:

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.



There's a certain internal tension here, shall we say. As David Frum puts it:

To be blunt, Romney is saying:

It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"

But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"

It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith.


The reason for that is that he thinks some Evangelicals won't vote for him if he doesn't believe that Jesus Christ is the savior. But he also wants to avoid getting into the nitty-gritty details of Mormon theology, because if he does he's screwed. Hence the "distinctive doctrines" dodge. (Also take a look at Marc Ambinder and Ross Douthat for similar thoughts.)

It's true that most mainstream American religions probably have a common core of moral beliefs, but that's because they're part of a wider American culture that tends to pound down the theological differences (i.e., "distinctive doctrines") that result in disparate outcomes. For example, some people used to use the the doctrine of the "Curse of Ham" to justify the enslavement of blacks and then racial segregation. That "distinctive doctrine" went away under the pressure of a wider American culture that found it repugnant. Similar Mormon beliefs regarding blacks have been modified, over the years.

The "distinctive doctrines" of various churches are relevant to a whole host of hot-button issues, including abortion, use of stem cells, etc. Within Islam, doctrines regarding jihad and the application of Sharia law are of great import.

The line that Romney wants to draw is a very difficult line to maintain. Nonetheless, he doesn't have much of choice. He's got a constituency of Evangelical Christians that he needs to vote for him. Now, I do think that urban elites tend to overstate how narrow-minded such people are, but there really are some folks who think that being a Bible-believing Christian is a necessary qualification for office. No Republican candidate for President can ignore that constituency in the primary, and in a fifty-fifty country, he needs almost all such people to show up and vote for him to win the general election. So Romney has to communicate to that group "I am one of you." But if they start asking questions about Mormonism, he knows they will conclude he's not. Hence the balancing act.

The one group that gets left out are the atheists and agnostics. Indeed Romney's arugment is that religion is necessary for the maintenance of a free republic:

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.


This is actually a pretty common view. The idea is that if people don't have some religion, they'll just run riot. On this view, religion doesn't have to be true; it's just that it's necessary to keep people in line. This makes the "pick a faith, any faith" line seem reasonable. This is an empirical thesis that is certainly subject to testing. The obvious thing to do would be to look at the children of atheists and agnostics, correct for all the other variables, and see if they are more likely to grow up to be serial killers.

I suspect that the extent to which "human passions" are actually bridled by religion is at least somewhat overstated. And then there is the problem that religion, when taken too seriously, can inflame the passions rather than bridling them -- inspire people to murder doctors who commit abortion or fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

Ryan Sager appears to have been particularly stung by Romney's failure to even mention the possibility of good atheists:

The most remarkable thing about Romney’s address — and even folks at National Review picked this out, notably Ramesh Ponnuru — is that is wrote atheists and agnostics out of the American nation. Whereas even President Bush, whose own cynical politics have done so much to pit believers versus non-believers, has long gone out of his way to include “good people of no faith at all” in his vision of America. While the president’s need to qualify that phrase with the word “good” might be offensive, it’s a warm embrace of the faithless compared to Romney’s declaration that “freedom requires religion.”

Got that? Those of us who don’t believe in Christianity, those of us who don’t believe in God, those of us who don’t believe in the divinity of human-written holy books have no place in the American experiment, can’t be relied on to uphold the principles of our Constitution, and don’t have the morality necessary to keep a Republic.


I think that's the upshot of his thesis, Ryan. I think that's intentional. He's saying to the Christian Conservatives that they have a common enemy: secularists. He is trying to say that the differences between Mormons, Evangelical Christians, and Catholics don't matter, because there are these folks out there who want to take "In God We Trust" off the coins and destroy the Republic. From a purely political perspective, this is probably a good move in his part.

He's not losing many votes, because, while a few atheists and agnostics (like me) adopt a libertarian free market approach, most of the Godless embrace the Big State with both arms. Many substitute a belief in an omnipotent God with a belief in an Omnipotent state. Which is even worse, since religious belief has harmless manifestations, while statism does not.

Which is why, at the end of the day, Romney's musings on faith don't particularly interest me. So long as his religion doesn't motivate him to do something screwy or desstructive, I don't care what he believes. I'd much rather have a candidate who wears funny underwear and is bucking to be God of his own planet than one who wants to raise my taxes, increase the scope of government regulation, and take away my freedom. His feelings toward my atheistic beliefs matter not a whit, so long as he pushes policies preferable to the other candidate.

3 comments:

梁爵 said...

2020.04.11台北市酒店工作酒店小姐潔西(花名)確診武漢肺炎(COVID-19、新冠肺炎)的酒店女公關(案379),疫情中心在8日記者會中說她「生活單純、沒工作」,但昨(9)日卻說要從酒店上班職場進行疫調,後來才知道,前後說法不一全是因為女公關有「酒店打工難言之隱」,她在酒店上班,丈夫、家人全不知情,一開始還懇求疫調人員不要將她酒店PT身分曝光。
原本飲酒作樂、狂歡消遣的酒店、舞廳不敵疫情,全面停業,全因出現八大行業首例酒店員工確診。案379至今找不到感染源,後來爆出是酒店女公關,她在4月3日發病,以為是抽電子菸引起胸悶,繼續上班,4日就醫收治隔離,8日確診。但8日的疫情中心記者會,說她生活單純、沒工作;9日卻改口,疫調要從職場著手調查。
疫情中心指揮官陳時中(2020.04.09):「我們的疫調人員覺得不太相信這樣的講法,發覺確有難言之隱。」
疫調資料顯示,這名女公關(案379)年約30多歲,住桃園,因為經濟因素,天天台北桃園來回到酒店工作,而對於工作內容,丈夫、家人全然不知情,她確診後又精神狀況不穩,疫調細節有難言之隱。
傳出女公關更懇求防疫醫師不要將她曝光,但調閱近日上檯記錄,發現她一週上班3天,分屬3間酒店,每天接觸至少超過50人,還曾有被帶出場的紀錄,一週接觸超過至少150人。
醫療界分析:「(酒店)譬如說用餐,或者聊天講話、用飲料,當然是比較容易感染,禁絕這些用餐的行為,或者是說在一起講話的行為,你表面上禁止,但是有可能會轉向地下化。」
國內醫師有擔憂,但推行八大行業場所「實名制」算是折衷之道,一旦出現確診或疑似個案,能立即追蹤、降低疫調難度。

梁爵 said...

2020.04.20行政院召開「酒店工作紓困振興方案—個人紓困措施」記者會,表示「凡是酒店S公關有需求,甚至任何人、任何酒店打工行業,只要有需求前來申請,基本上政府在防疫這段時間,都會從寬認定,沒有資格限制八大行業。」
針對所謂「酒店PT從寬認定」本會認為衛福部應盡速公布辦法與申請表明列放寬限制為何,勿以對外宣稱「已解決酒店上班公關問題」打迷糊仗、濫開空頭支票,本會提供特種行業從業者不適用現行地方政府急難救助情況供主管機關參考,盼紓困能確實落實於有生計困難之從業者身上。
酒店小姐酒店公關雇傭證明:
以公關為例,現地方區公所之急難救助多須出具基於雇傭關係之非自願離職證明,而公關與店家或經紀公司皆無雇傭關係,無法列舉該項證明,建議以薪資單或店家通聯記錄代之。
制服店 禮服店 便服店 直播 傳播 飯局 訪視:
且家戶訪視極不利於隱瞞其職業身分之從業者,本會建議為節省行政成本並顧及從業者隱私一律免除訪視程序。
人籍不合一:
現急難救助須至申請人戶籍地公所申請,而許多特種行業從業者離鄉背井,工作地與戶籍地不一之情形在所多有,建議放寬以工作所在地公所辦理。
停業證明:
目前由中央疫情指揮中心勒令停業之497間酒店、舞廳,除遭稽查違法營業,否則不一定會接獲市政府停業公文,而急難救助要求從業者舉證停業證明極不合理,即便市府確有發公文勒令店家停業,從業者也難以向店家取得該文,故如需停業公文作為佐證,應由地方公所備有停業店家名單查核。
存簿:
申請資料應附有存摺與否,針對其影響獲補與否應有明確規範,因從業者係因疫情導致收入中斷而非中、低收入戶申請,應一併考量債務、親屬撫養等其他常態開支,不應僅以交易紀錄或存款作為判斷,且多數從業者薪資支領方式以現金為主,存簿內不會有收入資料。並非公關要求多現行方案不適用。資深酒店經紀表示若公關願「屈就」於現行「充電再出發」或「安心就業計畫」皆可申請,本會再次重申對於任何實際有助於生計之紓困方案從業者均非常歡迎、求之不得,沒有「屈就」問題!惟「充電再出發」、「安心就業計畫」皆針對有僱傭關係之一般減班企業,業界多數公關並非店家或經紀公司僱員,且停業不如減班仍有基本工資保障,尚有「薪資差額」可補助,並不適用於此計畫;即便是現行針對失業勞工之「失業給付」、「子女就學補助」或由政府提供職缺之「安穩僱用」、「短期上工」計畫,公關皆因無僱主投保就業保險或勞保,並不符申請資格。

梁爵 said...

2020.07.30不敢來酒店上班-酒店打工的原因日本鑑於東京酒店區染疫人數快速竄升,政府衛生單位週一推出系列影片,邀請酒店小姐的基本介紹跟工作內容招待拍攝防疫教育影片,過程以Q&A方式進行,主題我在酒店上班的日子圍繞在必知新冠肺炎資訊,酒店兼差不是一個複雜的工作環境?以期能防止疫情持續擴大。Alarmed by a spike in infections in Tokyo’s nightlife districts, the metropolitan government has released educational videos in the form of a Q&A between nightclub hosts, a hostess and a doctor, hoping to stem the spread of the coronavirus.「你覺得年輕的新冠肺炎患者會出現什麼樣的病症?」
“What kind of symptoms can a young COVID-19 patient expect?”
酒店小姐上班通常會取什麼名字?花費大約多少?」
“What are medical costs like?”
酒店小姐去酒店上班都一定要出場接s嗎?」“How often should we sanitize our hands?”三支影片中邀請在紅燈區工作的年輕酒店接待。自從、五月底日本政府解除緊急狀態,東京紅燈區爆出多人確診新冠肺炎案例。Those are some of the questions posed in the three videos that feature young workers from nightclubs in the city’s red-light districts where infections have crept up since the government lifted a state of emergency in late May.第一則約7至8分鐘的影片邀請到知名酒店男公關平良翔太,他向醫生詢問一些基本,像是無症狀患者確診後是否有可能傳染給他人。In the first of the 7-8 minute videos, a nightclub host Shota Taira asks the doctor general questions such as whether an asymptomatic person who has tested positive could infect others. 得到解答後,平良翔太把心型抱枕拋出,象徵交棒給下一位受訪酒店小姐一条響。