What We Have Here…
…Is Spin Passing For News!
And yes, that is most definitely a “failure to communicate,” he said completing the famous and almost trite movie quotation.
Breaking from his vacation, as I am from mine, my friend Hugh Hewitt points out, in this week of way too much race-based news:
Did any of the JournoList participants rebuke Spencer Ackerman’s suggestion that Fred Barnes or Karl Rove be made a target of a manufactured “racist” charge?
Ackerman will be carrying the burden of that despicable suggestion for the rest of his “career” such as it is, but it may even be worse to have been a participant in the list and to have said nothing when such an assault was proposed. Even if the “journalists” on the list hated Karl Rove as an extension of Bush and thus talked themselves into this repulsive group-think, many of them know for a fact that Fred is among the most decent and large-hearted of journalists. To have said nothing when a colleague or far worse, a friend, was nominated for the worst sort of slander is an extraordinary personal failure. Whether any of those who were party to it step forward to apologize will be interesting to watch.
[...]
When Andrew Breitbart posted the NAACP video, he did not know it had been edited. Journalists who commented on the story did not know of the editing either.
But everyone on JournoList knew that Ackerman was proposing a Big Lie in the service of a political agenda –Ackerman admitted that himself– so they all stood by and said nothing. The only defense that any of them have is that Ackerman was an insignificant loon or that they missed his post, even though it appeared in the middle of the biggest story of the time period.
Just this morning, over my hotel breakfast, FoxNews was discussing newly leaked JournoList postings from campaign ‘08 trying to paint the Palin VP nomination as “sexist.”
There are two terribly important lessons for this blog that can be taken away from this scandal and the USDA atrocities of the week.
The first is that the press, at least a significant portion of it, is all too willing to discuss the use of label/identity based spin to aid the Democratic side of the aisle. It confirms something that people have known all along. The lack of discrimination is born not in monitoring the use of identity labels, but in being blind to them. When considered, whether in base discrimination, such as Jim Crow, or in the type of “reverse discrimination” we are seeing from the JournoList crowd they are political weapons, and they are poltical weapons that our common understanding, and in some cases our constitution place off limits.
Religion is one of those identity labels that our constitution places strictly off limits. The reason for that is very straightforward – all it can do is serve to create conflict when what we need is the finding of common ground to move the nation forward. The USDA events of the past week show that the opportunity for mischief with identity factors is just too great to use them AT ALL.
Which brings me to this very interesting piece by Kenneth Anderson on the Volokh Conspiracy (HT: a reader that sent it forward.) Anderson argues that there are some things about religion that should be a part of the public discourse:
But of course, the problem is how to parse the difference between that which is acceptable for inquiry concerning someone who proposes to lead the polis and what is genuinely personal and irrelevant. My one regret is that the nasty fireworks at the beginning of that long essay tend to obscure the quite serious argument about how to draw those lines that occupies the second half. (It is not, by the way, a regret for having ridiculed the two principals — I think that it is important, actually, for people to understand the affective side of this and not pretend that it is purely mild cognition, and that was one way to do it.) But this issue is going to resurface, certainly with Romney, and with others. The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society.
But religion also has a cognitive content — including doctrines — that are and should be subject to reasoned discussion. The believer who partakes of them as doctrines of faith might not do that, and might not be able to do that, almost by definition. Yet it would also be a mistake to draw too sharp a line between things subject to human reason and things not of this world and so not subject to human reason; particularly law-based religions partake of both. Mormonism, for that matter, incorporates this directly into its prophetic traditions And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine regarding human reason is not, so far as I have been able to comprehend, “relativistic” in the sense used in contemporary ethical argument, even if it is more elastic some (including me) would accept.
But irrespective of whether believers are able to participate in the discussion of human reason and prophetic traditions, when adherents go out to offer leadership in the broader political community, then the unbelievers are perfectly warranted to ask that they be discussed in terms that are accessible to public discussion.
Yes, indeed, religion does have a cognitive element, but unless a candidate or elected official insists on making policy based on their religious conviction, why is it necessary to discuss? All that is really necessary to discuss is the proposed policy, and the stated reasons for bringing it forward. The attachment of a religious labels, as with race or gender, to either the proposer or the policy itself serves only to turn the reasoned discussion into the kind of vitriolic posturing that we have seen based on race in the last week. We have seen some very bad decision making based on such labels and we are seeing the public manipulated based on similar labels – they simply do not aid our public discourse. If reasoned discussion is the goal and the labels serve to override reason rather than aid it – why inject them into the conversation at all?
I am reminded of a Sunday school class I was in a couple of decades ago – it was being taught at the highest levels by a seminary professor of excellent repute. We were discussing theories of the atonement and at one point a student rose and asserted that the professor’s view of the atonement was “too masculine.” I objected in the most strenuous of terms and set forth the proposition that I am emphasizing here today. The theory of the atonement is neither masculine nor feminine, it simply is truth. Yes, men and women my arrive at that truth by different paths, but that matters not, what matters is that we arrive at the truth – together. Inserting the labels serves only to make the truth relativistic.
When it comes to public policy, what matters is that we arrive at the best possible policy. People will come to their policy choices by a variety of methods and thought processes. By definition, there cannot be different policy for one group or another – that is the definition of discrimination. Therefore, group identity entering the discussion serves no purpose other than to prevent arriving at a policy at all, or to arrive at a policy that, rather than providing maximum benefit for the most people, benefits mostly the group that can best claim victimization – again, the very definition of discrimination.
In a week of claim and counterclaim based on race, I am deeply saddened that in many ways our nation is no different than it was when I was a child spending summers with extended family in Jim Crow Mississippi. But we have clung to our labels too hard. We have to let go of them.
Lowell adds . . .
Professor Anderson’s Volokh post is remarkable on more than one level. I do not think it will move the discussion much, because it is mostly impenetrable. Consider these two statements:
The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society. . . .
And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct [sic] Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.
Each one of those is a single sentence. I teach young lawyers that if a sentence must be read more than once by an educated reader to be understood, the writer is in trouble; more than twice, and the sentence should be rewritten.
But enough about style. Anderson’s post is a dogged argument that it is desirable – nay, necessary and proper - to make a candidate’s most private religious beliefs matters of public discussion and inquiry. We have rejected that argument on this blog dozens of times, so I won’t rehash those posts. I’ll simply refer our readers to John Mark Reynolds’ analysis, which John and I think is the perfect approach. Here’s a summary:
Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic of Baptist politician.
That is not bigotry, just common sense.
So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?
Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.
First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .
Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .
Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.
If you want to know why Prof. Reynolds thinks Mormonism passes all three tests, read his post.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention What We Have Here… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 22 Jul 2010 at 8:32 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Article VI Blog, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: #hhrs New @ Article VI Blog:: What We Have Here… http://www.article6blog.com/2010/07/22/what-we-have-here/ [...]
CarlH on 22 Jul 2010 at 9:47 am #
Over at Instapundit yesterday, Glenn Reynolds posted an interesting response to a reader comment about the race-baiting tendencies of some in the media in reference to a picture of the White House press corps [linked and shown in the Instapundit original]:
Not particularly substantive; but a nice quip nonetheless.
coltakashi on 22 Jul 2010 at 4:49 pm #
May I propose that one of the responses we should offer to those who think delving into a candidate’s religious beliefs is relevant is to note that the Founding Fathers and the earliest leaders of the United States, both Federal and state, were a diverse lot in their religious viewpoints. They could be very unconventional in their theology, while being very strict in their personal virtue and sense of duty to the nation.
It was that religiously diverse group who placed in the body of the Constitution an explicit prohibition on using a religious test to bar any person from Federal office, and who added the First Amendment to make it clear that the specific religious affiliation of an elected official was irrelevant precisely because no one in the Federal government, legislative, executive or judicial, was empowered to interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of any citizen or congregation.
Britain and other European nations have heads of state (constitutional monarchs) serving as the heads of national churches. If they retired those hereditary rulers (and their families) and gave all their duties to elected presidents or prime ministers, it might be relevant whether the candidate was in fact a member of the church which he or she was being elected to preside over. But that is not the American system. Despite the traditions of religious observances encouraged by presidents (like Thanksgiving), the religion of the president is irrelevant because the Constitution denies him or her any power over churches or their members as such.
Given this arrangement, one that the Founders explicitly created, the burden of proof is on someone who claims that some element of a candidate’s religion implicates public policy, to come forward with specific proof that the candidate’s denomination is itself seeking to play an improper, coercive role in public policy, beyond what all community organizations are allowed to do as part of free speech.
I think the statements of President Obama’s former pastor are in a separate category. Declaring to a group of people sentiments like “God D— America” or “Bomb D— America” is offensive whether it is said in church by a minister or at a cocktail party by a former domestic terrorist, and it is a legitimate inquiry as to whether the candidate shares those sentiments, and if he says he does not, as to why he did nothing to distance himself from them as an example to others among his associates so they would not assume, based on his silence, that he endorsed such unusual and provocative assertions.
TVHall on 22 Jul 2010 at 11:41 pm #
I’ll second that emotion CarlH. I enjoy a good turn of phrase and that one strikes me as harmlessly amusing. After all, the best humor usually contains some truth, and comity is benefitted by an ability to laugh at our foibles.
JLF9999 on 23 Jul 2010 at 8:51 am #
I have observed that most people who have a strong negative view of Mormonism base their beliefs on what they think we Mormons taught in the past. Absent from their understanding is one vital element that, if properly understood, could re-shape their opinions. They would not have to agree with us but at least they would have a firmer foundation on which to judge. Our church teaches that there is only one authorized source for correct doctrinal interpretation at a time and that is the current president of the church. People who seek to understand what we believe should go there first. The current president has the authority to override, modify or re-state previous doctrine. This practice is based on the belief that Jesus Christ is literally in charge of the day-to-day operation of His church and communicates to His prophet and His apostles as He sees the need. Christ makes these changes to doctrine and then communicates them to the Church leadership through the Holy Ghost. So when the current church president says something that seems to be in conflict with what another leader said in the past, it actually comes from a high authority. I won’t get too far into the weeds with this but I think this is sufficient to provide a basic understanding of how the system works.
I bring this up because the subject seems to mystify most outsiders and maybe some members too. It isn’t an easy subject to understand in its totality, even for experienced Mormons. But the fundamentals can be understood, enough for most observers I believe. John’s piece above refers to Kenneth Anderson’s views about religion playing an import part in a candidates political profile. Maybe it should. I don’t know. But whatever place religion plays, it out to be correctly understood and LDS theology is not. If it is going to be a part of discourse then we Mormons should do what we can to clarify misunderstandings. Interested readers can go to to read the Church’s official view of the subject.
JLF9999 on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:51 pm #
I wondered if I had made a mistake. I commented on this blog about Sharron Angle and what I understood her position to be regarding Harry Reid’s religion so I called the campaign office to get some clarification. That was a mistake. I talked with campaign aid Lee Adams. I asked my question: “Is it fair to say that Sharron has never made Harry Reid’s religion an issue in the campaign?” His response was that he was not in any position to comment on third party conversations. OK I thought. My fault. I didn’t phrase it right. “Has the campaign ever taken a stance on Harry Reid’s religion?”. Mr. Adams and I went around that third party comment bush again. I assured Adams that I was a loyal conservative Republican and not the enemy – twice. It made no difference. OK. I got nowhere. It was frustrating trying to get to the real Sharron Angles thinking on Harry Reid’s Mormonism. “Maybe I shouldn’t have asked”, I thought. Maybe so. One thing was very clear – this man did not want to talk about the subject. He offered no assurance about religion or that they liked Mormons and would never say anything that unnecessarily offend Mormons or anything of the sort. This was not a friendly conversation – and I am such a friendly guy – nosy but friendly. I spent 25 years working with convicts and I am very good at reading between the lines. My BS meter is a sensitive instrument and I can tell when someone does not want to talk about something and Lee Adams did not want to talk about Sharron Angle and Mormonism. So I suppose we will never know if Sharron Angle believes she is on a mission form God to smite Mormons including Harry Reid. I guess I shouldn’t have asked – according to Sharron Angle for Senate campaign aid Lee Adams anyway. My bad!
JLF9999 on 23 Jul 2010 at 1:11 pm #
Just so readers will know that I was not out to “get” Sharron Angle, here is a copy of the text I sent in an email to Lee Adams this morning prior to talking to him on the phone.
“Mr. Adams
I spoke with your campaign aid this morning and discussed a comment Sharron was credited with making about the LDS faith. So far I have been unable to track it down beyond just what was previously written in the news. I am going to comment about it on article6 blog and want to make certain I am correct in stating Sharron’s position. I am not looking for quotes from the campaign but rather just confirmation that what I understand is accurate. Here is what I will post. I may add personal observations but I want to be accurate in what you folks say.
I just talked with Sharron Angles campaign and was assured that she has made no disparaging remarks about Mormons and believes that all people have an equal right to believe what they will and that anything to the contrary is not true. I was told she has many LDS supporters and continues to have a good relationship with them. She stands behind her belief that she has been called by God to be active in politics.
Usually, the owners of the blog review and post comments later in the day so it may be afternoon or evening before it shows up if they choose to post what I submit. I hope you will find my comments to be accurate. If not please feel free to contact me and I will make every effort to correct anything I got wrong.”
JLF9999 on 27 Jul 2010 at 6:22 am #
UPDATE: I received this response yesterday form the Sharron Angle campaign. “Sharron enjoys strong support from the LDS community. Friends of Sharron Angle”
What is it about Mormons that these people find so repulsive? OK, they have theological differences. Lots of people do. But while others may have doctrinal differences, they don’t spit when saying “Mormon”. I guess I should be satisfied that they didn’t cut and paste from what I said above – exactly.
You know, I really wanted to be able to say that I had spoken with someone from the campaign and was received warmly. And I was, by the person who answered the phone. She was sweet and gracious. I could not have spoken with a nicer person. She is a credit to the Sharron. However, with regards to the other guy, the spokesman, I am extremely disappointed that a fellow conservative Republican would behave so boorishly over an issue that is so important to his candidate’s bid for election. Is that the way it is in election campaigns? I haven’t been around any so I don’t know. May he is representative of the breed. Someone with more experience will have to answer that.
Doug King on 31 Jul 2010 at 7:32 am #
I hope my belated comments are worthwhile.
I read Anderson’s post with interest. He seems to argue that in general a candidate’s faith is a legitimate subject of public inquiry because, in some religions, there are aspects that could threaten American freedoms and traditions. He therefore found Romney’s “Faith in America” speech defective when Romney suggested the principle of religious tolerance does not require candidates to explain their religion. Anderson doesn’t discuss John F. Kennedy’s landmark 1960 speech on the same subject, but I’m guessing he would find it defective for the same reason.
Strictly speaking, I agree in theory that religion can be a legitimate political subject. But I would add this qualification: a candidate’s faith is a legitimate subject if there are reasonable grounds to link his faith to likely government actions that would infringe upon established freedoms. That’s a very big if, especially for a country that prides itself on religious freedom. Those who whip up fears of a candidate’s religion without producing evidence are akin to conspiracy lunatics and/or bigots, in my opinion. The onus is on the questioners (not the candidate) for providing the evidence. In Romney’s case – and I think Anderson would agree – there is no reason to believe 21st century Mormonism poses a risk to government.
But there’s a bigger issue that Anderson doesn’t address. The campaign events that pressured Romney to give the speech in the first place were fundamentally unfair, and Romney was all but doomed to lose ground no matter what he said. To illustrate, suppose a candidate is vegetarian, and his opponent is an omnivore. The rival starts a whispering campaign among cattle ranchers that our candidate is fundamentally unfit for office because he is a vegetarian. After all, he asks, if vegetarians arrive at such obviously wrong conclusions about diet, how can we trust them on political matters? (“I don’t know much about vegetarians, but don’t they believe…?”) The whispering leads to public pressure, and our candidate feels compelled to give a speech to squelch the rumors. But what can he say? He can’t say vegetarians have a diet just like other Americans because they don’t. (In fact, whose diet is exactly like all other Americans?) So our candidate argues boldly that diet is irrelevant and shouldn’t be a campaign issue at all. He concludes by saying despite his peculiar diet, he is still a mainstream American. But no matter what he says, our candidate loses ground because he is essentially being asked to prove he isn’t crazy. How fair is that? And more to the point, the real issue isn’t whether vegetarianism or Mormonism disqualifies someone from office, but whether Americans ‘walk the talk’ when they claim to respect and protect diversity.
As Kennedy said in 1960,