The Republicans on Biblical Literalism

Something to remember whenever those religious right people claim that they're being persecuted or even just looked down upon in the States.

Joseph: I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

At the very least, according to that guy, and probably a whole lot more people, since no one booed him down when he got to the bolded part of his question, all that matters to those people is how fundy the candidates are.

What about their stances on important things, like the environment, science education, healthcare, not starting wars for no damned reason, etc?

Dammnnn....I assume I'm not the only one who's worried by that part of the question?

It sure sounds like a religious test to me, especially when you remember how the guy phrased his question:

Joseph: I am Joseph. I am from Dallas, Texas, and how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

I guess their constitution doesn't actually prohibit private citizens from asking that kind of stuff? I don't know...but if any federal or state official were to ask that of a candidate, there'd be a legal smackdown (I'd hope). Either way, this doesn't bode well.

I thought it was funny the way Joseph From Texas was so keen to emphasize that it was *this* *particular* *book* *right* *here*. Perhaps it was really a copy of the Origin of Species (or Aleisteir Crowley's "Magick", or something) in a leather cover saying "Holy Bible".

itsjustanalias, I don't think so; what's unconstitutional in the US is having an *official* religious test. Having a political party much of whose support base is made up of deranged fundamentalists and shameless exploiters of deranged fundamentalists isn't forbidden -- in fact, forbidding it would presumably fall foul of the Constitution's insistence on freedom of religion.

"No comment, beyond the observation that I find it hard to believe that Giulliani spends even one solitary second reading the Bible."

Yep, too busy bangin' his various mistresses on the public dollar. It was fun to watch his tortured response though. More rational politicians really are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to not being loony tunes but also fulfilling the unwritten requirement of holding a certain set of essentially loony tunes beliefs.

Romney was on NPR earlier and he was asked if he is a literalist and Romney put on this phony 'I'm not going to dignify that with an answer' routine, claiming that such religious issues are not really relevant. And what made me chuckle a bit was that he then listed some things that should be more important, like the "world-wide Jihad"...

But religion is not an issue, no sir....

The zealous applause almost worries me more than their responses. We know they're pandering to certain degree, especially Rudy, but the audience...

If one these dipshits is put into the whitehouse the country will be in deeper trouble than it already is under the bush

Being an ignorant UKian (where we have bishops in the house of Lords for cryin' out loud) I had a question: isn't this getting towards a religious test for public office?

I haven't followed the link (life's too short...), but what would have been the perfect ending would be for Joseph to say: "Thank you, gentlemen. That's it, we're fucked."

The perfect answer:

"The office of the president is about upholding the Constitution of the United States. The effects of the first amendment are, and should be, that the government remains nuetral, and neither promotes nor hinders individuals in their personal belief.

Article 6(?) of the Constitution also states that there shall be no religious test for public office in the United States."

If they wanted to elaborate, a simple "as such, I think that question is personal and innappropriate" would be the perfect ending.

They all failed.

I'm buying Romney and Huckabee some bleach and two shot glasses.

It's how Jesus would want us to tell the True Christains apart from people more interested in what's in the collection plate (or in the election results) than what's in the Word of God (Mark 16:17-18):

{17} "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; {18} they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

How Christianity ever got bigger than a hundred-member suicide cult is beoynd me.

In case you were wondering, the book in question was the Bible.

Yeah, but which version? I mean, if you're going to be specific ("Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand") then you should at least specify which edition you're talking about. And from the exact wording of the question, the questioner might even be asking whether they believe every word of his hand-written marginalia...

I really believe this is an approach that rationalists should take - whenever someone starts banging on about "The Bible", make them specify exactly which edition they're talking about. Then start looking for places to get in with the wedges. Don't allow them to paper over their (often significant) differences and present a united front. They're splitters by nature - exploit that.

What's interesting is that they tried to avoid giving a straight "Yes" answer to "Do you believe every word of this book?"

BTW, Jason Failes, the obvious answer to your question would be to point out that Mark 16:17-18 is a spurious ending not in the earliest manuscripts. The NIV, a common translation among evangelicals, notes that this ending is not in all the manuscripts. Huckabee, if he had any half-decent training, could probably point that out in a heartbeat.

"if he had any half-decent training"

As it turns out, it doesn't require even half-decent training, only a minimum of intellectual curiosity. I am not at all religious and have only the most casual familiarity with the Bible, but am reading "Misquoting Jesus" which addresses this issue.

This is more evidence in confirmation of my impression, based on a recent interview on TV, that a Huckabee administration would be a continuation of the intellectual vacuum we have been gasping through for seven years.

- Charles

slpage wrote:

Romney was on NPR earlier and he was asked if he is a literalist and Romney put on this phony 'I'm not going to dignify that with an answer' routine, claiming that such religious issues are not really relevant.

That's exactly what I was going to comment on. I'd only clarify that Romney was asked specifically about a literal interpretation of the Book of Genenis.

Here's a transcript:

Romney: You know, I find it hard to believe that NPR is going to inquire on people's beliefs about various parts of the Bible in evaluating presidential candidates, and actually, I don't know that that's where America has come to ? that you want to have us describing our particular beliefs with regards to Genesis and the Book of Revelations, so ?

Siegel: I raise Genesis only because creationism is a national issue in a variety of ways, and ?

Romney:Well, but then you could ask me a question and say, "Do you believe that we should teach creationism in our schools, in our science classes and so forth?" and I'm happy to give you an answer to that. But I don't know that going through books of the Bible and asking, "Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?", that that's terribly productive. Particularly when we face global jihad, when we have 47 million people without health insurance, when we have runaway costs in our entitlements, to be asking presidential candidates about their specific beliefs of books of the Bible is, in my view, something which really isn't part of the process which we should be using to select presidents.

My point is the Bible is the word of God, and I try and live by it.

Except, apparently, for the part about not lying.

After the interview, the announcer said they pressed him to answer the question about teaching creationism in science class and he said no, he did not support it. Which is good, if it can be believed. He's still a simpering fool though.

"The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect. I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical"

I'm guessing the seventh commandment fits into the "not literally true" category.

You mean Giuliani talked about the bigger crises in his life but did not manage to mention 9/11? Shocking.
Dunc:
Is it coincidence, or do you allude to Monty Python's "splitters"?

"the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small."

Very wise.

All the answers were pretty good. No one fell for it and pretended to believe literally (whatever that could possibly mean). You can find wisdom in the bible and you can find stuff that's outrageous and stuff that the modern mind just can't penetrate.

If you have not read the bible you have deprived yourself of one important source of western civilization. So don't feel proud of your ignorance.

If Giulliani says he reads the bible I believe him. Do you realize how easily someone could catch him if he's lying?

realpc: Do you realize how easily someone could catch him if he's lying?

That doesn't seem to have slowed Giuliani down regarding health stats, the NYC budget, his own sex life, or anything else.

realpc wrote: ...stuff that the modern mind just can't penetrate.

Even dumber than usual.

It's crazy that they're asking such questions. On top of that, of course these guys said what they did. Even if they where atheists they couldn't shoot themselves in the political foot by saying "No, I think it's the most destructive book of lies every written." That's political suicide. The question itself is absurd.

Personally, I'm a spiritual person... but certainly not a religious person. Even when I was a hardcore Christian, I would have been appalled by this question. Church and state are to remain separate. We really are on our way to a theocracy if this keeps up.

Just how do they rationalize the errors, contradictions and false history of that exercrable book?

The question for Romney is
"Do you believe that the Bible is the *only* book that contains the Word of God?"

I think Giuliani gave the only sensible, non-ducking answer: He said, emphatically, the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally -- which answered exactly the question being asked. I was impressed.

The others tried to imply that, for the nonliterals in the audience, without getting caught saying "not literally" by the literalists. That shows their fear of being caught out by either side.

As to the religious "test," imagine the reaction, and electability, of a responder who said, "No, I don't; I'm not a religious person," or "No, I'm an atheist."

The 'religious test' boils down to the unofficial reality that a very large percentage of believers (and some dishonest secularists) would not vote for someone whose atheism was emphasized. It's a religious test for public life in the U.S. And maybe elsewhere in the Western world, for all I know. It's annoying.

The person above who suggested they should have pushed back because this is an inappropriate question for this office and this Constitution was absolutely excellent. And might even have worked. Notice that the quotes about Romney's followup comments move in that direction -- smart of him!

I notice lots of questions about issues irrelevant to the office of President, or to the federal government. It only came up again when they were ducking the issue of abortion -- pushing the issue down to the states is, actually, the only realistic answer for a federal officeholder, regardless of his beliefs about the subject.

Being an ignorant UKian (where we have bishops in the house of Lords for cryin' out loud) I had a question: isn't this getting towards a religious test for public office?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that large amounts of people will not vote for you if you aren't Christian. No, in the sense that the prohibited "test for public office" is a prohibition on government.

So imagine that an atheist was elected to the Senate, and then the Senate refused to seat him or her because of his/her atheism. The Religious Test Clause is meant to prohibit only that - even though voter discrimination may have much the same effect.

I'm an atheist and a lawyer, so I discuss some things like this at my blog. (See the link in my name.)

The comments on this blog show the depth of human nature at it's ugliest. Full of unlovely inelectual vanity, vast misunderstanding of history, spitefull arrogance, unpercieved stupidity, and closed dark minds.

Business case? This is obviously a real corporate bureaucrat talking here. This is just the kind of corporate rigid nonsense ?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that large amounts of people will not vote for you if you aren't Christian.

very thanks

very thansk harika bir paylasim tesekkur ederiz gayet net aciklamali olmus Oyun emeginize cok ama cok sağol ayrıntılı olmuş gayet iyi....

Hi
Reading some the comments from 'Non-Believers' I'd like to ask a simple question of them. Explain metamorphosis, not only how the genes and 'information' to produce this miracle works, and came from, but also and most imortantly WHY? If you can, you have a brain like no other and are a master of the universe. If you can't do that simple thing then shut the hell up because you don't know what you are talking about!