The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 3, Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee can't make up his mind about his weight. I wonder if he would be able to decide whether or not to kill Osama Bin Laden? America can't afford a flip-flopper, not now.

Huckabee, a Baptist minister, spit out a canned answer. It echoed Rudy’s claim that the Bible was allegorical, while explaining that the parts that didn’t make sense to him despite years of theological study, weren’t supposed to.

Do we want a president an intellectually vacant as that? I suppose since most Americans believe the bible is literal, they would agree with Huckabee, but I argue that it is obvious to see that The Bible is the work of men. I’ve known that my entire life. I have never believed God wrote the bible. How could he? As a kid I thought how is it possible that infallible God wrote a book I couldn’t understand. My parents explained it was because it was written so long ago in strange hard to read language, and right then I realized it was manmade. If god made it, he would have written it to have universal meaning, not one limited to a time frame. The older I grew, even if I believed in a Christian god, I still believed it was the work of men. Think about it, if God wrote The Bible wouldn’t it at least be interesting?

Regardless, Huckabee’s answer, easy, without controversy and soaked in religious code-language, was a result of his comfortable relationship with religion. His ministerial status gives him unparalleled religious legitimacy.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 2, Mitt Romney

After Rudy answered,

Mitt totally blew this question. He started strong, earning slight applause by claiming that the Bible is the word of god, a claim he would make once every nine seconds until he finished talking. But as soon as he was pinned down and asked if he believed every word, he lost what little momentum he had.

Ol’ Mitt Looking the Part

He came off as defensive and unsure, while appearing to be religiously equivocating. It will be interesting to see if this hurts his poll numbers with the most religious voters. I imagine it could if they were paying attention.

He didn’t mention the Book of Mormon, or his personal religious differences from Christians, other than saying that he might interpret the Bible a different way than “you” do.

By highlighting his acceptance of the Bible as “the word of god” Romney was seeking to draw parallels with his faith and Christianity. He avoided saying the “M” word or mentioning any Mormon differences. Not surprising, Mitt is trying to become president in a country that is deeply mistrustful of his religion.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 1 Rudy

This question splits the religious and political community apart. The questioner asked, do you agree with every word in the Bible? Essentially this question is asking if candidates believe the things that have been shown to be scientifically untrue. For example, The Bible’s account of the age of the Earth, and the creation of animals and man are all completely out of line with scientific reality. When we find a 3.2 million year old skeleton of a species that was below our current evolutionary state, but walked upright, it’s impossible to believe that god simply created man out of dust 5,000 years ago. These kinds of contradictions were at the heart of the question. He was asking, “Do you accord every word of the bible with literal meaning, thereby believing things that are absolutely false, or do you admit some things are not literal?” This question may seem silly, but in a country where the majority believes that the Bible is literal truth, it may hold electoral importance.

Rudy Tootie Fresh and Fruity

Rudy Giuliani answered the question first, he said that he believed the whole thing, but that parts were allegorical, and parts were meant to be interpretive. He stressed that it was important to him and even went so far as to say it is the “greatest book ever written”.

Some other Atheists might object to his general belief in supernatural beings, his professed religiosity. But I am more interested in his religion in practice, than in performance. Rudy says that he interprets the Bible and that parts are literal, but others aren’t. The practical reality is that Rudy has been married and divorced multiple times disrespecting fidelity throughout. Obviously, his belief is that the Bible does not extend over his sexual life, maybe that’s something he thinks shouldn’t be interpreted in a literal context.

Politically he’s pro-choice, to his credit I might add, but that doesn’t jive with the Bible’s implication; that every baby has a soul from conception, which is robbed of life by abortion. Certainly that isn’t up for interpretation.

Rudy’s uses of religion the way most politicians do, to get votes. I have no problem with that, religion is a tool to control people en mass, always has been, always will be. Rudy is a cagey political veteran going back to the bread and butter of superstitious politics.

Because of Rudy’s perceived problem with religious voters, he tried to establish his religiosity. At the same time he seemed cautious, stopping short of professing literal belief. It was a calculated and political performance, but one that no one should interpret as religiously genuine.