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.

Life in a Theocracy: Teddy Bear Subversive pt. 1

The BBC reports, A British Teacher in Sudan allowed one of her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad” in a class activity. Authorities, enforcing an Islamic command against representing Muhammad, arrested and charged her with Insulting Religion, Inciting Hate, and Showing Contempt for religious beliefs. If convicted, she could face 6 months in jail, 40 lashes, or a fine.

This nice lady?

Why does the state have a role to play here? It’s insulting on multiple levels. First and foremost, I am offended by the states authoritarian endorsement of one specific religion, which would not surprise anyone familiar with Sudan. Another facet of insult lies in the states regulation of religious rules. It is one thing to endorse one religion over all others; it’s another thing to become the punisher of religious violations. And it is an unbearable thing

I am insulted because when a government promotes one religion above all others squelches the debate. No longer is there a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas collide with better ideas, not in Sudan. In Muslim Theocracies, Islam is the only game in town. When a government doesn’t allow ideas to compete, traditions go unexamined, centuries old religious regulation created in a specific set of historical circumstances (complete female subjection, scientific ignorance, etc) continue to hold sway over modern times that are devoid of the context the rules were written in. The result is that the religion does not match the time and many of these Muslim Theocracies are the worse off for it. They govern poorly, authoritatively punishing their populations, and they eschew contact and trade with the west, that could help their economy.

More next post!

Life in a Theocracy: Teddy Bear Subversive pt. 2

(This is a continuation of the Previous Article)

Don't call him "Mo"

This event reminds me of Salman Rushdie’s article, “Yes, This Is About Islam". In it, he makes the point that in the west, religion has faded into our private lives, we have individualized it. While in Islamic countries, religion is not private, it is public, it’s not only important what you do, and it is important what your neighbor does. He claims, and I agree, that this is the fundamental flaw with Islam that must be reformed if they are to enter the modern world.

These “Islamists” are using this event to whip up anti-west sentiment

"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said in a statement.

We’ll see how it turns out. Given their countries history with dealing with large problems, my faith in their capacity to deal with this small problem is shaken to say the least. This is Religious Politics in Sudan, and at any given time we are one election away from this.

Update: Saudi Foreign Minister: It’s ok that we punished that gang rape victim, she’s a whore!

When defending rape, imputing that the victim was promiscuous is a frequently used tactic. Today, the Saudi Arabian government issued a statement claiming that the woman who was gang raped 14 times earlier this month, was having an affair when she was raped. This was meant to mitigate the international outrage that occurred after news broke of the girl's story.

The minister claims that the woman has admitted to being in the act of intercourse with a man other than her husband, when she and her lover were gang raped at knife point. By releasing this information, the foreign minister believes it is somehow helping its case.

What is the Saudi government saying, “She was having an affair so she deserved it”? First of all, I don’t trust the Saudi government to fully report the truth when it is under international scrutiny. There is a good chance, this new fact is untrue. But even if it is true, it doesn’t matter. Her gang rape was still a terrible crime, and her punishment should still be nothing. If she was having an affair, than the state should leave it to them to sort it out, its simply not the governments job. The Saudi’s show how they completely miss the point by defending themselves like this.

Palestinian Aid Worker Seeks End to Sanctions on Gaza

The UN has pressed British parliament to influence Israel to lift sanctions on Gaza. Israel applied the sanctions when Hamas seized control of Gaza and split with the Fatah party that still controls the West Bank.

John Ging, Gaza's director of operations for the refugee agency UNRWA, said that "crushing sanctions" imposed since the Israeli cabinet declared the Strip a "hostile entity" in September had contributed to "truly appalling living conditions."

The article goes on to indicate that the Palestinians who are suffering under the sanctions are incapable of stopping the rocket fire and attacks Israel seeks to stop. But I can imagine Israel’s response.

An Israeli might argue that since that Palestinian people in Gaza voted for Hamas, they decided to split with Israel and pursue a course of conflict. The ramifications of voting for an organization that does not believe in Israel’s right to exist, is, at least, to stop trading with them.

Once again the argument for peace in the Mideast breaks down to two competing claims. Israel shouldn't trade with people who elect Terrorist governments, or Israel should life sanctions on its neighbors in Gaza because they are causing terrible living conditions. Take your choice, they're both right and they're both wrong.

breaking news report of fall of Gaza