Skip to main content

When the Republican U.S. presidential candidates in 2008 were asked about the Bible

In the November 28, 2007 CNN/YouTube debate between Republican U.S. presidential candidates, a user submitted a question by video: "How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book?" The person was holding a Bible.

Giuliani described his understanding of the Bible as "interpretive," "allegorical," and having a "modern context." He said, "I think it's the greatest book ever written. I read it frequently...but I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense...there are some things that I think were put there as allegorical."

Romney said, "I believe the Bible is the Word of God, absolutely. I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways...I believe in the Bible." Every word? the moderator pressed. "I might," Romney hedge, "Interpret the Word differently than you interpret the Word."

Giuliani's and Romney's answers appeared halting and bewildered compared to the third responder, Huckabee, whose charismatic on-the-spot sermonette appeared to impress them.

"It's the word of revelation to us from God himself. And the fact is, when people ask, do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it. But in the greater sense I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says, 'Go and pluck out your eye...' Well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical. But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and are really not left up to interpretation. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'Inasmuch as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me.' Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot fo time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated. And as the only person here — probably — on this stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, but I'm not supposed to, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to understand it. If they do, their God is too small."

Why was this sermon even in a presidential debate

...is what I want to know.

When I heard it, I did not necessarily object to the theological beliefs or method; I objected to the theology being in a presidential debate. I don't care whether politicians describe their Biblical interpretation as literal or allegorical in general; I care about what they believe on specific issues of political importance. For that reason, the user-submitted question — "Do you believe every word of this book?" — wasn't very good (in my view), and it seems that the candidates felt the same way, insofar as all three of them found a complicated way to say "I'm Christian, but no."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Castration at the Battle of Adwa (1896)

On March 1, 1896, the Battle of Adwa "cast doubt upon an unshakable certainty of the age – that sooner or later Africans would fall under the rule of Europeans." In this battle, Ethiopians beat back the invading Italians and forced them to retreat permanently. It was not until 1922 that Benito Mussolini would again initiate designs against Ethiopia; despite Ethiopia's defeat in 1936, the nation ultimately retained its independence. "Adwa opened a breach that would lead, in the aftermath of world war fifty years later, to the rollback of European rule in Africa. It was," Raymond Jonas wrote, "an event that determined the color of Africa." (p. 1) It was also significant because it upheld the power of Ethiopia's Christian monarchy that controlled an ethnically diverse nation (p. 333), a nation in which, in the late 19th century, the Christian Emperor Yohannes had tried to force Muslims to convert to Christianity. (p. 36)The Victorian English spelling…

Review of Cliff Sims' 'Team of Vipers' (2019)

After he resigned his position, Cliff Sims spent two months in Fall 2018 writing Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House. Many stories are told, some already well known to the public, some not. One buys this book, most likely, to gape at the colossal flameout spectacle that is Donald Trump, as with most things with Trump's name. Sims exposes the thoughtlessness, the chaos, the lack of empathy among his fellow insiders in the campaign and later in the White House, but he does not at all acknowledge the real consequences for ordinary Americans — there might as well be no world outside the Trump insider bubble, for all this narrative concerns itself with — and therefore falls far short of fully grappling with the ethical implications of his complicity.Previously, Sims was a journalist. "I had written tough stories, including some that helped take down a once-popular Republican governor in my home state," he says. "I had done my best to be acc…

It is not journalists' job to vet political nominees, but...?

The position of U.S. national intelligence director is open, following the resignation of Daniel Coats. John Ratcliffe withdrew his name from consideration on August 2, 2019, only five days after Trump nominated him. An article in The Guardian about why Trump picked Ratcliffe:Ratcliffe is a frequent Trump defender who fiercely questioned the former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.Even as Mueller laid bare concerns that Russia was working to interfere with US elections again, Ratcliffe remained focused on the possibility that US intelligence agencies had overly relied on unverified opposition research in investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.Unfortunately for Ratcliffe, he had embellished his credentials. According to Vox: He had "frequently boasted about overseeing the arrest of 300 illegal immigrants in one day at a poultry plant in 2008," but the operation was much smaller and his role w…