Sorry for the off-topic post, but it’s a must.
I just finished watching the CNN/Youtube Republican Debate and I’d like to make a few observations.
Let me get this one out of the way first. One of the Youtube questioners asked, while holding a Bible for the camera, “do you believe every word in this book?” Giuliani responded with the safe answer that he does believe it but that some of it has to be understood as metaphor and cannot be taken as the literal word of God and so avoided the damaging effect that a fundamentalist stance would have on his, or anyone’s, credibility as a rational human being, let alone a candidate for President.
Romney, however, took a different approach. He tried to take both positions. He first stated that he certainly believes the bible as the word of God. By saying this, while not saying so explicitly, he implicated that he believes the bible to be literally true. However, when pressed further by the moderator, he stammered for a bit, then backed off by saying that while he believes every word to be the word of God, some of it is surely meant to be interpreted as allegory.
Without getting too far off topic, I’d like to make the obvious, if beaten to death, point that if this is the case, how is it decided which parts are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically? Should I literally smite the inhabitants of a city of unbelievers? And if not, how does one interpret that metaphorically?
Politicians pandering aside, the more important point to be made is that it never occurred to either one of them that the only appropriate response to such a question is that a candidate’s religion HAS NO RELEVANCE IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!
I think this is appropriate: