CNN You Tube debate: True books, true policies?

In Wednesday's CNN/You tube debate I found some fascinating combinations of questions and answers. Here are just two.

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?

Joseph holds up the spine of the book embossed Holy Bible to let us read his specificity is referring to the King James Version. Note that his question is "Do you believe this book?"


Before examining the candidates' answers, it is worth examining the question. Is Joseph referring to the existence of the book? Is he referring to the text as represented in that particular version? Is he referring to each individual word? Or is he referring to the message the book is intended to convey to its readers about God and man? What does believe this book mean?

With this in mind let's see how the candidates answer:

Giuliani: OK. 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 think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

Giuliani thinks some of the book is allegorical. He does not believe every thing in it is literal. Why not just condense this to yes, and leave it at that?

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try..
... I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?

Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.

Here Cooper apparently has interpreted the question to mean that interpreting the words literally is the meaning of believing the book. Romney, while replying yes to "do you believe every word?", then effectively says no, it is the word of God.

Interestingly we can compare Romney's answer to the Articles of Faith which form a part official scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Romney starts out with a direct quotation but cuts the rest of the quote short before it calls attention to the differences his church takes with this translation and the existence of other scripture.

Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself. And the fact is that 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 really not left up to interpretation. "Love your neighbor as yourself."

And as much 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 of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.

And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because 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.

While Huckabee gives a more theological answer, he takes indicates what he thought the questioners meaning was, and distinguishes between a literal understanding and understanding through interpretation.


Let's look at another question that has captured more attention about the questioner than the question.

Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.): My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man.

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

There are several unstated assumptions embedded in this question. Gays and Lesbians are not now serving. The Don't ask, don't tell policy was instituted because the Republican presidential candidates on the stage believed men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Lets look at the answers:

Hunter: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.

They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.

I don't know what data supports Hunter's assertion that most kids who serve in the military are conservative, or have Judeo-Christian values, but he is correct that the policy's architect was Colin Powell and the policy's preface is that any one who:"demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" ... "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Huckabee: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that's what is at issue. And that's why our policy is what it is.

Huckabee is inaccurate here. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy of the Department of Defense implementing 10 U.S.C. § 654 which is not part of the UCMJ.

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

Cooper: Is that a change in your position...

Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.

And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

Cooper's question to Romney and his followup appears to be a "gotcha". Romney's position in Cooper's quote referred to some time in the future. It is not clear why Romney thinks that future hope is in conflict with the current DADT. Romney states that while he did not think DADT would work when first announced and could have said I support DADT as long as the military commanders tell me it is needed, without changing his hope for the future.

McCain: General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.

Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.

Here McCain seems to accept the premise that accepting openly gay or lesbian service members is related to a professional armed force, but goes on to support the policy because it is working, without describing what is working about it.

Read More. . . .

Just Let Me Read For Myself!

Why is it that the mainstream media will tell me all about what the Pope wrote, but they won't do anything to help me read it? CNN, Fox News, the Washington Times and other media sources all reported the story of the Pope's recent statement, discussed recently on The Virginian Federalist, without even including the document's title. This is ridiculous, especially considering that the entire document is only a few pages long in each language and can be read in a matter of minutes!

This same sort of sloppy reporting was also evident in the reporting of a recent Supreme Court decision that determined that students could not be forced to attend a particular public school based on the students' race. Nowhere in the news articles could I find the name of the case. The lack of a name made it exceedingly difficult to find the actual decision, which is readily available on the internet, if only you know what to look for.

Especially in a time when most official documents are available to any interested person with an internet connection, it is unacceptable for the media to tell readers what such a document says without doing anything to help them see for themselves. Most people will be content to accept the media explanation. However, some will at least on occasion happily put in the extra time and effort to read the original documents. Journalists should become more like scholarly writers and document their sources, especially when the source is the topic of the article.

Although blogs like Daily Whackjob and Reason & Revelation that commented on the Pope's statement probably should have identified the actual statement, I understand that they based their posts on the aforementioned newspaper articles, which they did link to. I expect more from large news organizations with extensive paid staff than I do from small Virginia blogs, and yet the blogs at least let their readers know where they got their information.

Thanks to Catholic World News for actually including the title of the Pope's statement and even a link.

That Supreme Court case is Parents Involved in Communitiy Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
Read More. . . .

O'Reilly Excuses Tabloidization of News

I know "tabloidization" is not really a word, but you get my point. Last night, Bill O'Reilly said that the excessive coverage of Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and similar stories is just because twenty-four hours is just too long to discuss real news. Somehow, with two wars, a Presidential campaign underway, serious problems in state and local government, and untold examples of great accomplishment and terrible failure around the country and the world, it is too much to expect Fox News Channel or CNN to discuss things that really matter throughout their programming.

Especially considering that cable news networks report many of their stories every hour or two during a day, how can it possibly be much of a challenge to find a few solid hours of news every day? There are far too many things happening in the world of real significance for so much news time to be wasted prognosticating about who fathered Anna Nicole Smith's baby or listening to a recording of Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter. People wishing to saturate themselves with such gossip can certainly find it on E! or read about it in People. 24-Hour news networks should spend their time on actual news. In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "to do otherwise would be ridiculous." Read More. . . .

GOP defeats CNN in Tonight's Debate

The Republican Presidential candidates represented the GOP well tonight. Most importantly, as a group they expressed the ideals of the party and the Founding Fathers. CNN did not do so well. Wolf Blitzer asked several inept questions and called out candidates for bad answers that were actually very good answers. Microphones kept fading out at inopportune times. The candidates still succeeded in getting out their message, though.

Mike Huckabee asked us to give his hometown of Hope, Arkansas, another chance. Given his repeated strong performance on a national stage, we just might. The ordained minister's response to Blitzer's attempted "gotcha" question about evolution was outstanding. Governor Huckabee responded, "In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth." Huckabee said he did not know how God did it or how long it took, though. After all, "I wasn't there." Most Americans not only can live with that answer, they agree with it. Governor Huckabee also gave the first and best answer to a question about the most pressing moral issue facing the country, stressing the importance of respecting every single human life at all stages of life.

Ron Paul doesn't stand much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he has done a good job in these debates calling attention to our national ideals. He reminded those who were listening that we get our rights as individuals, not as members of protected groups. He admonished us to "read the Constitution," an essential task which many elected officials and judges seem to miss, and to leave things to the states which the Constitution leaves to the states. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." - maybe Congress should be making fewer laws about those issues.

Rudy Giuliani paraphrased the first Republican President in response to a question about what makes someone an American: it is "how much you believe in Freedom...how much you believe in the Rule of Law." President Lincoln was a smart man.

Mitt Romney spoke eloquently about looking to the future, not just worrying about fixing problems. He emphasized that Ronald Reagan was able to win even Massachusetts with his optimistic outlook and that such an outlook was necessary to earn the support of moderates, independents, and "Reagan Democrats."

John McCain fared far better in this debate than in the last one. He gave a strong defense of the immigration bill that he is co-sponsoring. He also stressed that he would veto any bill with pork-barrel projects. Overall, he gave clearer, more convincing answers this time around. McCain is back in.

The only thoroughly disappointing moment in the debate was Tom Tancredo's response to a question about what makes someone American, in which the congressman suggested that even most legal immigration should be stopped. However, even he impressed on other issues, such as when he noted that conservation is a conservative issue, as proven by the National Park System founded by Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

In addition to all of the "top tier" candidates, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Congressman Duncan Hunter were especially impressive. However, the GOP field as a whole was strong in this debate. There is still hope for the future! Read More. . . .

Sly Like a Wolf

Mitt Romney opened the debate by telling Wolf Blitzer that his question was stupid. Mitt was right - Monday night quarterbacking is not Presidential. Wolf Blitzer then repeated his stupid question to Governor Romney and again to Rudy Giuliani.

If you missed it, the question was along the lines of, "knowing what we know now, would you have attacked Iraq?" Read More. . . .

Just In Case You Thought CNN Was Unbiased...

On most issues, CNN's Election Center 2008 gives a fair assessment of the candidates' views. However, when it comes to abortion, the candidates are given only two options - they can either be in support of abortion rights or opposed to abortion rights. None of the Republican candidates (all the D's "support abortion rights"), are allowed by CNN to "oppose killing the unborn" or "support the right to life." The only option for them is to oppose a supposed natural right to abortion. Read More. . . .