Cognitive Cow

Last week’s CNN/YouTube debate sparked some interesting controversy over the issue of religion. The Republican Party answered questions from YouTube users at last week’s debate and one particular submitter held up a copy of the Holy Bible and asked if the candidates believed the literal truth of The Bible. The three candidates that answered all fumbled and waved their hands vigorously to get out of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It was a trap anyway, saying yes would make the candidate look like an idiot and saying no would lose the vote of the Christian right.

In a way, I’m a bit upset that this question was even asked. The person who asked this question is probably very similar to me: they saw an opportunity to corner the Republicans on the issue of faith and they took it. However, it’s people like this who believe that faith should not ever come into conversation when talking about the presidency because it should remain irrelevant. It’s these people who claim that religion should be kept to oneself yet by asking the question they’re forcing it out in the open.

While I think religion should be kept completely out of politics, I also think that we should be able to judge the religious beliefs that bleed over into politics. In an early debate, Mike Huckabee was one of the candidates who raised his hand when asked if he believed evolution was NOT true. This man does not believe what countless scientists and over a hundred years of rigorous testing have produced.

In a recent story on NPR, it was revealed that most people do not care weather or not the president believes in evolution. They say it’s not important. How can anybody say that? The issue isn’t about evolution, it’s about self-delusion. If this man is capable of deluding himself enough declare to the entire country that evolution is false and God did it, it’s scary to imagine the other things he can delude himself into thinking. Denying evolution isn’t about weather or not creationism will be taught in schools, it’s about a president’s capacity to understand and interpret facts and theories as presented by individuals who are well qualified in their fields. Imagine if he were president and he took this uninformed approach to attacking Iran. This could be disastrous. It’s possible that his denying evolution is an isolated incident and that he might make good decisions in other aspects, but right now, this is all we have to judge from.

Shouldn’t this be cause for concern? We have a top-running republican who denies what science takes for granted and people seem to think that’s okay. I blame the American people for allowing him to move up in the polls as much as he has. It’s not just this little stunt either. Huckabee and Romney recently had a debate about weather or not Satan was Jesus’ brother. You read it right, this actually came up in a presidential conversation. The fact that this even came up says two disturbing things:

1. The candidates actually believe there is a Satan as well as Jesus, Heaven, Hell, etc.
2. The American republicans like candidates who deeply and truly believe this.

Now, I’m all for the separation of church and state. While I may strongly disagree with religious practices and beliefs, I certainly respect the right to have these beliefs. The issue here is that the fate of this country is beginning to lie largely on what religious belief a candidate has and how strongly they believe it. We should never ask questions like, “Is Mormanism really Christian?” but instead ask questions like, “Should we allow a man who doesn’t believe in science to be president?” or “Does this candidate think rationally enough to make tough decisions?”