Example #1: Some believe the Bible commands far-right politics in Ecclesiastes 10:2

NOTE: Updated occasionally…
During today’s hike at Radnor Lake with one of my hiking buddies who happens to be a Christian fundamentalist, I mentioned a Facebook posting I saw a few days ago by “John,” an even more conservative religious fundamentalist. John’s Facebook post implied that the Bible contains a command from God that we should have conservative or far-right political views. Here is John’s Facebook post:

I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the “right” and Liberals are called the “left.” By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible: The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2

Despite the fact that John plagiarized this comment from another forum (see Resources, below), it is nevertheless an interesting, humorous anecdote; it could even be used to create the “perfect” sound bite for Hard Right political campaigns like those of Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and others! The same kind of people who cheer for capital punishment would probably rejoice when hearing it.

John’s comment about this ridiculous Biblical interpretation elicited a string of comments from others, most of whom excitedly supported it – in effect, agreeing with one of the most intellectually challenged interpretations imaginable for this Old Testament Bible verse.

But did John really believe this? Could anyone possibly believe the Bible was actually referring to the modern political right and left? Surely not, right?

Among other things, it would be an anachronism, since the words right and left were not even used to refer to politics until fairly recently in history (the political references originated a couple of hundred years ago in France, I believe). It doesn’t seem plausible that a competent, reasonably intelligent person could actually view the verse as a political commandment (even an ultra-right-wing, hardcore, young-earth-creationist fundamentalist) – that is, until John’s next two comments are considered:

… Feel free to use this quote. It is the Bible’s word not mine [sic]. And it is open to the world [sic]….:0)

There isn’t a liberal bone in my body Shakey [sic]. You should know that.. let me define [sic]: All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty~Proverbs 14:23

OK, so John really does seem to believe that Ecclesiastes 10:2 contains a political admonishment from God. That makes me wonder: How many other religious fundamentalists would interpret the verse this way? Is is really possible that more than a handful of voting United States citizens could believe such a thing?

Naturally, no Biblical commentary I could find even suggested such a preposterous interpretation of Ecclesiastes 10:2.

Even so, on a much broader scale, these kinds of logically challenged beliefs bring up a more relevant subject than possible interpretations of one mere verse. After all, individual Bible verses can be taken out of context and then used to support many wildly varying ideas and viewpoints – especially when the reader chooses to interpret ancient religious writings at literal face value. Such intellectually thin decisions (believers at some point decided what to believe) are dangerous and foolhardy – and they were almost certainly unintended from the start.

My religious hiking friend, Bill, did not agree that Ecclesiastes 10:2 commands readers to subscribe to right-wing politics; yet, Bill stated that he believes the Bible is supposed to be interpreted "literally."

My response was that there are thousands of degrees of possible "literal" interpretations of the Bible. A poetic collection of writings so open to individual interpretation means that Bill’s comment (I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally) has no practical meaning, especially without specifically defining the word "literal" at the beginning of the discussion.

Our conversation ended there. Bill did not elaborate on his comment that the Bible should be taken literally, and I did not ask.

Since the Bible (for the most part) was written in a largely poetic language of culturally relevant symbolism, metaphor, and parable, in order for a lay person to understand its exact terminology he or she would require schooling in Religious Studies, Greek, Hebrew, English literature, Ancient Culture, and a few other disciplines to boot – otherwise one may foolishly and ham-handedly believe any Biblical quote at face value. In practice, most modern American fundamentalists do not determine the proper interpretation by engaging in objective study; rather, congregants tend to adopt whatever Biblical interpretations their preacher or minister says are proper.

Why should I even bother pointing out these things? Perhaps because the potential consequences of hard right religious fundamentalism are too severe to warrant an ongoing free pass. Radical, extremist, dominionist religious fundamentalism serves little fruitful, rational purpose that I can tell – but harm is certainly done.

Food for thought

Shouldn’t Biblical literalists also believe that faith can actually, physically move mountains? Or that prayer should occur only from within a closet? Or that it’s acceptable to go on an angry rampage, overturning tables and such, when someone is doing something wrong? Or that no one can possibly dwell in heaven unless all their possessions are given away? Or that one should hate one’s own mother and father?

No – religious fundamentalists will continue to choose the Biblical interpretations advised by their preachers and leaders, regardless of whether these interpretations conform to truth, logic, common sense, and reality. Few would admit that their fundamentalist religious beliefs are predictably interpreted in such a way as to conform to current cultural norms – not the other way around.

Fideistic fundamentalism itself is a problem, not a solution. Careful study will reveal this fact to any willing, intellectually honest student with an open mind.

Resources: Literal interpretation of Bible

Sources for the comment about Ecclesiastes 10:2

• Political left vs. right explained in the good book
• the same quote in another place
• the same quote in yet another forum

Religious fundamentalism defined

• Definition of religious fundamentalism – WordIQ
• Christian fundamentalist – WordIQ

Exploring interpretations of notable Bible verses

• What is the Explanation of the ‘Faith Moving Mountains’ Scriptures? UK Apologetics

Related humor

• Having a laugh at religion’s expense… with Joe Raiola of MAD Magazine – Excerpt: Making fun of religion, particularly the Abrahamic ones, is like shooting fish in a barrel… I mean, after 4,000 years of theological heritage, the three major Western religions believe that God/Yahweh/The Trinity allowed 18,000 people to die in the recent Japanese earthquake because a woman who never existed was induced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

Anachronisms in the Bible

• Anachronisms in the Bible – Tekton Apologetics Ministry
• Beware of Bible Fundamentalists Quoting Sources, by Farrell Till of The Skeptical Review
• Alleged Anachronisms in Genesis- Dan Wagner’s Web Page: Dedicated to the Glory of God in Biblical Studies
• Anachronism and the Bible – Political Jesus
• The Canon of the Bible (1999) – Secular Web: A drop of reason in a pool of confusion

Updates to this post
9/28/2011: Added a few comments and a new section of resources for anachronisms in the Bible, from various points of view (Protestant religious fundamentalist, Jewish, skeptical, secular)

Removed content
(John apparently also believes that all hard work actually brings a financial windfall.)
I could not say I was surprised; Bill and I are on different wavelengths.
While I hope Bill wasn’t using the word literal in its technically defined sense, I sense otherwise.
To those who value reason and intellect (rather than seeing logic as an enemy of faith), that is obviously not how the Bible was ever meant to be interpreted.

No related posts.