Like several other bloggers, I wonder if this post on Blogs 4 Brownback, Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine, is a joke. On one hand, it is quite well written in terms of language, and of course the premise is ridiculous, which suggests that this is a new Shelley the Republican. It can also serve as a exaggerated parody of anti-evolution propaganda: a total disregard for facts and reality, because the Bible says differently.

On the other hand, the fact that it’s on a quasi-official blog for a presidential candidate makes it appear serious. Frighteningly so.

If you think about it, however, then you’ll realize one thing: if that is for real, then the author is not doing anything other than being coherent with his own beliefs… because, according to the Bible, the earth really does not move. Why accept biblical infallibility for some things and nor for others? Why use the Bible as an argument against evolution (because many people don’t understand how it works, and don’t know that “theory”, in scientific terms, means something quite different than some wild fancy), but not heliocentrism or a round earth, which are accepted by virtually everyone these days? Where do you draw the line? And why draw one at all?

Either the Bible can be trusted, or not. I obviously think it can’t, but, to most Christians — especially fundamentalist ones –, it can. So why be selective? Would God ever lie? If it says that the earth is flat, then it must be… and, taken to the extreme, if a Christian was taken on a rocket ship and made to look at the earth from space, he’d deny the truth of what he was seeing as “an illusion from Satan”. Or “an illusion from God, to test our faith” (they actually say this one about fossils). Because, to quote Groucho Marx, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Fundies. Who else can make us laugh and frighten us at the same time?