Some time ago, I posted a diary here titled It's All About Faith which can be found here:
One of the points I wanted to make was how the Right uses a belief that something is true to outweigh evidence that it is not true (I.e, Paul Ryan believing his budget balances in 10 years) and to make statements for which there is no evidence at all (Believing that President Obama does not love America as much as they do). Another issue with the Right, which is not specifically about faith, but I feel is an offshoot, is that they end to be very literal.
I say it i an offshoot because it explains their anti-science stance. The Bible, many on the Right believe, is true in a literal sense. Not only is Darwin full of it because God created all things as they are, but the Earth is only 6,000 years old, so scientific evidence of it being older must be flawed.
This devotion to literalism allowed Christine O'Donnell to believe she won an exchange with Chris Coons in which he pointed out that the doctrine of separation of Church and State is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The "Establishment Clause" has the effect of creating this wall, but nowhere does it actually say "separation of Church and State."
Likewise, Representative Michelle Bachmann was questioning Timothy Geithner about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and asked where in the Constitution did he get his authority. Geithner responded that Congress had given him the authority. Bachmann pounced and again demanded from where in the Constitution he derived his authority to act in the bailout, and Geithner repeated the simple truth that Congress gave him his authority to act. The Constitution does not expressly authorize him to do anything, however, it does give Congress the power to do what it deems "necessary and proper" to cry out its mission.
This literal obsession allows Congressman Paul Ryan to state that his budget puts us on a path to prosperity. It says so right on the cover, but it is merely an article of faith with no evidence to back it up and a mountain of evidence to suggest it's about as plausible as unicorns.
Partial-birth abortion is a product if this literalism. The procedure, technically referred to as dilation and extraction, or D & E, involves moving the fetus partway down the birth canal. Referring to it as a "partial-birth" allows the anti-choice side to imply that this is often happening to fully formed babies ready about to begin their lives.
I believe, though, that Representative Darrel Issa may have given up the ghost when he said that calling Benghazi an act of terror was not the same as calling it a terrorist attack. Republicans are still steamed at the fact that President Obama gets credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. Completely erased from their memory is the day President Bush said he doesn't give him much thought. In Republicanland, the narrative is that Obama claims to have ended terrorism (um, no), and that if he acknowledged Benghazi as a terrorist attack, it would be acknowledging a failure which could have cost him reelection.
Of course, literalism is subject to IOKIYAR rules (It's OK If You're A Republican), so don't be surprised when the Right violates this principle where necessary.