The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 1 Rudy

This question splits the religious and political community apart. The questioner asked, do you agree with every word in the Bible? Essentially this question is asking if candidates believe the things that have been shown to be scientifically untrue. For example, The Bible’s account of the age of the Earth, and the creation of animals and man are all completely out of line with scientific reality. When we find a 3.2 million year old skeleton of a species that was below our current evolutionary state, but walked upright, it’s impossible to believe that god simply created man out of dust 5,000 years ago. These kinds of contradictions were at the heart of the question. He was asking, “Do you accord every word of the bible with literal meaning, thereby believing things that are absolutely false, or do you admit some things are not literal?” This question may seem silly, but in a country where the majority believes that the Bible is literal truth, it may hold electoral importance.

Rudy Tootie Fresh and Fruity

Rudy Giuliani answered the question first, he said that he believed the whole thing, but that parts were allegorical, and parts were meant to be interpretive. He stressed that it was important to him and even went so far as to say it is the “greatest book ever written”.

Some other Atheists might object to his general belief in supernatural beings, his professed religiosity. But I am more interested in his religion in practice, than in performance. Rudy says that he interprets the Bible and that parts are literal, but others aren’t. The practical reality is that Rudy has been married and divorced multiple times disrespecting fidelity throughout. Obviously, his belief is that the Bible does not extend over his sexual life, maybe that’s something he thinks shouldn’t be interpreted in a literal context.

Politically he’s pro-choice, to his credit I might add, but that doesn’t jive with the Bible’s implication; that every baby has a soul from conception, which is robbed of life by abortion. Certainly that isn’t up for interpretation.

Rudy’s uses of religion the way most politicians do, to get votes. I have no problem with that, religion is a tool to control people en mass, always has been, always will be. Rudy is a cagey political veteran going back to the bread and butter of superstitious politics.

Because of Rudy’s perceived problem with religious voters, he tried to establish his religiosity. At the same time he seemed cautious, stopping short of professing literal belief. It was a calculated and political performance, but one that no one should interpret as religiously genuine.