Christians & Political Parties: A Response to Anne Rice
By dpayton Posted in 2008 — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is one of my longer posts, possibly the longest I've done on my personal blog. What happened was, I was reading an open letter from a Christian planning on voting a particular way, and as I read further and further into it, one objection after another kept coming to my mind, and one problem after another regarding the writer's reasons kept getting in the way. Finally, I realized I'd have to just set aside some of my typical day-to-day blogging of the link-and-quick-comment type, and go in-depth into the problems I see with the author, and Christians in general, who vote Democratic for specifically Christian reasons, and especially regarding the social issues brought up in the letter. Pull up a cup of coffee and sit back.
Anne Rice is a Catholic author. I'll admit to not being too well-read, but as a Protestant my knowledge of Catholic authors is even more limited. Therefore, I'm not sure how much Ms. Rice's views are mainstream Catholic, although whether or not they are really isn't the crux of this post. I do want to discuss the views she espouses, and espouses quite well as an author. That she is a Catholic and I am a Protestant has really no bearing on my criticism of her recent public letter dated August 10. I know Protestants who would agree with her on these issues, so this is not a denominational thing. She professes Christianity, as do I, and we have very similar goals, as far as I can tell, on the topics she discusses, and yet we're voting differently. Ms. Rice wrote a lengthy letter to her readers on her main web site (no permalink so don't know how long it'll stay on the front page) about why she is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. They reasons she lists for that endorsement, to me, run completely counter to her list of important issues and goals. If she is truly concerned about those goals, I don't follow her endorsement, nor the endorsement of other of my friends and acquaintances of any Democrat in the current group. I want to address the inconsistencies I see in this post.
Ms. Rice starts out with her Christian and Catholic creds, which I respect and am willing to accept. She talks about how, while the separation of church and state is a good idea, the voter does not have that prohibition, and in fact must consider their vote based on their religion.
Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.
I agree wholeheartedly. But, she also correctly notes, we have only 2 political parties in this country. (She believes, as do I, that a vote for neither Democrat or Republican, whether it's a non-vote or a vote for a 3rd party, is essentially a vote for one of the two major ones, no matter how you slice it.) In short:
To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.
Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
And that last clause is where the disagreement begins.
Charitable Giving
The first paragraph of explanation deals with giving.
Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving ones neighbors and loving ones enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.
First of all, neither the religious right nor the religious left have a lock on charitable giving. At the same time, as I noted on this post regarding a study by Arthur Brooks, conservatives outgive liberals by quite a significant amount. How does this relate to how the political parties differ in their view of the government's role in this? Ms. Rice, I believe, falls into a trap by simplistically equating the advocacy of government charity with Jesus' admonition to the individual to be charitable. Democrats say the government should give more, so by her reckoning thy are more in line with her Christian view. However, it has always made me wonder how when Jesus tells me, personally, to be charitable, that somehow this means that I should also use the government to force my neighbor, under penalty of jail, to be "charitable". I put "charitable" in quotes because when there's force involved, there's no real act of charity. How Democrat Christians get from point A to point Z on this boggles my mind. Another statistic from Brooks' study brings this point home; People who believe the government does not have a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
On top of this, the bureaucratic inefficiency filter that we're all forced to funnel our "charitable" taxes through siphons money away from the needy, as does the massive fraud that goes on in a big government program that has little accountability.
Conservatives believe that forcibly taking money isn't charity, and that it is not government's role to rob from Peter to pay Paul, and that the way the government handles this creates dependency and causes further problems, like giving fathers a disincentive to stick around. Because of this, conservatives give more of their own money to local charities where the administrative costs are much lower. The Republican party, the current home of most conservative political ideas in this country, purports to support these goals, and while they don't always follow those principles, they have done better at this than Democrats. An expanded role of government in the area of giving to the poor is not the best way for that to happen, and as a Christian I believe it's not moral to force others to give when they don't want to. Again, Jesus asks me to give; He didn't ask me to force others to.
Ms. Rice, in ticking off a laundry list of values, seems to be falling for the framing of the issue that Democrats have put forth; welfare = caring. There are other ways to care, which can have much better results.
Abortion
Anne Rice spends most of her letter covering this issue, and she starts with an assertion that, to me, shows a lack of consideration of the history of the issue.
I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.
Ms. Rice does touch on these historical issues lightly later on, and I'll hit them more in-depth then, but even looking at how the abortion issue generally falls between the parties today, I don't see this as making sense. What I hear from Democrats are things like John Kerry with this sentiment:
I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. That's why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.
If one's commitment to Christianity should be "absolute", as Ms. Rice has said, there is a big problem with this statement, that is generally the line religious Democrats use when talking about abortion, and that is the canard about legislating one's religious faith, or sometimes call ramming one's religion down your throat. Civil rights are very much a moral issue, but does Sen. Kerry have the same problem with legislating that? No, he's very willing to impose his view on KKK members, and rightly so. It's right, it's moral and it's the law. Legislators all throughout our country's history, and more so in our early history, based many of their decisions partly or mostly on their religious faith. This excuse is disingenuous.
Regarding Hillary Clinton, NARAL gave her a 100% score on her 2006 voting record (PDF), and she's a big supporter of Roe v Wade. See here for other details. You won't curb abortions by voting the way she does. Like her husband, she'll talk the talk, but watch the way she votes.
When voting, as Ms. Rice says, "Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian". If there is a substantial difference between Ms. Rice's vote and Sen. Kerry's or Clinton's vote, I'd like to know what she thinks it might be. Both votes affect more than just the voter, and one's Christianity shouldn't be compartmentalized between private and public life.
In one sense, votes by representatives will, to different extents, reflect the people represented rather than the representatives views. At the same time, by that very title, the representative represents their constituents views and values, and his or her own views are part of that; he or she was voted in partially or mostly because of their views. It's certainly not always a perfect fit between the politician and the constituents, but Sen. Kerry's statement takes his religious beliefs totally and completely out of the equation. If Democratic politicians, in general, can't bring themselves to vote against abortion, how in the world they be better in stopping the horror of it?
I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.
I agree that repealing bad legislation or overturning court decisions will not bring an end to abortion in and of themselves, but without them, how can we make real headway? For too many people, what's legal is what's right, or at least what's neutral. Our government's laws should reflect our country's shared morality. Do we or do we not value life in our culture?
The idea that Americans will just pass laws to support abortion is akin to saying that kids will just use drugs anyway, so let's give them clean needles, or that they're going to have sex anyway, might as well give them condoms and a clean room. None of those remedies will even stem the tide, so neither is a "solution to the horror". People are going to steal from each other and hurt each other and kill each other anyway; they do all the time. Should we throw our hands up and legalize those actions? And thus, keeping abortion legal isn't going to somehow reduce the number of abortions.
And while we're on the subject, one might ask if I'm also against passing laws against anything I find morally wrong. One might say that I'm inconsistent in my views if I favor the continued legalization of alcohol or tobacco. Fair question. I would also ask the religious left if they are in favor, morally, of state-sponsored gambling, since it's typically politicians on their side of the aisle pushing for state lotteries and the like. Just as fair. Let me answer that by saying that I believe there are some moral issues that should be decided on an individual basis, but there are other issues that should have the weight of our representative government behind them. Whether one drinks wine with dinner is, I think we can agree, an individual choice. Whether one is allowed to be born or not is the first right of them all, without which none of the others matter, and should have the force of government behind it.
And referring back to Sen. Kerry's statement on abortion, I wonder if Ms. Rice finds his comment "constructive or convincing". How constructive to the pro-life cause is that sort of declaration?
And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure -- as a student of history -- that Americans should give up the right to abortion.
Try saying it this way: "As much as I am horrified by sucking a living being out with a hose and killing it, I am not sure -- as a student of history -- that Americans should give up the right to sucking out living beings with hoses and killing them." Depending on your opinion of the living-ness of the fetus, this is one reading of that statement, and it sounds almost comical, if not utterly incredible. How horrible can you really believe something is if you think we should retain some "right" to it?
And if you don't think the fetus is a human being, then how could it be described as a "horror"? It's no different than cutting off a fingernail. This is a major inconsistency I see with people who say they're pro-life, but think abortion should remain a right. If the fetus is alive, why are you for allowing it to be killed without cause, and if it's not alive, why use the label "pro-life"?
I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.
I have to refer to Sen. Kerry's statement and Sen. Clinton's voting record again. Are they "practical or sincere" with regard to ending abortion? I honestly don't think so.
Ms. Rice is either deliberately framing the issue here to benefit her argument, or is naively parroting Democrat & Planned Parenthood talking points. The point at which the determination of whether or not to have a child is made is at the time of conception, but she doesn't mention this issue of responsibility. She might be talking about it regarding the "social situations we have", but she doesn't elaborate.
If that is what she's talking about, that our overly sexualized culture has to be addressed, then I would agree with that. But again, who is in the better position to work at retreating from that? Was it liberal or conservative values that brought us this rise in teen sexualization? Was it liberal or conservative values that brought us "free" "love" in the 60s? Was it liberal or conservative values that gave us a welfare system that allows absentee fathers to assuage their guilt? Again, the Republican party has not been completely true to conservative principles, but Democrats are certainly not anywhere near them, and many times deriding them.
And here's a nice irony: "I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians", so her solution to the horror of abortion is to vote for pro-abortion politicians? Completely upside-down.
Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers --- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.
I heartily agree that education is one of the keys to this; winning the hearts and minds. But that alone, like overturning bad court rulings, is not enough, yet essentially that's the only solution she talks about, and frankly overturning Roe v Wade by itself would curb more abortions than education itself. (Don't believe me? Say what you want about Prohibition, while it was in force as law there was less alcohol consumption. Generally, people respected the law. Legislation works.) Suggesting this remedy alone, I would argue, is what is not convincing.
Who would fund that education? Can we count on Democrats, who lobby for government money on behalf of Planned Parenthood, be the ones to entrust with this? Hen house, meet fox. Again, the unintended irony (and it is unintended, as far as I can tell) is just all over this letter, and especially with the next paragraph.
There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.
As much as Ms. Rice appeals to history, you'd think she would consider these questions rather important. Who got us into this mess is a serious question that would need to be answered as part of an informed decision as to which party is best to lead us out of it. For the edification of those interested, let's hit all her points.
How abortion became legal, and why it happened: Let me ask which side of the argument the two political parties were on at the time Roe v Wade was decided, and have been since then. The answer is obvious. The only dissenters in that decision were conservatives, and at least one conservative justice voted for it not understanding the gravity of that decision
In his concurring opinion, [Justice Warren E. Burger] explained, "I do not read the court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."
.
Apparently, physicians make 1,300,000 carefully deliberated medical judgements a year. So much for that thought. Conservatives, in general, opposed the decision. All the liberal justices voted for the decision.
Why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted: Ask John Kerry, who, in his list of people who the woman should consult about the decision, leaves out the father. This is the standard Planned Parenthood response, supported by the Democrats.
The human rights of all individuals involved: Indeed those of us who are pro-life are very concerned about the human rights of all individuals involved, including the one dead after the abortion. If you consider abortion a horror, I would hope you would be, too. It's not just a question that should be hand-waved away.
Conclusion
And so we wrap up.
But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.
Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs --- on a whole variety of issues --- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.
The Democrats brought us here, and somehow Anne Rice thinks they're the ones to deliver us from it, too. She thinks a voter should consider their commitment to Christ in their vote, but backs a party that, in general, won't. She values charitable giving, won't support a party who's members give more, and yet supports a party that uses force to collect and inefficiently distribute "charity" money. She believes abortion is a "horror", but supports its continued legalization, and believes that a party that brought us that horror and has huge conflicts of interest regarding solving it will, in fact, solve it.
I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
I'd respectfully suggest that Ms. Rice, and any Christian considering voting for a Democrat and for whom these issues matter, reconsider.
Actually, I'm posting this in 2 parts on my personal blog and to a group blog I contribute to (Stones Cry Out). Wasn't sure how a 2-parter would work here, mostly regarding finding part 2 after reading part 1.
I often ask democrats at my Church why they bother to come to Church when their votes support No School Prayer, Abortion, Gay Rights, and Ten Commandment Censure. They all, to a person say..." Oh...My vote doesn't really represent those Anti Christ agendas. Ny vote isn't counted towards that stuff! HOW ABSURD! I've found that most Democrats...including a reported 25 Million Catholics who voted for John Kerry, would sell their soul for a welfare check!
When questioned about the Democrats Anti Christ agenda, the Christian Pretenders ( Democrats) spout the Constitution. Separation of Church and State Etc. There are Christians and there are "True Believers". Like George Bush said early on in the Terror war...either you are with us are you are against us. A vote for ANY Democrat is a vote AGAINST CHRIST. And all the posturing and lies won't change that. I ask the Democrats.." What Bible are you reading from?" Certainly not the real Bible. Because I can't find anywhere in my Bible where God's Christians Advocated Abortion, Ten Commandment Censure, Gay Rights, and No School Prayer.
I wouldn't go so far as to say *any* Democrat, just as I wouldn't say that Jesus is Republican. What I would say is that a Christian who votes must consider where that candidate *and* that candidate's party stand on the issues vs the other candidate / party, and vote your conscience and beliefs.
Anne Rice and other Christians are trying to do just that, and I'm glad they are. All I'm doing in this post is pointing out the convoluted logic and historical counters to those arguments. At this time in history, yes, I really can't see voting for a Democrat, but calling a vote for a Democrat a vote "against Christ" seems a little over the top. How 'bout a Blue Dog Democrat?
I guess what I'm saying is to watch out for absolute statements like that. It hurts your argument when you paint with a very broad brush.
There are people who actually believe that the words "separation of Church and state" are in the constitution. Those people believe that it is wrong for churches to talk about politics. They've got it all wrong. Churches have a RESPONSIBILITY to talk about politics because if they don't, politicians will do everything they can to shut them down. Just look at the Soviet Union. They weren't allowed to practice any religion. Many on the left have that dream for our country. If you are a Christian (or a Jew, a Muslim, Hindu, etc.) and you believe the teachings of your religion, you have a responsibility to vote based on that. I certainly wouldn't say that someone is a sinner because they vote democrat. Someone could honestly believe that a child is not a child until they pop out and start breathing. Someone coult really think that there shouldn't be prayer in school because they don't want a non-Christian teacher teaching doing anything to teach their kids about religion. They could think that putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is like the government sponsoring one religion over another. With Gay Rights, that person might think "let the person who is without sin cast the first stone." They may also think that when the Bible talks about giving to the poor and "it is harder for a rich man to enter the gates of Heaven..." Now, I personally think that is all crap and that most people who feel that way are trying to justify the fact that their political beliefs are the polar opposite of their religious beliefs. However, I'm sure there are some people out there who agree with those statements above, so I certainly wouldn't make a blanket statement about all Democrat Christians as if they are not true believers.
Hey mudcat - isn't there something like "thou shall not kill" in those commandments you're so proud of? You people are always quick to point to abortion. Well - good for you. But how "Christian" is war? Could you tell me that? How "Christian" is the death penalty? Any idea?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But you can't cherry pick your commandments my friend. If you want prayer in school, then I want an end to preemptive war. Deal?
An end to preemptive war? What, you want Americans to be hit with a nuke first? War isn't a cop show where we go to catch the perp. It's not about retribution. Waiting until you're attacked with a nuke just so you can feel good about yourself condemns millions to death. That's pretty arrogant. It's also very uncaring about your fellow citizens.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
But how "Christian" is war? Could you tell me that? How "Christian" is the death penalty? Any idea?
I actually have a pretty good one. Google "Aquinas + 'death penalty'," and/or "Augustine + war."
You know what? Consider that a mandatory assignment. I'll give you until Monday to discuss.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The problem is not that you've offered a contrary viewpoint; the problem is that you're yet another in a long line of lefties with a passing acquaintance with Christianity who deigns to lecture folks who've lived it for decades on its tenets.
Sorry that the axe is coming down on you.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
No, there is no "thou shall not kill" in the Ten Commandments. Properly translated, the commandment is not to MURDER! That justifies war, self-defense, and capital punishment. Recall God also ordered such punishment in specific situations in the Bible. Find an unborn child posing the same risks and dangers and causing the same harm to a woman, and an abortion would be fully justified.
I'd advise YOU not to cherry pick the translation of the commandments whose original text has survived for millenia.
I don't know how school prayer is supposed to be related. You'll have to take those "deals" to our federal judges, many of whom would bend over backwards to give you both without any give and take needed.
the beauty of blogs is that those sorts of rules don't apply. You will obviously lose out on recommendations since many simply won't read it all, but that is mostly for vanity anyway.
I was looking for you to mention that is Christian to give to charity not to have the government do it for you and you did. Clearly, Rice is not aware of the difference.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Jesus taught personal responsibility. Even corporate charity (e.g. Salvation Army, United Way, etc.) is still an opt-in, so to speak, form of pooling resources. But when you start throwing people in jail for not being "charitable", that's where I part ways with the religious left.
some of your diary again, and I think that Anne Rice proves again, that when it comes to political commentary she is a really good fiction writer.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
this isn't a voluntary contribution. Maybe the Catholic Church where Rice says her prayers has installed a toll booth between the pews and the communion rail. Perhaps they don't make putting a check in the collection plate a volitional act anymore. That is the only reason that Mrs. Rice could possibly confuse Federal Spending with charity.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
Its (Democratic Party) values and its programs --- on a whole variety of issues --- most clearly reflect my values."
Note she said her values, not Christ's values. In the end, she did not vote Christian values. She voted her own, based on her own convoluted illogic.
Turns out that Liberal catholics are quite poor at squaring circles. Luckily for them, they are rarely called on to so do - and never by the MSM.
Anne Rice is just among the more, erm, public examples of the sort of schizophrenia that comes from trying to jam secular values into Catholicism.
Well done - recommended.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I wouldn't want to conflate her opinion with the opinions of Catholics in general. Frankly, I don't profess to know what the "mainstream" view is, though I think it leans right. This is why I stresses the more general Christianity she claims, because as I said, I know Protestants who feel the same was, especially regarding the charitable giving aspect of the parties.
I think Ms. Rice's convoluted logic needs to be addressed by Christians who vote Democratic, regardless of their particular flavor of faith. If Ms. Rice's thoughts are not a good representation of the religious left, fair enough, but there still needs to be some explaining done. Her letter really just was a vehicle for me to vent, as it were, on the illogic I see in that choice of parties given how I see the Bible.
I wouldn't want to conflate her opinion with the opinions of Catholics in general.
I didn't think you were.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Rice is simply another in a long line of those who have tried to transform the Gospel into the "social Gospel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
Walter Rauschenbusch is/was one of the best-known of the social gospel adherents. I just found a new edition of his book "Christianity and the Social Crisis" (with "...in the 21st Century" now appended to the title) in the local bookstore. Well-known Christian leftists such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis contributed to this update.
She's not blazing any new trails - just following in the footsteps of other liberals.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
A better example of how a social gospel can and does work is the Salvation Army, the church I grew up in. Still plenty of concern for the poor and destitute, but without the federal agents and auditors.
between organizations who serve because of their Christian beliefs and those that believe the Gospel is primarily about serving and simultaneously trying to morph the teaching of the Gospels into a liberal values message. James makes it clear that "faith without works is dead." Corollary to that is the fact that works without faith is nothing. And faith is about...well, I'll save that for a religious forum.
I've spent a lot of time volunteering for the Salvation Army. I've served many meals at their homeless shelter where I used to live. They're a great organization. I don't consider them "social gospel" adherents, but an organization that "practices what they preach." This is a nice writeup on the subject.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Excellent work. I may even print this out and offer it to some folks at (my Catholic) church.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
It's one thing to say Republicans haven't done a good job, but to praise Hillary and the Democrats is absurd.
I never knew that Anne Rice was so involved with Catholicism. I thought she mostly wrote lurid tales of vampires.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
on her transformation from atheism to Christianity & Catholicism
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
That Anne Rice also wrote (in the '80's) under the name A.N. Roquelaure. Then, she wrote novels of women in submission (the dark side of "Sleeping Beauty"), which might account for her enamourment with Hillary Clinton.
I much prefer her Lestat (vampire) novels, which are more fun and better known.
While not a Catholic (heck, Hillary's a Methodist), I applaud Ms. Rice's rediscovery of Christianity, whatever form it might take.
So it is not a surprise that she would beack the party that sucks the life out of America.
Her recent re-conversion to Catholicism and her years in Louisiana is something she should keep very quiet, since the the party she endorses specializes in persecuting Catholics who speak their mind.
I wonder what she thinks of what her part of record is doing to Bobby Jindal?
let me address her first point about which party best reflects the values shown in the gospels (re: the poor, etc).
I have several very evangelical friends who struggle with the GOP's approach to the poor so on that minor point, I will acknowledge that Anne Rice can make a case. It's still not a case I agree with her on, but I understand where she is coming from.
On the abortion issue, while I agree that there are situations that can be raised that are difficult and grey, these situations constitute a very small portion of abortions.
Personally, what I think she is doing is using point A to put herself in with the Democrats and then using that as a spring board to point B.
The GOP is confused as to the Gospels. After all, Christ never mentioned homosexuality nor abortion. But these are the issues that the politicians have chosen to divide the populace.
The Democrats don't really seem to want anybody to practice religion (except, perhaps, Jews and Muslims).
The Republicans are accused of Christian preference, but their issues are Old Testament.
It is odd that homosexuals are condemned by the Republicans (Lev 20:13, Rom 1:27) and praised by the Democrats. After all, the Republicans admit to: some are homosexual (and leave office immediately upon the fact's discovery), and some have homosexual brothers, sisters, sons or daughters. Other than Barney Frank, what Democrat has ever admitted to even knowing a homosexual?
Abortion (Deu 30:19) makes a great divisive issue, and Republicans pander to the "Right." Who in his right mind believes that the issue should be left to dried-up men and women in Congress (excepting the dearly departed Strom Thurmond ... first of four legitimate kids at age 69)?
I am a Republican ... but I admire a friend (from the third grade) who has been dying of AIDS for over a dozen years.
I am a Republican ... I fired an OB-Gyn who even suggested abortion ... but it is a decision to be debated before God, not Congress.
As to the poor ... even Bill Clinton admitted that "Welfare" was a mistake ... and Republicans personally give far more to charity than Democrats (how many Katrina refugees did Nancy Pelosi house in her six houses?) Is charity forced somehow better than charity given?
Christ said that his kingdom was not of this world. Our government has to be.
More specifically, Christians are like wild animals that have been tamed. They may err, but they don't need strict handling regulations; they can be governed fairly well through God's Word. For the rest of mankind, the threat of force is necessary to keep them from harming others. This is why we must have armies and police - government.
If our people were dying of starvation or exposure, I'd want government to force others to support them. However, we're far beyond that. What the Democrats now seek is the redistribution of wealth, which also tends to diminish it. This seems excessive and unwise. No economic proposal can make people righteous before God - but that's where Christ's kingdom shines.
Abortion is a hot issue because it's the destruction of a human life. The moral state of the woman and doctor before God really isn't the government's concern.
Homosexual marriage is opposed because it publicly tarnishes true marriage, which is a good gift from God. Whether people participate in marriage we leave for them to choose; it's help enough to encourge it. (And this is not spiritual help, but simple worldly help for society, like keeping the interstate highways clear of fallen trees.) People's heterosexual or homosexual lusts are not the government's business, and I generally agree with not looking behind closed doors.
The obligation of government to rule well is a heavy one, and who can master its practical difficulties? There's plenty of room for disagreement. Yet I hope we can agree that government has the God-given obligation to avenge evil, as discussed in Romans 13. If that sounds a little Old Testament, remember government is an Old Testament institution.
After all, Christ never mentioned homosexuality nor abortion. But these are the issues that the politicians have chosen to divide the populace.
Christ Himself may have never directly addressed these scourges, but His Church (the Church to which Ms. Rice claims to belong, by the way) actually has quite a bit to say on the subjects.
And politicians dividing the polulace? Oh! Herasy!! (that was sarcasm, by the way)
The Democrats don't really seem to want anybody to practice religion (except, perhaps, Jews and Muslims).
Well, the right sorts of Jews perhaps...
The Republicans are accused of Christian preference, but their issues are Old Testament.
Which is differentiated for Catholics from the NT how precisely? Or do I imagine during daily Mass that the first reading for nearly every service is from the OT.
I am a Republican ... I fired an OB-Gyn who even suggested abortion ... but it is a decision to be debated before God, not Congress.
If you buy the "fetus as a mass of cells and not a living person" argument perhaps - but otherwise it's murder, at a minimum killing - which certainly seems to me to be well within the perview of Congress' duties of regulation. All that "life, liberty and the pursuit of BMW's" stuff.
Cheers.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
homosexuality or abortion.
According to the laws of Judea at that time, both practices were already forbidden on pains of death.
What does one need to say in the midst of a culture that already treats both matters as both sins and crimes?
Today, however, there is a need to talk about both homosexuality and abortion. The fact that neither is currently prosecuted as a crime in the U.S. has led to a popular misconception that there is nothing immoral about either practice.
Both are immoral. Therefore, there is a need for Christians today to talk about something that Christ didn't need to talk about. The message must be tailored to its audience.
Romney/Thompson 2008
1. An additional reason to give to charity personally is that you are able to give to organizations who spread the gospel in addition to helping the poor (Samaritan's Purse, WorldVision, etc.)
2. The problem to do with the unwanted babies who are aborted is simple: Give them up for adoption. The number of couples looking to adopt babies is actually about the same as the number of abortions we do each year. 1/5 couples in the US is infertile.
Wish you could have cut it down a bit, but especially enjoyed your take down of Rice's outrageous hypocrisy on how "horrible" she believes abortion is:
Try saying it this way: "As much as I am horrified by sucking a living being out with a hose and killing it, I am not sure -- as a student of history -- that Americans should give up the right to sucking out living beings with hoses and killing them." Depending on your opinion of the living-ness of the fetus, this is one reading of that statement, and it sounds almost comical, if not utterly incredible. How horrible can you really believe something is if you think we should retain some "right" to it?
Well done.