Posted on 03/12/2005 10:21:07 AM PST by donprocto
I read, with just a little more than disappointment, today's Washington Times article about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, her political ambitions, and her "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.
In this, and numerous other interviews, she describes herself as "deeply religious". She points out that she is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. In this interview with the Presbyterian Layman, she describes herself as an, all-over-the-map Republican and almost shockingly libertarian on other issues.
Lest the reader be misled, there is more than one Presbyterian church. The one which claims Dr. Rice as one of it's own is none other than the Presbyterian Church (USA), which makes the following statement about abortion:
In other words, they are pro-choice. They are also embroiled in a controversy over whether or not they should ordain active, practicing homosexuals to ministry. In this article, they state that the Bible has errors in it.". . . There is [both] agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee [on problem pregnancies and abortion] agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion."
As to her quote about being shockingly "libertarian", here's the definition of that word, "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will."
So now we know that, upon further inspection, Dr. Rice's 'deeply religious' beliefs are grounded in one of the most liberal protestant denominations, one which doesn't even believe that it's own guidebook (the Bible) is infallible. We also know that she believes in individual rights.
Unless you're an unborn child.
Needless to say, the Republicans are afraid of Hillary Clinton, already shape shifting as she re-invents herself for her 2008 presidential campaign. This is a party which has allowed itself to be pulled over to the left, state by state, and now has little more to offer than the hope of better Supreme Court nominees.
Almost every liberal candidate has talent, personality, intellect, and energy. Until fairly recently, conservatives in this country recognized that, without a strong moral foundation, these things are not enough. Miss Rice's brand of religiosity seems to have something in common with modern day abortion clinics, "They look beautiful on the outside. But on the inside they are full of the bones of the dead."
Is this what you really want?
You misrepresent my comments and then run away? How pathetic.
I agree she is a realist and also stated she is anti partial birth abortion. There is a world of difference between not wanting an outright ban and promoting abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.