| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/18/2007 7:42:05 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Wrong title. Has been posted twice before |
Posted on 08/18/2007 6:17:01 PM PDT by seanrobins
An example of pulitzer-prize-winning hypocrisy from a top purveyor of popular literature, who has been experiencng crisis of religious confidence over the past several years -- and who apparently has good reason to experience such a crisis -- when she acknowledges abortion is wrong, but will vote for it anyway . . .
- - - - - - - - - -
To my readers:
Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation --- which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.
My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.
However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.
I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.
Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.
Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.
My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.
I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.
I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point can not be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.
I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.
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.
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 one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.
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.
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.
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.
I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market --- these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.
I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.
My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.
I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.
If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.
Although I respect the sincerity of Ms. Rice's Christian beliefs and her Catholic faith, I would remind her, if I ever had her ear, that Jesus never called upon the goverment to do the things she mentions here: involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. The Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 13 that the governments bear the sword, not the breadbasket.
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.
She might be right. If Roe v. Wade were repealed and abortion went back to the States to decide, there are certainly some states that would immediately pass laws to allow for abortions within their borders (such as California) but there are states which would immediately ban it. That's fine. It's a decision the Feds never should have gotten involved in the first place.
The general consensus here in the N.O. area is that Rice is flakier than Kelloggs. The woman is a serious weirdo, probably in need of psychiatric/psychological help for many reasons.
That's kind of the point, isn't it? If RvW is overturned at least we will have the right to oppose laws legalizing it, but it will be constitutional, which RvW is not.
Amen!
I said something kind of harsh on another thread regarding alcohol use in relation to her support of Hillary. I was kidding, but I shouldn’t have said it.
She has years of deprogramming ahead of her. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is always weak.
I read her book about Jesus. It was well written and very respectful. I don’t believe she is a hypocrite.
I’m tired of people calling christians hypocrites every time they fart.
At least she went Catholic. I shouldn’t throw too many stones. I was pro-choice, then I was partly pro-life, and now I believe it’s literally an unseen holocaust. It is promethean fire and mankind cannot handle it. I’m not a woman, so they would say I have no right to speak, but I say pregnancy is not a life sentence.
She is lying to sell books.
She is writing about Christ in her upcomming books.
She is showing herself as a feminist and just an absudity.
(of course it could be she is invisible to hillary)
“[Rice]...swift with words”.
Her article reads like a sophomore’s term paper.
This is where SOCONs (social conservatives/Christian conservatives) will get burned over and over. They place morality and God over the principles of liberty and the Founding Fathers. This country is FIRST about liberty.
SOCONs gave away the game when they compromised on this principle.
A President Brownback and Christian conservative Congress pass 8 years of legislation meant to 'help the needy and help society' based on the Gospels. The following term, a radical liberal gets in and, for all the same reasons and intentions, enacts laws meant to 'help the needy and help society' based on their interpretation of the same Gospels. What happened during this time? You lost your freedom. And, the laws meant to 'help the needy' did 180s, as did their ramifications. That is no kind of government.
She wrote Interview in such a realistic, conversational style that at the time there was much speculation about whether it was really fiction, or truth. I’ve read a lot of her books, and really enjoyed them, but it got to be a bit much. Too much homo-eroticism and as the poster said, ‘goth-emo satanism.’
Well, there was Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, George Washington, Lighthorse Harry Lee, and the Boothe family. But a lot of the ‘characters’ were probably more local, given the speed of communications. I imagine the telegraph enabled the rise of celebrity to a large extent.
That depends on how you look at it. The child, Claudia, needed blood to survive, and so did the daughter she lost. Both of them died.
There is no doubt Anne was out of her mind with grief. I enjoyed Interview , as well as some of Stephen King's works. Some would say he is one sick puppy too.
sw
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.