Anne Rice Endorses Rodham, Big Deal

Anne Rice, the author who changed her life by converting from atheism to Catholicism and writes religious books has endorsed Hillary Rodham for the presidency. Her endorsement is very long with rationalization for her choice but it seems to boil down to a misunderstanding of reality and the idea that party trumps all else. Rice claims to be a Christian and I will not dispute that, I will merely state she is a misguided one. This should not be much of a surprise because many of her beliefs still run counter to the teachings of Christianity. She also says that she is glad that she lives in a country where we have separation of church and state.

Therein lies the first misunderstanding. This country has no such thing and that is not mandated by our Constitution. The reality is that this country was founded by religious people based on Christian principles. This is why God is an integral part of our history despite the best efforts of groups like the ACLU to have that history ignored, rewritten, or erased. Separation of Church and State was a phrase used by Jefferson in a private letter. One cannot find those words in our Constitution and in fact, our First Amendment recognizes each individual’s right to practice religion free of government intrusion. In other words, government will not infringe on our right. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

Rice then goes on to say that the Democratic Party is best poised to act in accordance with the scriptures by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting those in jail. Isn’t it interesting that she would say we have separation of church and state and then tell us how the Democratic Party is best poised to do things in accordance with religious scripture. This is a pipe dream, of course, because the Democratic Party does not help people in these predicaments as the scripture would have us do. Instead, the Democrats enact programs that give us more poor people and do little in the way of helping. The poverty rate is nearly the same as it was in the late 60s despite spending TRILLIONS of dollars in the war on poverty.

I don’t expect Rice to understand any of this because she has made it clear that politics trumps anything else (and in fact she wrestled with her liberal beliefs that ran counter to religion when she converted back to Catholicism) and she pointed out that religion is open to a wide array of interpretations. In that venue, she has interpreted the scripture in a way that rationalizes the behavior and motives of the left. She states that the “Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels.” If this is truly the case, Rice is woefully misinformed as to the Gospels. As proof that she has twisted the Scripture to meet her views look at her position on abortion. She indicates that she is pro-life but she supports a candidate who believes in abortion. That certainly should not be the only qualifier with regard to a candidate but this puts her at odds with the teaching of the Gospels that she claims to follow. To top it off, Rice states “I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.”

She goes on to talk about the legal procedure of abortion and that it is difficult to solve and that she is unsure that Americans should give up this “right” though she personally opposes it. She tells us that the solution lies with the Democrats but this ignores the one very basic truth that the Democrats GAVE us abortion in the first place. I will admit that this is a difficult subject and I think there are few who have an idea about how to solve it completely but I am damned sure that the very people who espouse the unfettered right to murder children up until the point they poke their heads out are not the ones who will solve this problem in any fashion that does not include killing millions more of the very children they claim to do everything to protect (it is always about the children).

Anne Rice is entitled to her opinion and she is entitled to decide who she wants to support but she should get her act together and at least appear to have common sense. One can not state a love for separation of church and state and then base every claim on what Democrats will do based on her belief in religious scripture. She can not claim that separation is good and then go to great lengths to describe how religion helped her make a decision. One can not say that religion is not good in government but that religion should decide who gets to be in government.

One also cannot twist scripture to fit an agenda and one certainly should not expect to be taken seriously after making a big deal about how political party is important to her.

Besides, if she really allowed her religion to sway her decisions she would be a supporter of people like George Bush who is a religious man and believes in the sanctity of life. He is certainly more principled than Hillary Rodham (and yes I know he is not running thus like him) and one would expect that a religious person who takes decisions based upon religion might wait to see how all candidates stack in that regard. Certainly there are candidates who fit the bill better than Hillary Rodham who is Satan in the flesh.

That is, of course, unless one is twisting religion to fit an agenda in order to reconcile a conflict between support of party and the word of the Lord.

Big Dog

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

6 Responses to “Anne Rice Endorses Rodham, Big Deal”

  1. Billy Joe says:

    BD said:

    “…Hillary Rodham who is Satan in the flesh.”

    Does this qualify as hateful? Because you sure made a big deal about hateful leftards in your latest post about Tony Snow. Did they use a stronger word than Satan?

    I’m also not sure how you can say George Bush “is a religious man and believes in the sanctity of life.” He executed more prisoners (who were already in prison and thus of no danger to the public) than any governor in Texas history. He doesn’t seem terribly bothered about ‘collateral damage’ either. And he hasn’t stopped research on existing stem cell lines or the disposal of excess embryos that are the byproduct of in vitro fertilization.

    I hope you’ll start adding quotes from the “word of the Lord” (in your words) to your future posts. It would add another dimension to your diatribes.

  2. Big Dog says:

    There you go again, twisting words to mean something else. First of all, unless I am unaware, Hillary Rodham is not dying nor has she been diagnosed with a life threatening disease. If she were I would not wish her to die or say that I was glad which is the kind of sentiments that I discussed in the Snow post. I did not expect you to understand because you lack comprehension skills.

    Did I once deride anyone for calling Snow names or saying things about how he did his job? No, I mentioned how was attacked and people wished he would die from his illness.

    The sanctity of life issue deals with innocent life. There is nothing wrong with punishing those who have committed a crime and sometimes those punishments include loss of life. Murder is a crime and killing is not. The death penalty is a punishment that we have for the most terrible offenders. I am sure that the families of the slain correctional officers would not agree with you that these people are locked away where they are not a danger to the public. I am sure those who have been murdered because a convicted murderer directed their death from prison would not agree were they still alive. The death penalty is a punishment and it is justified.

    He does not seem is your assessment. We go out of our way to avoid collateral damage including not hitting some targets because of that. He has indicated that he anguishes over these issues so I will take him at his word rather than your assessment.

    As for stem cells, research is allowed on those that exist. There are many nuances to this issue and we can debate them some other time. The government should not be in the business of supplying these things. If the government pays for the research it can decide where the stuff comes from. If it is private research then they can do as they wish. We should never be in the business of harvesting these things.

    I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Call it hate speech but as far as I know you are not dying either. The word of the Lord, which you AGAIN took out of context is that Rice used this to reconcile her conflict between party and scripture (the word of the Lord).

    Please try to keep up. If you are not intelligent enough then slither back to your lonely website and stay away. I already had to moderate you (the only person I ever had to do that to).

    I just have a hard time believing that one person can be this dense.

  3. Web Reconnaissance for 08/20/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

  4. […] [Discuss this article with the Big Dog…] Share Article Anne Rice, atheism, Catholicism, Hillary Rodham, Democratic Party, George Bush    Sphere: Related Content | Trackback URL […]

  5. Billy Joe says:

    BD said:

    “If it is private research then they can do as they wish. We should never be in the business of harvesting these things. ”

    So in other words, private industry can harvest ‘these things’ (embryos) as long as they are doing it for profit.

    Thank you for clarifying that. Sorry you had to moderate my comments. I can see why you’d want to decide whether or not to post them; everyone else who comments on your blog simply grunts their approval and have shown they’re willing to abide by your loopy logic.

  6. Big Dog says:

    We could look at this on several levels. i will use the ACLU and liberal approach for you. One, there are legitimate religious concerns regarding the stem cell issue. Therefore, using the separation clause you guys are fond of believing exists, the government should not be involved.

    I believe that the law allows abortions and until that is changed, it is just that, the law. I do not believe the government should pay for them and I do not believe the murdered fetus should be used for research.

    The government is not allowed to make laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By making laws that go against people’s religious views (using cells people believe are beings) the government crosses the line. It is wrong to force taxpayers to fund something they have a moral objection to.

    As for private companies, they can pay people for their fertilized eggs. It can be immoral, unethical, and murder all wrapped up in one but it is legal here and private companies ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT. you seem to have trouble understanding the role of government and who is supposed to run it.

    As for moderation, you have written some things that bothered folks. I make sure that you do not have offensive items in your posts before they go out. Sometimes I don’t see them for a while and the offensive items are just hanging out there.

    It has nothing to do with agreeing with me though I doubt you are bright enough to understand. There are many comments here that take me to task or disagree totally and I am fine with that. However, there are some comments that get edited to remove offensive items that people should not have to see. Vulgar references and sexual content are out. I have posting rules, just read them.

    For the record, I have approved every comment you have made and none of them have been edited. You are on a tight leash so I can ensure you don’t write offensive things. Search for other comments and you will find ones that are edited and who disagree with me. If you do not like the rules, you are free to leave.