Anne Rice Endorses Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton

Well, I'm not, the way it's been distorted.

Here she contradicts her first statement. She is willingly subjugating
Biblical tenets, to the church, to "feed the poor, clothe, visit," etc, to the politicians, ie, the Democrat party. That is not in the job description for our political system, but for the church.

She's a very mixed up woman, unclear of her position in Christ, and deceived in her walk.

 

I'd like some elaboration on this point. I also think that the concept of separation of church and state has been abused in the way it has been practiced by many who seek to use it for their personal advantage. But I'm still in favor of it.

There are some problems that are too big for churches to solve using the efforts individual congregations. It would require a multi-denominational cooperative effort and a massive ecclesiastical bureaucracy. Now, realistically, how many Baptist churches, associations, and conventions, do you think would be willing to commit the dollars necessary to fund such an effort? And, that's just Baptists. Again, how many Baptist entities do you think would be willing to cooperate with Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics, in such an effort. We Baptists cannot even get along with each other much less these other groups! We prove that on this forum every day. If we did depend on the government to use our tax dollars to do the things that Rice lists (from Matthew 25.31-46), it would not be the first time that the government has had to take the lead because the churches were unwilling to. It is a hard pill to swallow when the government has to give lessons in morality to church people.

I suspect she is mixed up, unclear, and deceived, because she doesn't agree with you. I do not agree with much that she says (including her endorsement of Hillary Clinton), but she makes a very clear statement of her position and her reasons for it. And, she says that she respects those who disagree with her. Also, she is willing to talk with those who disagree. I find that refreshing in this day of screaming heads on the news talk shows.

Tim Reynolds

 

OK Tim, have a nice day.

 

OK, I'll try, but it is not easy with the temperature hovering near 100, only 0.03 inch of rain this month, only four inches of rain since June 1, and I'm working in a new (and therefore unairconditioned) house fifty miles from my house. It has not been very nice. I hope it is better where you are.

Tim Reynolds

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.

The above points out some of the original intent.

Any Christian that can endorse any current Democrat running for President, is deceived. That party is anti-God. I have no problem with some Independents, or some Republicans.

 

Anne Rice is a hypocrite.

First she says:
"Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute."

She reveals her hypocrisy very quickly:

"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..."

Her twisted logic for supporting murder of the unborn and destroying the sanctity of marriage is laughable, at best. But typical of so called Christian liberals.

 

Not at all. They just don't walk the walk.

The "walk" appears to stop at the door to the voting booth.

 

Actually, any Christian who thinks that any political party is pro-God is deceived. No political party embodies the Christian faith. It may embody its own version of Christianity, as some Republicans have recently tried to do, as the Nazis tried to do, as the Confederacy tried to do. But they all failed because, at some point, reality caught up with them and showed their Christianity to be built on sand. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had a term for this. He called it "cheap grace". In its simplest terms cheap grace is Christianity without the cross, without repentance, without sacrifice, without commitment. It is a watered down faith that is good for nothing. Identifying one's political party with one's faith denigrates both Christianity and politics. The biggest danger is that someone will use the expediency of the moment to rationalize violations of Christian faith in order to further political ends. That is what happened in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. I believe that it will be shown to be the case in the way the Republicans have used the Religious Right to keep them in office and to keep the country stirred up with the politics of fear. We have settled for cheap grace and allowed the politicians to muddy the waters of Christianity so that we could not see clearly how we were being deceived, and how we still are.

Tim Reynolds

 

Such thinking would be a mistake on your part, but you go ahead if it makes you feel better.

 

I'm not saying any party is "pro-God" but that the Democrat party is anti God. All political decisions, in the voting world is choosing the lessor of two or more evils, or neglecting ones responsibility altogether, by not voting.

No one should view a "political party" as an extension of their faith, but choose to back the one that best serves his own viewpoints and interests. A member of the "Body of Christ" should be able to discern great differences in our two parties, in deciding whom to support.

 

The statement that only Republicans can be Christians is purely political and has no basis in the Bible or the Christian faith. It represents the height of hypocricy and reminds me of something the Pharisees would have said. Remember the Pharasees? They were Jesus' worst enemies.

 

I agree. Who made such a statement?

 

I realized, a long time ago, that I would never find a candidate for political office with whom I agreed fully on every issue. In fact, in most cases, there are at least one or two things that I find I strongly disagree with in just about every candidate I have supported in the past.

One thing I have learned, in the past 15 years or so, is that the seeking after worldly power to solve social problems, represented by the politics of the religious right, is not consistent with a Biblical faith. I watched John MacArthur very clearly articulate this view on Larry King the other night. MacArthur insisted that nothing Jesus taught, and nothing that is inspired in the New Testament, instructs Christians to use the government to influence the culture and society around them. His two most outstanding quotes from that debate--

"Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world."

Jesus told Peter, "Put down your sword."

If Christians have no business "endorsing" abortion or gay rights by their involvement in, or support of the Democratic party, then they also have no business endorsing the warmongering, death penalty, corporate theft and greed of the Republican party by their support of it.

So what do you do when you live in a democracy, and you have a responsibility to vote and elect your government? You take everything with a grain of salt. You look at what you can change, and you vote for candidates who have a sense of how to change it. Sometimes that means voting for the opposition as the lesser of two evils, such as voting for a Democrat because a Republican who has promised to be pro-life hasn't delivered on a single promise. Sometimes it means voting for an independent who doesn't stand a chance just to make a point and keep someone else from getting your vote. Sometimes it means re-arranging your priorities to cast ballots for things you can change with your vote, as opposed to things you can't. And it generally means ignorning the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" and looking at the person individually, because party labels and party platforms become meaningless in the interpretation of individual candidates.

I read Anne Rice's website, and her reasoning for voting for Hillary Clinton. Ihope that my reasoning, and my vote, will be cast with that much forethought.

 

As did I and I maintain she is a hypocrite, at least on this issue.

I do agree that it takes some thought for a Christian to come up with an explanation as to why they don't vote like one.

I believe the process is called rationalization.

 

Agreed.

Voting for anyone that supports the murder of the unborn and/or supports the legitimization of sin that destroys the sanctity of the family is the same as supporting those things themselves.

That's a clear sell out to the ways of the "world" ,for worldly reasons, by a Christian.