Comments on: Anne Rice converts to Catholicism, endorses Hillary Clinton

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:39:05 +0000

I really don’t think it is the actual act of abortion that gets so many riled up (ok, throw the tomatos), rather the justification of it for the woman and the denial of the living child who is also involved. If someone gets an abortion and puts their face on the cover of New York Magazine with others who have had abortions and advertise themselves as being “ok” with it and hold themselves up as good examples of “choice” is very different from a woman who felt helpless and hopeless and resorted to abort out of feeling they had no other “choice” and lives with this pain and regret the rest of her life. There is a HUGE difference. One is offensive (at least to me) and the other one I want to hug and help.

By: jag

jag — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:00:34 +0000

totally agree with you Jonathan!

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:33:31 +0000

Once again I’m left with the impression that Kengor is highly biased and injects that bias in the interview quite strongly. I do think that a person can be against abortion and still support a candidate with is pro-abortion. I think people who are single-issue kind of voters shoot themselves in the foot way too often.

By: toujoursdan

toujoursdan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:07:42 +0000

One can be “pro-life” but against passing laws to restrict abortion (and therefore against the “pro life movement” – in fact, many Catholics and other Christians take that view. We think passing laws does more harm than good and believe the focus should be on other ways to make the procedure medically unnecessary. I see no conflict between Rice’s view on her endorsement of Hilary (nor do I believe that an endorsement necessarily means one agrees on every issue anyway.)

By: jag

jag — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:58:03 +0000

Kengor states:

Anne Rice has stated ““I believe the life of the unborn is sacred….. I’m pro-life, I’m not for abortion.” Given that belief, Anne Rice faces a huge hurdle in endorsing Hillary Clinton. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Hillary shares that view.”

Kengor forgets…not everyone votes on the basis of one issue. Indeed for some, this is the line they draw, but for many others – there are a myriad of social, political, religious and cultural issues that form a voter’s opinion. Like foreign policy (which also controls an enormous amount of lives lost/saved), healthcare (same) and social policies here at home.

I thought this would be obvious.

I also don’t know if it is for any of us to judge Anne Rice’s stated conversion or how closely she holds to the institutional views of the faith.

Another thing I disagree with Kengor on:

“That’s where I respectfully but strongly disagree with Anne Rice. She says that “unborn human life is sacred.” I agree. Neither of us, surely, would say that global warming is a sacred issue; it might be important, even very important, but it is not sacred.”

I think the care of God’s creation is quite sacred, the ability for it to sustain the beautiful other life forms, the importance of those life forms in sustaining our existence as human beings on this planet. Whether deforestation, pollution, etc..that contributes to the destruction of our planet and increased global gases, or simply our regard for what God has given us…Global warming is indeed a sacred issue for some.

Hopefully in the future, Kengor can see beyond his own opinions. His view of history is a bit skewed, and his grasp of individuals outside of his own faith beliefs, seems to be even more inaccurate. Hopefully in the future he is able to give a bit more credence to the beliefs that vary from his own.