Anne Rice Still Believes in Nonsense

It’s a start.

I can’t see how any novelist or fiction writer could believe the Bible. The story fix-ups in it should be obvious even to the amateur writer. They’re the same fix-ups used by the writer in making consistent his or her own prose. Strange.

Karen,

I think the issue most of us have with “following some kind of guru” is that it promotes uncritical thinking, obedience to an outmoded and demonstrably false worldview that -even if it is “friendlier” -is steeped in thousands of years of innocent blood, and it’s just stupid. No one needs a guru to be a good person, and just because there have always been myths doesn’t mean we should honor or follow them. The Christian myths are from a tribal, warlike, patriarchal, primitive culture, and many of them are morally repugnant. Just because Anne Rice likes the Jesus character doesn’t excuse the source or make him a real figure.

I like Anne Rice, but I’m with lurker111. I am a creative writing major, and my knowledge of writing tropes, mythological stories, archetypes, etc. provided literary reasons to reject the Bible, even as logic and science and skepticism gave me plenty of other reasons to reject it.

I think Miss Rice is going through what I was going through a few years ago. I wasn’t so public with it as she was – my family doesn’t know that I’m not a Christian anymore. It’s the first thing I started to think about before I left the church and god behind entirely. I didn’t want to be what the church was – anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-usw – and I felt out of place there. I left, and decided to just follow the tenets of Christ according to the Bible.

Took me six years or so to break free even of that part of it. If she’s going through a trial in her life, the only thing that should be done is encouragement and compassion, something I never had while going through it.

That’s one way it starts.

I think your analysis is short-sighted. Yeah, she is a “follower of Christ,” but she sees Christianity as immoral. That is a very big first step. It is an acknowledgment that morals don’t come from God. She also mentioned Secular Humanism and that might help move her back toward atheism.

Here is my article talking about her split. I will probably write more on this down the road.

Isn’t that we often ask of radical Christians? Stop being so hypocritical and dogmatic and behave more like Jesus actually might have? I think that’s what she is getting at here.

I agree that that can certainly be expected to be simply normal behavior for everyone, but those people aren’t necessarily rational.

And I really don’t mind of someone believes in God or whatever else. I may think it’s a waste of time, but as long as that belief doesn’t manifest itself in hatred, intolerance and they don’t force their religion on other people, I don’t care so much.

She’s had a lot of personal pain in her life, which is reflected in Lestat’s and Louis’ challenges and philosophy, and in her own religious choices.

But while I consider many to be “spiritual seekers”, she seems more like a “spiritual weathervane” to me.

I agree with earlier posters – there’s such a problem with Christians not taking their own to task when they behave disgracefully, that Rice’s statement is a real breath of fresh air. It might even (in a way) be better than switching over to out-and-out atheism, as it’s easier to criticize when you’re not part of the in-group. Rice can be, if she chooses, a model of behavior for Christians who are uneasy with the actions of some of their coreligionists.

What she may or may not believe in private is honestly her own business. As long as she’s not (for example) encouraging others to avoid seeing doctors, I think this should be taken as a net gain.

If all religious people adopted her position, I would be a happy person. It matters not to me if they don’t take that last step.

If you’re with Anne Rice, do a mental exercise. If a prominent Muslim said that he/she is no longer a follower of Islam but is now a “follower of Allah”, would that make you more comfortable about it? I don’t doubt this can be a tough decision, but I would be uncomfortable with such a declaration. For one thing, it’s not really true, because the basic beliefs are still being followed. Christian means “follower of Christ”, to say you’re one but not the other looks very silly at best. It’s just like saying she doesn’t have a religion, because she follows Jesus, which is too common and too silly of a statement.

There are more moderate and liberal forms of Christianity.

@JD
Taking it literally, you are correct and I really understand your point.

But it’s also a fact that so many who claim to be followers of Christ (or Muhammed) are actually very unlike them. Their prophet would probably be disgusted at a lot of their behavior. I think we should look at what she means and feels instead of clinging to a literal interpretation of her words. It may not make perfect sense, but the right sentiment is there.

It also disturbs me when someone says they refuse to be anti-Democrat or anti-Republican. Being that beholden to a political party (any political party) is the anti-intellectual approach to Governmental issues.

I gotta agree with a lot of what others have said here. I think it’s a great first step for Anne Rice. She may never give up her belief in God in her lifetime, but the fact that she sees the church for the hypocritical, intolerant, and immoral institution it is and wants no place in it anymore is a commendable step in the right direction even if she still believes in nuttery. It’s unfortunate that more believers don’t see their churches, mosques, synagogues, etc for the archaic and hypocritical institutions they are. Perhaps with someone as public as Anne Rice making such a statement many of her Christian fans will follow suit.

So we’re not giving her bonus points for being tolerant and rational. We’re giving her bonus points for deciding to leave an institution that is neither of those things

Good for Anne Rice. She might just inspire some others to leave a destructive, mysoginistic, homophobic, anti-rational, anti-science religion in favour of something a bit more compassionate. Some might even go so far as to leave all kinds of religious faith altogether.

That’d be grand.

It’s a start. Good for her for putting it out there, and getting some of her readers to question their beliefs even a little bit. We can’t all quit cold turkey!

For once, I would have to say you could be a little friendlier. I’m a massive fan, but this came off as a big ‘ole stick of fundamentalist atheism. Calm down and stop prescribing litmus tests. Hell, even I believe in “Christ” sorta kinda in my own way….(I think he may have existed and if he did he had some good ideas about evolving/advancing human consciousness).

It’s rather odd, but you brought it to our attention just to tell us your not impressed and not paying attention?

Chill…..she’s on her way. Don’t scare the living S**T out of her by being another arm of the theology police.

@Victor:

It is a first step. But, what does being being “committed to Christ” mean if you don’t like what’s in the Christian Bible? Being a liberal Christian is not being a Christian to her? It looks like she’s just playing word games. If she’s denying the parts of the Bible she doesn’t like, then I hope she comes to the conclusion that the ideas of a god appearing on earth and divine revaluation given to a select few individuals must have some inherent problems. Until she does, I think she’s going to be very confused about what is or is not real in the world.

It is hard to reconcile. For about six years I struggled with my own beliefs – I considered myself a Christian, but I only really believed in a few choice parts of the Bible. I believed in the major tenets of Christianity – but felt that the OT was a lot of allegory. Slowly the shell of Christianity started dropping from me as I argued my points and thought hard on them. God’s existence, Jesus’s divinity, the nature of the universe. I watered down Christianity to a point where it was basically ‘I think I should treat people nicely.’ Someone had to thwack my nose with ‘that’s just being a nice person, not a Christian’ before I got it.

“If a prominent Muslim said that he/she is no longer a follower of Islam but is now a “follower of Allah”, would that make you more comfortable about it?”

Yes definitely -IF it was accompanied by statements that they were renouncing Jihad, the anti-feminist aspects, anti-free speech and other Muslim dogma in the way Rice is renouncing bigoted Christian dogma.

Holy crap, Hemant. I echo what others have said above: the sentiment is more important than the literal interpretation of her words. She’s a public figure who came out against the church for it’s bigotry and others should be encouraged to do the same, not berated for not going “full atheist”. Come on. You are demanding too much of people and not giving any positive reinforcement whatsoever for the baby steps in between.

” Rice’s statement reminded me of John Shelby Spong, the liberal Christian former bishop of the Episcopal Church in Newark, NJ. His take on faith, in a nutshell, is if you are hurting anyone with your faith, you are doing it wrong. You may not believe in the supernatural aspects of his faith, but it is hard to figure out how it does much harm. Congratulations…”

For the record, Spong does not believe in the supernatural aspects of his faith.

Reading his “twelve theses” should lead one to conclude that he is in fact an atheist.

Not sure what he means when he says “God”, but he certainly rejects the supernatural, so maybe he means something like the “ontological physical reality of our existence” or something like that. Hard to say.

Is it just me, or is this a sort of reverse no true Scotsman?

She’s still a Christian, she just wants to disassociate herself with certain other Christians. Personally I’d prefer it if she was just honest about it, and tried to convince other Christians to behave the same way. On the other hand, it does suggest a victory for secular ethics that people are starting to wake up and want to be separate from the disgusting things in the Bible.

Of course, that is taking her words at face value – it might be that she would rather make a more complete split from Christianity, but is afraid of the consequences of coming straight out and saying it… and I have no problem with that.

Eh, I’ll take it. I’ve seen this path before. Step 1 is rejecting the dogma and abandoning solidarity with one’s (often hateful) fellow Christians. Step 2 is trying to “be like Christ” and–very often, from what I’ve seen–realizing that without 2000 years of hierarchy and attempts to civilize the religion, Christianity is an ultra-radical mystic philosophy that you can’t follow if you want to remain a part of civilization. At that point civilization becomes more appealing than being “Christ-like” and people wander into harmless variations of deism, pantheism, or atheism.

Sounds like good news to me.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ” – Gandhi

I’m with a lot of others. Her beliefs aren’t totally rational, but this is a start. I doubt any of us who were raised religious, just dumped those beliefs over night. One step at a time…

And to those bashing Hemant… Ease up folks. He’s the “friendly atheist”. Not the “always perfectly friendly at all times, never with a harsh word to anyone atheist”. I think his response is a lot “nicer” than it could have been (think Hitchens or Dillahunty).

Just sayin…

It’s good news isn’t it? She’s embracing modern society and will keep her god for herself as a private, personal matter. If only more religious people did the same instead of trying to replace democracy and science with their faith!

I realize I’m echoing alot of people here but…
Hemant, Aren’t you always saying that christians need to publicly denounce the bad practices of their religion? Isn’t this exactly what you wanted? I think she should be held up as an example of people who can still keep their faiths but not be dicks to everyone else.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if she actually read this blog. You asked, and she provided.

Maybe in super happy fairy land everyone agrees with you, but can’t we be happy when people do the right thing, regardless of their belief system?

I’m also repeating a lot of other posters, but I have to agree with them on this one; it is a huge step to acknowledge and reject the hateful things religions do. I could not care less what another person believes, but when they use that belief as justification to do awful things, I lose my ability to support their choice in religion.

I’m glad that someone as publicly religious as Anne Rice is rejecting the church’s actions without losing whatever her faith means to her.

Hemant- it’s time to read over your “what is a friendly Atheist” question in your FAQ. I know you spend a lot of time seeing the worst religion can do, and that often can make a logical person very angry. But you created this blog as an outreach to fellow seekers of truth and happiness, sort of a “we’re not that different, you and I” kind of thing. And now?

When we often criticize religion, it’s when they damn us to hell, simply because we do not accept their god. Our actions are left out of the equation. If you damn Anne Rice for rejecting the evil parts of religion, the hate, the arrogance, then you are no better.

If this is friendly atheism then I’ll keep away from it. I don’t think any of your have checked out the good stuff that the Christian faith has done over the centuries. never mind. I don’t expect a positive response.
As for Anne Rice, she never really became a Catholic as is evidenced by the rant. She’s a female version of Tony Blair. For some strange reason they both ‘converted’ to a religious practice without embracing the fundamentals.
Still amazes me that anybody would become a Catholic. Everybody hates us, misguided or otherwise. Perhaps that’s a sign that the Catholic Church truly is from God. It was certainly the evidence in the early church.
‘many will hate you on account of my name’ said Jesus Christ.

I think what got to me when I read these posts from Rice is how she’s trying to distance herself from certain elements of evangelical Christianity (which is great) but also trying to distance herself from Christianity altogether while still admitting to being a Christian. I find that to de dishonest and deceptive. She accepts Christian doctrine. Admit it.

But she does admit it. Openly. She says amen at the end of her post, she still believes in god, she still follows christ. When I read her post, it seemed like she was saying the christian religious institution had finally proven too bigoted and immoral for her be a part of. I really don’t understand how she is being deceptive.

one more thing:

I quit being an atheist. I refuse to be a dick. I refuse to treat religion with complete contempt. I refuse to be anti-clergy. I refuse to be anti-Republican. I am done with atheism!

Oh, and by the way, I don’t believe in god.

That is not the same at all. Atheism is not a religious institution, or an institution of any kind. There is nothing wrong with being christian and not a part of a christian institution.
And what about the brights? the secular humanists? are they dishonest and deceptive as well?

Hitch – I’m guessing that comment was addressed to me (although as I said, this strikes me more as a reverse No True Scotsman).

When I talk about the No True Scotsman fallacy, I am talking about dictionary definitions, and people trying to alter them to exclude people they don’t want to be associated with. It would be like me trying to claim that people who believe in ghosts (but not god) aren’t atheists, because they still believe in the supernatural. I’d just be plain wrong.

People do, however, often misunderstand what the No True Scotsman actually says and when thus misused, it probably isn’t a fallacy. Essentially, it is pointing out that words have meanings, and unless we enforce the meanings of these words, we can’t have a conversation. Millions of people associate with a label like, say, ‘Christian’, but if they all have a different meaning for that label, all you are left with is confusion.

Just because someone is able to articulate differences doesn’t mean that they have articulated the differences.

If someone tells me they are a Christian, then I am going to assume that they believe in Jesus Christ – including, but not limited to, that he is the son of a god called Yahweh. That’s because that is what the term means. I can ask questions to find out just what exactly their belief entails, but if I decide not to do so, it’s still reasonable for me to assume they don’t believe in the Norse gods.

I’d just like to add, that I find these comments claiming Hemant is not being friendly rather odd. I mean, this appears to be the offending phrase:

I’m thrilled she’s not anti-gay/feminist/science/etc. But educated people like her don’t get bonus points for being tolerant and rational. That’s just to be expected.

Personally, if he’d said anything else, gushing about how delighted he was etc. etc., I’d think he was being condescending.

Huh. I would have thought this was a good thing.

I don’t see how she can still be Christian after filling her (admittedly quality compared to sparkle peen) vampire books with such copious amounts of thinly veiled homoeroticism.

waa? why not? fta:

I refuse to be anti-gay

I don’t understand why she can’t be christian and support equal rights.

vxbinaca:

It’s the focus on some of the things in her books (specifically with Lestat) that are a bit suspicious. I’d have to reed them again it’s been a long time.

what are you objecting to? She’s not anti-gay, whats wrong with her writing books with some homoeroticism? if she’s ok with homoeroticism, what’s wrong with writing about any other sexual behavior? I’m not a huge fan of her books, but whatever tickles your pickle.

One can certainly take issue with her phrasing, especially given the fact she’s a rather famous published author and probably could have come up with something better than the short blurb she left on her Facebook wall, but I really appreciate her just coming out and saying it at all.

The Catholic Church is quick to jump on pop-culture figures who either convert or revert to Catholicism. I remember all the blog posts when she declared her return to the Church. Now she’s publicly calling them out on their teaching on homosexuality. Good for her.

I can’t even begin to imagine her pain having to be subjected to the sheer nastiness that abounds among Catholic and non-Catholic Christian bloggers about homosexuality.

I can see where she’s had enough and, while not rejecting the spirit of Christ’s words and example, finally and publicly told the Catholic Church to piss off.

She was raised Catholic, left the Church, and then returned after she’d written her last LeStat book, hadn’t she?

Also, her only son is gay. From the beginning of her return to the Church, she openly proclaimed herself at odds with the Church’s teaching re: homosexuality.

Even while she was okay calling herself a Christian, she wasn’t accepting their teachings on homosexuality, so if she was still writing that character and those books during her brief return to the Church, she still wouldn’t have been behaving hypocritically.

why? christians can like sex too :p

Most of the time they sure don’t act like it :p

@Caroline:

Thanks for the information that gives a lot of context. I get it now.

From her Facebook:

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.

I can’t figure out what the heck she’s trying to say. She’s still a Christian. But instead of simply calling out the bigotry she sees in Christianity, she’s letting the bigots win. She’s refusing to use the word to describe herself, yet she still has the exact same theological beliefs. I don’t know. The whole announcement seems kind of pretentious, like she’s making a big show out of grandstanding.

If she does believe that Jesus is a deity, she’s still part of the club. Why is she letting herself be run out of the club? Disagreeing over politics doesn’t mean disagreeing over basic theology. I see nothing that indicates she’s questioning the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, the morality of heaven and hell, etc.

Anna:

he whole announcement seems kind of pretentious, like she’s making a big show out of grandstanding.

Why is that bad? She is a prominent christian, and she is speaking against some of the silly things christians do. Good for her.

If she does believe that Jesus is a deity, she’s still part of the club. Why is she letting herself be run out of the club? Disagreeing over politics doesn’t mean disagreeing over basic theology. I see nothing that indicates she’s questioning the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, the morality of heaven and hell, etc.

You said she is still part of the club, but she is “letting herself get run out of the club” at the same time. Thats a bit contradictory. And faith can be personal, I don’t think she needs to be part of any “club”. Take politics. I can agree with some republican things and still be democrat. I can be an independent and consistently vote democrat. What you believe does not always dictate what organizations you belong to.

Except that she’s not claiming to be leaving an organization. Nowhere on her Facebook did I see reference to the Catholic church. Isn’t that her church? I think it would make a stronger statement if she were to denounce the Catholic church because she disagrees with what it teaches and what it has done. She could say that she’s still a Christian but she can’t support that particular church. Instead, she takes a broad swipe at the Christian category, while still holding beliefs that qualify her for membership in the category.

I am not sure why she referenced christianity as a whole and not just the catholic church. Hard to deduce much from a couple of facebook blurbs. However, I think the important bit is that she is disassociating from bad behavior while still holding on to her faith. Perhaps she feels that calling herself a follower of christ rather than a christian is more comprehensive and describes her beliefs better. I think alot of people are nitpicking her terminology and overlooking the fact that she did the right thing by choosing not to support a moral stance she doesn’t believe in. I think it’s hypocritical when most atheists are fine with calling themselves whatever they want- strong, weak, agnostic, secular humanist, bright, etc.

forgot to add this bit:

She doesn’t get to stand up as an example of a tolerant, progressive Christian because she herself is saying she isn’t one. She has the same beliefs, but she’s playing around with semantics. She doesn’t like the way her fellow Christians act, so she’s decided to call herself something different. It doesn’t change the fact that she still believes Jesus is a deity.

fine, she’s not a christian. But she is a person of faith, and can stand up as an example to other people of faith. If she wants to believe in jesus thats fine. You can be a moral person with or without him. As I said in my last post, we shouldn’t be nitpicking semantics (from a facebook quote!!) when she did something good and noteworthy.

Ann Rice still a follower of Christ and of the Bible. She made that clear.I dont think all Christians need to be fundies,but lets not pretend the bible is not anti-gay and misogynist just because they dont like those parts.Christians claim the bible is the word of God,but yet they dont like everything he has to say! It is dishonest.

Well, she may still be a Xian, but I think the step and announcement she made isn’t all bad. I think more Xians should do such a thing. It might have some sort of influence on the Religious Reich. Not sure what sort of influence, but it is possible.

Ms Rice says she is not a true scotsman, why not take her word for it? Religion cannot have rational membership criteria as it does not have a rational foundation. It appears to me that membership of the religion is whoever thinks they are in that religion. Ms Rice if she still believes in the resurrection & such has just invented for herself a new religion with one member (possibly called Not-Cristianity) .

Seeker Says:

You are a teacher. You should know that repetition is the mother of all knowledge. Also that what she did will cost her dearly in her social, emotional and possibly fiscal condition.

Who cares? What she is saying makes no sense. “I believe in one part of the Bible where Jesus says some nice stuff, but not the other 90% of it full of slaughter and hate and misogyny.”

Why? Based on what? What logic leads her to untie the few scraps of good things in the Bible from all the mayhem and murder that provides the blueprints for all these psychopaths to act the way they do? Why should a ridiculous statement like Anne Rice’s statement be met with condescending politeness?

She is giving away a lot by doing this so publicly, enough I guess to not give a damn if she impressed some atheist blogger or not.

She would be giving away a lot if she shaved her head and proclaimed herself a Nazi skinhead, too. Would we be patting her on the back for that?

Whatever happened to weighing the actual claims a person makes on their own merits? That’s what “some atheist blogger” did and he is right.

I have a tiny, barely-related quibble:

She’s not a “follower of Christ” – at least, not in any way that requires quotes. Followers of Christ are Christian fundamentalists living in various rural states in the US. They are essentially the opposite of everything Rice says she stands for.

She can call herself not a Christian, an unChristian, or whatever she likes. It may be silly, but I don’t really care. I don’t blame her at all for wanting to disclaim a label that has been historically associated with hatred, ignorance, abuse, and bigotry – even if, technically speaking, that’s what she is.

However, an apology for supporting the Catholic Church for as long as she did may be in order.