Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Katherine Harris says failure to elect Christians will `legislate sin'
KRT Wire ^ | 8/25/2006 | Jim Stratton

Posted on 08/25/2006 7:47:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy

ORLANDO, Fla. _Rep. Katherine Harris said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that a failure to elect Christians to political office will allow lawmaking bodies to "legislate sin."

The remarks, published in the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, unleashed a torrent of criticism from political and religious officials.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said she was "disgusted" by the comments "and deeply disappointed in Rep. Harris personally."

Harris, Wasserman Schultz said, "clearly shows that she does not deserve to be a Representative . . ."

State Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, demanded an apology, saying the statements were "outrageous, even by her standards.

"What is going through this woman's mind?" said Slosberg. "We do not live in a theocracy."

The criticism was not limited to Democrats.

Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris' remarks "were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican."

"To me, it's the height of hubris," said Brooks, a former Largo Republican Club president and former member of the Pinellas County Republican Executive Committee.

And Jillian Hasner, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said: "I don't think it's representative of the Republican Party at all. Our party is much bigger and better than Katherine Harris is trying to make it."

The fallout follows an interview published in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. Witness editors interviewed candidates for office asking them to describe their faith and positions on certain issues.

Harris said her religious beliefs "animate" everything she does, including her votes in Congress.

She then warned voters that if they do not send Christians to office, they risk creating a government that is doomed to fail.

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," she told interviewers, citing abortion and gay marriage as two examples of that sin.

"Whenever we legislate sin," she said, "and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong . . ."

Harris also said the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.

In reality, she said, "we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will. Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers," she said.

"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's (sic) certainly isn't what God intended."

Harris campaign spokesman Jennifer Marks would not say what alternative to "a nation of secular laws" Harris would support. She would not answer questions about the Harris interview and, instead, released a two-sentence statement.

"Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government," it stated. "She continues to be an unwavering advocate of religious rights and freedoms."

The notion that non-Christians "don't know better," or are less suited to govern disturbed Rabbi Rick Sherwin, president of the Greater Orlando Board of Rabbis.

"Anybody who claims to have a monopoly on God," he said, "doesn't understand the strength of America."

Sherwin and others also said Harris appeared to be voicing support for a religious state when she said God and the founding fathers did not intend the United States to be a "nation of secular laws."

The alternative, they said, would be a nation of religious laws.

"She's talking about a theocracy," said Sherwin. "And that's exactly opposite of what this country is based on." A clause in the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion.

Ahmed Bedier, the Central Florida Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said he was "appalled that a person who's been in politics this long would hold such extreme views."

Bedier said most Christians would find such comments "shameful."

Harris has always professed a deep Christian faith and long been popular with Christian conservative voters.

In the Senate primary race, she has heavily courted that voting bloc, counting on them to put her into the general election against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.

But publicly, she rarely expresses such a fervent evangelical perspective.

University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said the comments will appeal to Christian fundamentalists who typically turn out for Republican primaries.

But he said the strong evangelical tone could alienate non-Christians and more moderate Republicans who had been thinking of supporting Harris.

"It's insane," he said. "But it's not out of character for Katherine Harris."

Harris, a Republican from Longboat Key, is running against Orlando attorney Will McBride, retired Adm. LeRoy Collins and developer Peter Monroe in the GOP Senate primary.

McBride and Collins also did interviews with Florida Baptist Witness. Both said faith is an important part of their lives, but Harris' responses most directly tie her role as a policy maker to her religious beliefs.

Ruby Brooks, the Tampa area GOP activist, said such religious "arrogance" only damages the party.

"This notion that you've been chosen or anointed, it's offensive," said Brooks. "We hurt our cause with that more than we help it."


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: debbie; godless; implodingcampaign; jimstratton; katherineharris; larrysabato; latestharrisgaffe; slosberg; theocracy; wassermanschultz; wingnut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520521-533 next last
To: Republican Party Reptile
what do you call the process these judges of the court were engaged in whereby they examined, filtered, the customs and practices as to ended up with laws to be applied??? Why, they were making up laws via this process.

False. They didn't "make up" the law.

Refuting your sourceless falsehood once again:

As we have seen the basis of Common Law was custom. The itinerant justices set out by William the Conqueror examined the different local practises of dealing with disputes and crime, filtered our the less practical and reasonable ones, and ended up with a set of laws which were to be applied uniformly throughout the country.

481 posted on 08/27/2006 2:45:22 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Republican Party Reptile

"Common law is a result of a natural order which first solidified into custom and then into law. Primitive man knew nothing of laws, all he knew were customs which eventually evolved into rules of living. While no one can point to the origins of our traditional moral rules, their function in human society should be evident. These moral rules, or traditions, are necessary to preserve the existing state of affairs; such that culture was allowed to evolve, and in turn, with culture, civilizations arose (Landry, 1997, p. 4). The Royal Courts of the thirteenth century were confronted with cases for decisions. There was no uniform body of statutes to rely upon. The only available source was local custom. It did not take many generations of Royal Judges, dealing with actual disputes, to establish the local and divergent customary laws into a single jurisprudence which was the Common Law of England (Read, 1955, p. 42)."

http://www.iejs.com/Law/origins_of_common_law.htm


482 posted on 08/27/2006 2:55:04 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Your own link supports our position of judge made law. From your post:

The Royal Courts of the thirteenth century were confronted with cases for decisions. There was no uniform body of statutes to rely upon. The only available source was local custom. It did not take many generations of Royal Judges, dealing with actual disputes, to establish the local and divergent customary laws into a single jurisprudence which was the Common Law of England

The Royal Judges made decisions which made "divergent customary laws into a single jurisprudence." Judge made law.
483 posted on 08/27/2006 2:58:54 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Judge made law.

Cognitive dissonance.

484 posted on 08/27/2006 3:09:36 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

The "other side" of Christians are simply enough, non - Christians. I believe that every time I have voted it would have been for a Christian candidate. Seeing as most candidates are Christian I don't have much of a problem in voting for the Christian. I wouldn't vote for a Jew because he was a Jew, just like I don't vote for Christians simply because they are Christians. I vote for the candidate who represents my values.
The point was that they were saying because Harris brought her religious views into the equation she was not qualified somehow to hold public office. My response was aimed at the prospect of a non - Christian who had values that would be similar to mine and running against a Christian who's values were opposed to my values, ie Bill Clinton.
Really, the situation doesn't come up very often anyway. I just get tired of people bashing Christians. Try bashing Jews or muslims and the thought police will ban you or you will get sued or some other crazy thing. It's like open season. Maybe we Christians should react by burning down some museums that display Christ in urine. Or lop off heads until it stops. Thats the ticket, instill fear in everyone who disagrees. Why don't we all just join the Democrat party.


485 posted on 08/27/2006 3:15:36 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Cognitive dissonance.

That actually applies to your positon.
486 posted on 08/27/2006 3:18:50 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: jf55510

Keeping begging.


487 posted on 08/27/2006 3:22:18 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Harris' comments sounds as if she's been hanging around or watching too many TV evangelists.


488 posted on 08/27/2006 4:39:40 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
A good friend of mine cannot believe anyone on here is still defending her!

They're only defending her because she's "good lookin'" and "rides nice on the saddle".

489 posted on 08/27/2006 4:42:23 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
She's

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

490 posted on 08/27/2006 4:44:04 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

ROFLOL! You may be right because I cannot fathom any other reason to support "It's not my fault Harris!"


491 posted on 08/27/2006 4:56:11 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (God Bless America and the men and women who serve in our military!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Unbelieveable! But then Oklahoma is poised to have a horrible election year for Republicans so what can I say except that we have some bad candidates in a lot of races thus my new tagline!.


492 posted on 08/27/2006 4:58:32 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (J.C. for Oklahoma Governor in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I think you meant to say "turn water into wine" as at the Cana wedding celebration. If she had such power she should turn it into scotch and swig it all down.

It seems Jeb was right when he refused to support her candidacy from the beginning. She's not only embarrassed conservatives but all genuinely religious people.

I'm glad I voted for another. Bill Nelson must be holding his sides with laughter!


493 posted on 08/27/2006 5:07:51 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
That's what common sense Freepers have been thinking. If I were conspiracy-minded, I would swear that she was being mind-controlled by the left nto deliberately losing this race.

No, she's being mind-controlled from the extreme right. She's not hardening the GOP base, she's alienating most, with goofy statements. You don't have to be an extreme right-wing nut to appreciate life and all that it entails from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

494 posted on 08/27/2006 5:13:50 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Hope she hasn't already bought her house in DC.


495 posted on 08/27/2006 5:20:51 PM PDT by SAMS (Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

"I think you meant to say "turn water into wine" as at the Cana wedding celebration."

You're right, but I was so worked up that I typed too fast.


496 posted on 08/27/2006 5:49:10 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (illegal aliens commit crimes that Americans won't commit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
>> They're only defending her because she's "good lookin'" and "rides nice on the saddle". <<

They've also drunk the Dem Kool-aid and now actually believe "Without Katherine Harris, Gore would be President today"

497 posted on 08/27/2006 6:10:13 PM PDT by BillyBoy (ILLINOIS ELECTION "CHOICES:" Rod Bag-o-$hit or Judas Barf Too-Pinka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

This is becoming quite similar to the Peppy Martin gubernatorial race of 1999 here in Kentucky. Look up that name if you aren't familiar.

This is not the tough-as-nails Katherine Harris of the 2000 elections - confident, smooth, tough, and right on in the face of scrutiny. It is a shame - a real shame. I never thought she would ever be someone I'd compare to Peppy Martin, but she is quickly moving that direction.


498 posted on 08/27/2006 6:30:55 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

LOL!

You know...the only KH pic that we haven't seen is this thread is the one of her on Hannity & Colmes.

The one where she's turned sideways, like she's trying to accent her bosom for the camera.


499 posted on 08/27/2006 7:19:25 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

Yeah, I remember that particular interview. It was nothing short of embarrassing. She was not only turned sideways, she was actually shaking her bosoms.


500 posted on 08/27/2006 7:44:20 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520521-533 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson