Posted on 08/27/2006 10:20:17 AM PDT by dukeman
You have changed what she said. She didn't say "only" at all.
Hope this helps...
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
This statement was, in essence, Jefferson’s own commentary on the Danbury letter, insofar as they grappled with identical issues. Thus, as a matter of federalism, he thought it inappropriate for the nation’s chief executive to proclaim days for religious observance; however, he acknowledged the authority of state officials to issue religious proclamations. In short, Jefferson’s “wall” was erected between the federal and state governments on matters pertaining to religion.
As governor of Virginia...in 1779, Thomas designated a day for “publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”
He as a member of Congress voted to build churches for the Indians... He once even directed a band to play for a church meeting in (gasp) a federal building.....
It was Jefferson, also, who in founding the University of Virginia, had inscribed as its motto, the language from the Book of John (8:23): And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Jefferson closed his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1801, with these words: "And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity."
In his Second Inaugural Address, exactly four years later, he said: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. "
Jefferson concluded the Second Inaugural Address: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
Before he left office, Jefferson again displayed the same reverential acknowledgment of our ultimate dependence upon a living God, in the conclusion to his final State of the Union address, November 8, 1808: "I carry with me the consolation of a firm persuasion that Heaven has in store for our beloved country long ages to come of prosperity and happiness."
So spoke the foremost champion of American religious freedom, while acting in his official capacity as our foremost public servant.
Now if you want to venture ever futher into the subject... Benjamin Rush was much more present during important times of our young country, more than Thomas Jefferson who like to travel foreign countries... read his writtings... one of which is in my tagline...
Too bad she's right. Too bad for them that is.
WOW. I wish I could vote for her. Maybe she could move to NY???
After Hillary wins in 2008. Scudder looks good for 2012, as predicted.
'I'd rather focus on the reasons why they should in fact look at the virtues of the position they seem to consistently vote against'
The Republican party is conservative and predominatly Christian ( or Judeo-Christian) value based.
It does not have to sacrifice its principles and values to go after a section of the population ( secular jews) who have enough reasons to vote GOP but dont do so because they are liberal. It is a fruitless exercise and party's resources can be used better.
'If Abe Foxman wants to pounce on some piddling inference that requires a magnifying glass of atomic proportions to read anti-semitism into, that is one thing. This is quite different. '
Inferring anti-semitism in this particular Harris comment is infact a overstretch and even Abe Foxman could not stretch his imagination like that one would think.
'It has provided more ammunition than should be available to discredit this candidate. Just as significantly, I cannot see how this should be considered a comment that bears well upon Christians.'
It only provides ammunition if people let it to be, a Liberal would be outraged just at the prospect of seeing a Republican run for office, i dont think that kind of ammunition should be a concern. Christians would not be concerned about what the secular crowd thinks about them. Rational thinking people would not really be offended by her comments.
The nastiness of the attacks on Harris is suprising to see in a conservative board, it reminded of the Libs who went ballistic on Harris during the 2000 election and poured vitriol on her in internet forums and elsewhere. I am not a huge fan of Harris, but I do consider a fine upstanding lady who has served the party and her country in a honourable manner.
I'm not sure if you could misunderstood me any more than you apparently have. I didn't say anything about the GOP having to reach out to non-GOPers. I'm pointing to non-GOPers finding more and more reason to consider voting GOP. I'm not suggesting that the GOP change what it is.
If Harris' remarks are indicative of what the GOP is, then perhaps I misunderstood it myself. I certainly hadn't thought that non-Christians should be considered legislators who would be, by default, sin-enacting legislators...in essence, of course.
And I didn't say there was anything anti-semitic about the remarks, anyway...are you serious? I guess I was correct in my first post. Reading comprehension would be helpful here. What I was saying was that I've seen the likes of Foxman get worked up over this or that issue or statement that I personally would consider far less controversial. People like that look for anti-semitism under rocks.
Why give them anything else to complain about? If it was a point that could not be made any other way, that's different. For Pete's sake, it isn't that hard to remember "Judeo-Christian values." Or is it?
And Christians may not be concerned about what secular people think of them, but a candidate in a state like Florida who issues comments like this would seem to not care about what Jews think of them as a candidate. Which is a different story, even if you disagree. And I say that's not a good thing.
I guess I'm more optimistic than some in thinking that Jews who vote Democrat might be increasingly willing to look at the reasons to vote GOP. Seeing these remarks, and some of the defenses of those remarks on the threads involving this issue today, I'm disappointed to see how little some seem to care. I think if you can change someone's mind without diluting your values, it's a good thing. And the point she was trying to make could've easily been made with different words that would not have diluted her message. Unless, of course, she actually believes that there is no Jew willing to offer a non-sinful approach towards legislation.
I don't see any reason to think she believes that, which is why her remarks are counterproductive in my view.
And if Moses was a congressman in Florida Harris would be saying that since he wasn't a Christian he promoted sin.
World Net Daily's Editor urges Floridians to VOTE FOR TOM GALLAGHER. (sounds like an endorsement to me).
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51709
Why are you the best-qualified candidate?
At this point, according to the most public recent polls, it’s showing that we are electable, that we are the ones that are closest to beating Bill Nelson. Quinnipiac University Poll places us ahead of Katherine Harris against a match up between Bill Nelson. And I say this is about the team. This is about winning it for the team. This race isn’t about an individual candidate. It’s about championing our core Republican values of pro-life, traditional marriage between one man and one woman, defending our second amendment rights. There are so many issues that are at stake.
I believe the values that I would bring to this race are unique and none of the other candidates have this to know what it’s like to roll up your sleeves and work every day and I believe I bring the strongest values. And I also am of Hispanic descent, I can communicate this message in English and “e ta bien in Espanol” and I believe we can rally the Hispanic base.
What is your personal religious faith?
I am a Christian and I am a member of First Baptist of Windemere.
Are you involved in a local place of worship? If so, in what way?
We are involved in children’s ministry, my wife and I are involved. We have three young boys, too, and so we are involved with the children there. I have worked in my dad’s church. My dad is a Spanish minister and so my wife doesn’t speak Spanish, but we are involved in the church there, helping out. I use my legal services also, I do pro-bono work and I assist people in that manner also. Before that, when I was in college at Florida State, I was a youth minister and I worked in a youth camp for a number of years and I was a youth minister/music director for a number of years also. Immigration was one of the main reasons I got into the (legal work at dad’s church) and then we branched out into other areas. Mainly because people were being exploited and they couldn’t speak the language and they were trying to do the right thing and they were trying to petition members of their families to come in and—so that’s an area we have been working in. And we do charge, also, in certain instances, not all of the work is pro-bono, so I don’t want to mislead you in that way, but we don’t really make money… my goal is just to try to break even in that immigration.
Some day all of us have to give an account before God for what we have done. Are you certain in your own heart that when you come to that point of accounting that you’ll spend eternity with God in Heaven?
I am a hundred percent sure based on what the Bible says, “whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” My dad is a minister, as I’ve said, and as a young boy in Sunday School I would always go forward and pray the sinner’s prayer, however when I was 10 years old I wanted to make sure because I struggled with doubts of my salvation, and I acknowledged that I was a sinner, I believe that Christ died on the cross for my sins and in the best way that a 10-year-old boy could, I invited Him to be my Lord and Savior. I’m not perfect, but I believe that was the time I placed my faith in Christ. And based on Scripture, I am confident that I will stand before Christ and He will say, “welcome in.” I just want to hear, “well done, thou good and faithful servant.”
One day when you stand before God, if He says to you, “Why should I let you into my Heaven?” What you would say in response?
Based on many scriptural principles, I believe that Christ died on the cross, my sin was paid for and I accepted His free gift of salvation and I’m confident based on Scripture my faith has been placed in Christ and because of His blood shed on the cross my sins were paid for.
How does your faith impact the way you view your responsibilities as a public official?
I believe one of the major reasons I am in this race, Matthew 5:13 says “you are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavor—-but therefore it shall be salt and it will be henceforth good for nothing and it shall be cast out …men” and then Matthew follows down, it says, “you are the light of the world.” Now here is the key right here, “let your light so shine before men that they might see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
I believe it is my role as an individual in this society is to preserve truth and righteousness. To be salt and light preserving truth and righteousness in every way that I can. And I believe the role of government, I believe God ordained the family, the church and the government. And the role of government is to protect life and liberty and that would be my number one goal across the board to protect life and liberty for our citizens and to be a restraining force of evil in the world and to promote good.
What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?
They should get involved. That is one thing that we shouldn’t run, that many people say—I was struggling whether to go to law school or seminary and I went to law school and shocked everyone and now I am in politics and it’s kind of like a boat. People don’t want to put the boat in the water because they are afraid it will sink, I say put the boat in the water, just make sure the water doesn’t get in the boat. And Christians need to be involved and exercise their faith. That’s the great opportunity that we have here in this country, to preserve truth and righteousness.
Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?
No, I do not. I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman and I believe that is foundational to our society.
Do you support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?
Yes, I do, because as I said earlier, because I believe marriage and the institution of marriage and the family, and especially marriage, is between one man and one woman.
Do you support the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment?
Yes, I do, for the same reasons. I believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.
Setting aside for the moment the public policy questions related to abortion, is abortion a moral evil? Why or why not?
Oh, I believe so, because it’s taking a life. And I believe the role of government is to protect life and when the life is in the womb, it’s the most critical and we should protect life at all cost.
What public policy limits on abortion have you supported or will you support in order to decrease the number of abortions in our nation?
I believe a waiting period. I believe alternatives, crisis pregnancy centers, to give women the opportunity to make other choices than to seek an abortion.
What is your view of Gov. Bush’s efforts on behalf of Terri Schiavo?
I know that he issued a stay to prevent the removal of her feeding devices. I support that.
Is there something wrong with Florida and federal statutes when a severely brain-damaged woman who’s not in the process of dying can be starved and dehydrated to death by her husband with the assistance of the courts? I believe there’s a huge problem. It’s the role of government to protect life. I believe it was a problem at that point.
Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care, thus permitting such care to be denied to persons like Terri Schiavo?
No. I didn’t see the medical charts at that time, but food and water are basic necessities. It’s not like they were being left on life support. And to deprive somebody of the basic needs of food and water is inhumane.
What is your view on government funding of embryonic stem cell research?
I believe life begins at conception and, therefore, if we were to terminate a life for research, I believe that is wrong.
Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?
Mainly because of the judicial nominations and senators confirm judges. We have four conservative judges in terms of the constitution. We may have two of these liberals, possibly Ginsburg stepping down. We need to have senators that are going to confirm judges who are going to interpret the constitution who are going to protect our religious liberties. The spending is an issue that I’m very concerned about and we need to get that under control. Another issue that I’m very concerned about is our immigration. We need to have an immigration reform that encourages legal immigration and I believe I bring a unique approach to that. I believe, number one, we should control our borders. That’s unquestionable because it poses a security risk. We’re a nation of laws, we must abide by those laws. Therefore, I’ll be opposed to an amnesty. However, once we have controlled our borders, we understand we are going to abide by the rule of law and not grant amnesty, then and only then should we adjust status and allow some type of a work temporary program and reform our immigration process. Because it’s so lengthy, so unpredictable, and it encourages people to break the law. I’m excited about championing this cause and doing what’s in the best interest of Americans, mainly for our national security. We saw what 19 individuals did on 9/11 who overstayed their visas or who were abusing the visa process. I’m excited about implementing a plan that’s fair, but yet protects our national interest or economic interests of the United States.
----------------------------
The second opponent is LeRoy Collins:
Why are you the best-qualified candidate?
I think my experience is much broader and at a much higher level than the others. I was in the naval service for 34 years and retired as a two-star admiral and so I’m accustomed to some decision making involving lot of people and lots of resources. And also, I have an extensive business background, over 39 years of that including a large business and small business and I originated with this business in 1969 that I was the very first employee and the by-products of that business now employ about 5,000 people in Pinellas County. So I’m accustomed to how you create jobs and how you manage things involving more than just Florida.
What is your personal religious faith?
I’m an Episcopalian. I have been all my life.
Are you involved in a local place of worship? If so, in what way?
I belong to St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Tampa and I am on the Vestry there and I have been on the Vestry, I think this is my fifth term which means I have a very vested interest in what’s going on in the church. I chaired the organ committee about 15 years ago, so I’m very involved.
Some day all of us have to give an account before God for what we have done. Are you certain in your own heart that when you come to that point of accounting that you’ll spend eternity with God in Heaven?
I certainly hope so and I’ve been conducting myself with that in mind. But my ledger is clean. I think I have spent most of my life doing things for other people and so I think that that’s very important and that should be an objective in our lives and I’ve always thought in terms of how does this impact other people and what can I do for them rather than myself and that’s very gratifying.
One day when you stand before God, if He says to you, “Why should I let you into my Heaven?” What you would say in response?
Wow. I think that I would say, “I’ve done my best and I hope that was good enough.”
How does your faith impact the way you view your responsibilities as a public official?
Every time I make a decision, I think in terms of how it is going to impact others. I don’t have any interest in doing things that are politically correct. I do have a deep interest in doing things that are right for all people involved.
What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?
I think they should be as active at whatever level they feel comfortable. And that is all the way down to the local precinct. If you are running for a statewide office, of course, that’s a different level, but I think you have to be careful it does not become de-personalized because there are people out there you are affecting and you have an identity with those people and keep contact with those people so that you’re not out in left field.
I support civil rights of all throughout the whole spectrum of humanity and I think that it has nothing to do with sexual preference as far as I’m concerned. Are you talking about gay marriage or something like that? Yes, I do.
Do you support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?
I support that as a statute and if I was there and it was put forth as a constitutional amendment, I would support that. I probably wouldn’t originate that simply because the Constitution is something we amend very, very rarely. I would support that but not being a lawyer, I realize the Constitution is quite sacrosanct. So I would probably support it but I wouldn’t originate it because I wouldn’t feel qualified to defend it as an amendment. I think that would require a constitutional lawyer to do that and there are lots of those up there and I’m not one of them.
Do you support the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment?
I am not familiar with that. So, I don’t feel qualified to pass judgment on that and I have been concentrating more on federal issues. I just don’t feel qualified to comment on it.
Setting aside for the moment the public policy questions related to abortion, is abortion a moral evil? Why or why not?
My position on abortion goes like this. My advice is always, to a young woman, to carry her baby to full term. And that’s the advice I’d give to my own daughter. I do, however, recognize that we’re always going to have, whether you and I want that or not, we’re always going to have young women who make mistakes and get pregnant by mistake. And many of those are going to be quite young and just frightened by the whole process and maybe the first time or whatever, and they are just frightened or embarrassed or whatever. I don’t want young, frail women like that who are so impressionable, to be classed as criminals. So, I think they are going to make those mistakes. They shouldn’t make them, but they will and so I don’t want young women like that going to jail. So my feeling is that we must provide a way for them to come to a dignified resolution or acceptance of whatever decision they make. I do not want them going to back-alley practitioners which will threaten their own lives because it is illegal. Now having said that, when we get to the third trimester, I think that’s murder. So, that may be a mixed answer for you, but that’s where I am and I think I’m there for a good reason and I think it’s a pragmatic reason, although it goes contrary to my faith. So, I don’t know if that’s something you can identify with it, if you understand what I’m saying, but that’s where I am.
What public policy limits on abortion have you supported or will you support in order to decrease the number of abortions in our nation?
I support a strong educational program which will explain to young women taking departure with the sanctity of life which is so a part of our American way of life. It needs to be strengthened. And frankly, the most obvious way to strengthen it is through Christianity. I do not support any government program in order to foster this through Christianity. I do support a government program that explains what’s happening here because the few people that I’ve known who had abortions regretted it the rest of their lives. ...
What is your view of Gov. Bush’s efforts on behalf of Terri Schiavo?
I thought that he ventured beyond the law and I think that our existing laws, while it conveyed a great sensitivity for a human being, I admired that, but I felt that the emotion of the occasion was carrying him probably further than he should have gone as a chief executive. And it’s difficult for me to appraise because I wasn’t involved, but I think we have ample laws to cover the situation that involved Terri Schiavo.
Is there something wrong with Florida and federal statutes when a severely brain-damaged woman who’s not in the process of dying can be starved and dehydrated to death by her husband with the assistance of the courts?
Well, of course, that puts it in a very—that taints the question. ... I think that an abundance of civility needs to be exercised, but I don’t think that we should go beyond the law. She had a situation that the law covered and we tried to intervene there in a special case and it went all the way to the Congress. And I understand the sensitivities involved, but I think they were overstepping where they should have gone.
Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care, thus permitting such care to be denied to persons like Terri Schiavo?
We have to go to the absolute limit that we can that’s permitted by law. When we start to interfere with the law, then I think we’ve gone too far. (Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care?) No, I don’t think food and water is extraordinary care, but if there’s just no way that this woman is going to survive, I think that God needs to take over. And if we artificially prolong this person’s life and only through artificial means are going to preserve it, seems to me like we are contravening what God’s intention is. (So artificial means are food and water?) I see where you are going with this. (Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care, thus permitting such care to be denied to persons like Terri Schiavo?) I guess so. Yeah. (So should, food and water should be defined as extraordinary care?). Yes.
What is your view on government funding of embryonic stem cell research?
To the extent that it can be proven that it has the potential, a good potential, based upon qualified scientific evidence that it can prolong life of those who are infirmed, I favor that. I’m like Nancy Reagan in that one and I favor the use of that.
Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?
Because it’s something, we are at, like I said earlier, we are at a very critical time in our lives and I think that we must be smart enough to anticipate some very, very vexing demands upon our people and they need to understand that if they don’t participate—if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. So, they need to get out and study the candidates and they need to vote. And if that’s not good enough for them, then they need to run for office. I just think the most gratifying thing to me is that faiths such as yours are that interested in interviewing the candidates and holding them accountable and reminding them of their points of view and if you have someone who cannot put this in a faith context, then I would say they have a real shortcoming. And I think I do that and so I’m just gratified that your organization is interested in what we have to think about these things.
People often use Christian for Judeo-Christian.
________
Only if they are Christian. Can you honestly say that you have heard a Jewish person do so?
I would expect a Jew to emphasize Jewish law; when Katherine Harris is discussing a choice between herself (a Christian) and Bill Nelson (remember, her answer was in the context of Q: Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election? A: They should care about this election period...."), I would expect her to say Christian, since, in this election, she is supporting electing herself, a Christian. What's she going to say, elect a godly Jew for Florida Senate 2006? That's more than a little silly.
(Although if there were a godly Jew in the race I'd be supporting him over Harris, so maybe that's not that far-fetched! As it is, I'm supporting McBride in the primary. Harris is toast.)
I was considering a vote for Collins, but after reading that, I'm going with McBride, Dukeman.
Thanks for the info. GG
Say, is Tropical Storm Ernesto going to affect you? Stay safe!
Thanks, but we're good. On the West coast. Although we have thunderstorms around here that make tropical storms look like gentle spring showers!
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.