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."
You don't?!?
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. They can legislate sin.
Main Entry: litmus test
Function: noun
: a test in which a single factor (as an attitude, event, or fact) is decisive
Sorry, but that's a litmus test. In essence she's stating "if you're electing Jews then in essence you are going to legislate sin". Or insert any other religion in place of Jews. No matter how you state it, her remarks are repugnant.
This is my understanding of what Harris is saying to the Baptists: If you want someone who represents your moral values regarding abortion and homosexual marriage...I am your candidate. If you don't elect candidates like me who share your Christian values....you will have more laws protecting what you (as Baptists) consider 'sin'.
You can read the entire Harris interview here:
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article
I believe that if one's morality doesn't derive from Biblical principles then I'd be hard-pressed to assume that one would have the morality needed to govern a nation founded on Christian principles and I certainly wouldn't trust anyone who outwardly rejects those principles.
Then why didn't she substitute "Christians" with "religious", "Christian ethic", "biblical foundation", etc?
No, I don't think it's necessary to parse her words or determine the meaning of "is". I think she meant exactly what she said:
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. They can legislate sin.
If your not electing Christians, you are getting what you asked for. Hard not to agree with this IMHO...
Look...she was speaking to Christians as a fellow Christian.
I will not waste my time 'nit-picking' with you.
And fortunately ....since you vote in VA she won't miss your vote in FL.
I do hope you shared your valuable expertise on the use of the English language with your Senator George Allen........LOL
Have a nice day!
What, more concerned than serving her Lord and Savior?
And I say that as a Christian.
Just how nice are Christians suppost to be (how sensitive)?
The proof for John the Baptist that Jesus was the Christ was that the blind see, the lame walk and the majority are "offended" by Him (Mat. 11:2-19). As Jesus said, "Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me" (Mat. 11:6; Luke 7:23). In Galilee, Jesus did not plead with his neighbors to understand Him when "they were offended at Him" (Mat. 13:57; Mark 6:3). If unbelievers are offended, so be it (cf. Luke 14:3-4; John 5:8-16). "Shake off the dust from your feet" (Mat. 10:14). But alas, that is no longer a Christian attitude.
Christ’s apostles asked Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard [Your] saying?" (Mat. 15:12). What is the accepted Christian response today after an offense is taken? Quick, apologize! Ask for forgiveness! Tell them you are sorry. How did Jesus respond? He said to ignore the complaints of the unbelievers: "Let them alone. They are blind," (Mat. 15:14). Today, many Christians condemn Christ’s attitude as unloving.
Jesus promised his followers, "you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended" (Mat. 24:9-10).
Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9) What is hypocritical love? "Should you… love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you" (2 Chr. 19:2).
Paul also fell short of today’s compassionate Christianity when he wrote that the government should minister terror, wrath and vengeance against the evildoer and that the sword should be used against them (Rom. 13:3-4). The Apostle also erred by today’s standards calling unbelievers fools (Rom. 1:22) and the Galatians fools (Gal. 3:1, 3). Incidentally, Jesus also called men fools (Mat. 23:17, 19; 25:2-8; Luke 11:40; 12:20) when appropriate but never "without a cause" (Mat. 5:22) according to His teaching. As King David wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’" (Ps. 53:1). Thus, atheists are fools and it is cruel to withhold this knowledge from them.
Let me ask you one question NittanyLion? Just one question... What do you think of "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17
Please answer this one question (above in red)... remembering what Jesus said... when talking about "The Law"... in Matthew 5:17-19..." Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Please let me know if we as Christians are to ignore this passage from the OT... are we to assume it no longer applies to us and that Jesus supports ignoring it? Perhaps Jesus was just a mean ole fart? As a fellow "Christian" I am interested in you opinion.
But apparently you are NOT voting for Katherine Harris because she was speaking as a Christian to Baptists.
Well, that makes perfect sense IF you are NOT a conservative afterall!
The above biased article attacks Katherine Harris for expressing her Christian faith in an interview given to the Florida Baptist Witness publication.
This is my understanding of what Harris is saying to the Baptists: If you want someone who represents your moral values regarding abortion and homosexual marriage...I am your candidate. If you don't elect candidates like me who share your Christian values....you will have more laws protecting what you (as Baptists) consider 'sin'.
You can read the entire Harris interview here:
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article
I can say with certainty that there is not a single reference in Scripture to God choosing the leaders of the United States.
Harris is, therefore, completely and totally wrong.
Can't help you, P. I'm up here in Penna and have to get Santorum re-elected over Casey.
Who does the FL-GOP(?) recommend? Almost sounds to me like Melson is unbeatable, unless he has a Chappaquiddick...
Kate's getting creamed, anyway you look at it.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12404
I have to trust Christians even though their morality isn't what I'd call "complete".
For instance, I believe calling people names and using personal attacks is a sin. Christians don't agree.
I still wouldn't legislate my morality over the morality of the community.
Why isn't political ideology enough for you? You know, how one stands on the issues.
Exactly. The Clintonian parsing from Harris defenders is astounding.
Bump
Sadly, shameless sycophancy isn't confined to people of any political bent...
I am not clear on your position. Is everything she stands for wrong, in your view? Do not the principles of governance and headship throughout the Bible not pertain to the United States? Please clarify.
"If the people abuse freedom and abandon morality, then it's the whole "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind" thing. The problems with today is not that we don't have righteous laws; the problem is that people don't follow righteousness."
Thanks. I thought there were rules for Katherine Harris (like with A. Coulter).
;-)
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.