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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-533 next last
To: BillyBoy

I probably would have voted for Coleman as he would be closer to my values even though he is not Christian. Mondale may be a Christian but his values and mine are 180 degrees opposite.


341 posted on 08/26/2006 5:54:22 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Yes we do have religious tests in this country. Secular law is just one component of our system. Although the left sure is trying hard to ethnicly cleanse us of religion. By the way that test is the person who pulls the handle on the voting machine.


342 posted on 08/26/2006 5:59:15 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Baited?? Sorry, I thought this was a forum.


343 posted on 08/26/2006 6:03:14 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Gee, she seemed okay sitting on that horse... She's alittle nutty.


344 posted on 08/26/2006 6:04:03 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingofQue
If you are not electing Christians you are electing the other side. Which side are you on?

E Pluribus Unum.

345 posted on 08/26/2006 6:09:03 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
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 can't speak for others who claim to be Christian as you know ANYONE can claim to be Christian, but it's by their fruits, behavior, conduct that you know them. OTOH can a non-Christian really determine what's good Christian behavior and what's not?

I still wouldn't legislate my morality over the morality of the community.

You mean like a community of liberals whose morality gives you a phlanderous, godless, God-mocking,immoral, excuse of a man like Clinton, or the possibility of a snide,lying, conniving, power-hungry, opportunistic individual like a Kerry for President, what about a community of homosexuals whose morality will give you same-sex marriage, pedophiles, trans-confused sexual identities, gay adoptions, gay t.v., gay movies, gay sex education such as fisting, the perversion, mocking and oppression of all religions , or how about a community of Hezbollah-loving Dearborn, Mi. based Muslims where Sharia Law morality would dominate?

Either you support and champion biblical morality in our elected officials upon which our system of government was founded and works best under, or be prepared to watch and say goodbye to the Constitution and the country the way it was intended, with all the glorious freedoms that resulted from it.

isn't political ideology enough for you? You know, how one stands on the issues.

You mean like the political ideology that gave us Communism and Stalin, or Nazism and Hitler , or ones that offer the world tyrant dictators like the Romans of old, or even now in some African and Latin American countries?

Pure political ideology will move to the extreme left or right unless balanced and tempered by the God-given principles established by God thru his Commandments and subsequently thru his Son, Jesus Christ.

He guided this country to greatness thru his servants, the Founding Fathers and other great men of Christian faith with the intent being for this great country to become a beacon of Light and Hope, and a witness to the world of his Greatness and Glory.

This cannot possibly take place either under a system that is at its core a godless politically based ideology or any system that has at its core a non-Christian based religious ideology. Christianity's practice and influence would not be tolerated under any other system other than the Judeo-Christian one that we inherited and were blessed with.

346 posted on 08/26/2006 6:10:12 PM PDT by whatisthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
Is everything she stands for wrong, in your view?

We have no religious tests for office in this country. Also, headship is different from stating that God appoints our leaders. He simply doesn't do that, unless you can tell me with a straight face that God put Bill Clinton in the Presidency.

347 posted on 08/26/2006 6:14:04 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Are you still sticking to your absurd position that the common law came from the states?

Are you still sticking to your absurd position that the common law is a brand of fruit juice?

348 posted on 08/26/2006 7:42:58 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: KingofQue; MineralMan
The " other side " are people who are not Christians. I have no animosity towards Jews,they are God's chosen people, and I am a big supporter of Israel but when I vote it is for someone who has values similar to mine. CHRISTIAN!
Is this concept to ridiculous for your pea sized brain?

Anyone who tosses around the epithet "pea brain" ought first to make sure that it does not apply to himself.

One who won't vote for a Jew because of his religion certainly qualifies. That's bigotry, plain and simple.

349 posted on 08/26/2006 7:45:21 PM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Are you still sticking to your absurd position that the common law is a brand of fruit juice?

Maybe if that is the position I have been holding, sure, but it isn't. The common law is derived from England starting the 1100's. Hopefully you have done enough research over the day to correct your erroneous position.
350 posted on 08/26/2006 7:45:45 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: KingofQue; MineralMan
The " other side " are people who are not Christians. I have no animosity towards Jews,they are God's chosen people, and I am a big supporter of Israel but when I vote it is for someone who has values similar to mine. CHRISTIAN!

"Second call for Joe Lieberman! Joe Lieberman! Take that yarmulke off and leave the Capitol Building! You don't belong! No point hiding Joe, we'll find you!"

351 posted on 08/26/2006 7:46:36 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: KingofQue; sinkspur
Yes we do have religious tests in this country.

The Founders demonstrably disagreed. You might benefit from reading the Constitution - they made such tests illegal.

Secular law is just one component of our system.

No, it is the entirety of our system of government.

Can you point to the section in the Constitution in which the Founders gave religious tenets supremecy over secular laws?

By the way that test is the person who pulls the handle on the voting machine.

True enough. People may chose to vote based upon whatever criteria they choose.

But if they refuse to vote for a candidate who is Jewish, or Sikh, or whatever, no matter how conservative that candidate is or what his stance on the issue is, solely because of the candidate's religion, that is the very definition of bigotry. And it's sad.

352 posted on 08/26/2006 7:51:43 PM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Maybe if that is the position I have been holding, sure, but it isn't.

Ah, but you didn't mind inventing a strawman and attributing it to me. Hypocrisy.

353 posted on 08/26/2006 7:54:57 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: highball
The Founders demonstrably disagreed...they made such tests illegal.

They didn't grant the power to impose such tests to the federal government, reserving them instead to the states.

354 posted on 08/26/2006 7:58:11 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Not at all, my description of your position is accurate.
355 posted on 08/26/2006 7:58:32 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
my description of your position is accurate.

You lie.

356 posted on 08/26/2006 8:04:31 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Not at all.

Me Q. - Do you know where the common law came from?

You A. - The precedents, standards and customs practiced in the various states. No two states were identical in their common laws.

That would be at post 207. Sounds an awfully lot that you are saying the common law comes from the states.


357 posted on 08/26/2006 8:09:03 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
States invent their precedents, standards and customs upon ratification of statehood?

Your ignorance of history and law is deep and strange.

358 posted on 08/26/2006 8:12:58 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
"The Founders demonstrably disagreed...they made such tests illegal."

They didn't grant the power to impose such tests to the federal government, reserving them instead to the states.

Wow.

That's profoundly ignorant.

Article VI, Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Very clear.

You may wish to try reading the Constitution sometime - you'll be amazed at what's in this amazing document.

359 posted on 08/26/2006 8:18:11 PM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
States invent their precedents, standards and customs upon ratification of statehood?

The common law, in which we are talking about, is adopted by the states but was made up in England starting in the 1100's. The states had nothing to do with creation of common law. The common law can be changed or rejected by statute. Example is that under common law there was no tort cause of action for wrongful death, so unless there was a statute which allowed suit for wrongful death, there was no way to sue for wrongful death because it was not a cause under the common law. However, negligence was a common law tort, thus, you don't have to have a statute to sue for negligence.
360 posted on 08/26/2006 8:20:41 PM PDT by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-533 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