Katherine Harris says failure to elect Christians will `legislate sin'

KRT Wire ^ | 8/25/2006 | Jim Stratton

[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."

[subbob]

The words "Separation of Church and State" can not be found in our Constitution. That phrases simplifices - and incorrectly states - what the Founding Fathers intended.

They intended freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. One merely needs to look at what they said to know this - several examples are listed below.

John Adams said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government ofany other."

Noah Webster said:
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed....No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

Abigail Adams said:
"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men?"

Benjamin Franklin:
"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."

Thomas Jefferson:
"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

[Mojave]

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 common law was "made up"? Fascinating.

The common law of California included elements of the Spanish alcalde.

Short term memory loss?

[Mojave]

Test Acts reached well beyond holding public offices.

"In 1777 most states passed Test Acts. They required everyone to take an oath of allegiance promising to defend the revolutionary cause with arms. Pennsylvania law decreed banishment and confiscation of all property for those who refused the oath."

[jf55510]

The common law was "made up"? Fascinating.

Of course it was, where else would it come from? Some magic law fairy? It was made up using decisions from English courts starting in the 1100's.

The common law of California included elements of the Spanish alcalde.

The common law of California does no such thing. Spain, and thusly California, was a civil law jurisdiction. In the 1800's California became a common law jurisdictions and put parts of its civil law jurisdiction into the codes.

Short term memory loss?

Not at all, completely consistent.

[Mojave]

The words "Separation of Church and State" can not be found in our Constitution.

They know. They don't care.

[Mojave]

Of course it was, where else would it come from?

Precedents, standards and customs evolved over time.

Your position that it was "made up" and then fixed for all places for all time is the sort of ignorance Justice Story addressed when he noted that the common law was not "a brooding omnipresence in the sky".

[Mojave]

Correction: Justice Hand, not Justice Story.

[stands2reason]

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.

Elsie (courtesy ping) is the one who told me that rudeness isn't immoral. So did RobbyS (cp). If you want to say they aren't real CHristians, they'll show you the Bible verses to back them up.

OTOH can a non-Christian really determine what's good Christian behavior and what's not?

Yeah, I've read the Bible. I've been a Christian.

You mean like a community of liberals whose morality gives you a phlanderous, godless blah blah blah.

No, the community of conservatives who elected the person. How come those community standards you claim are standard aren't the ones mentioned when it comes to zoning sex clubs?

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.

You are deluding yourself if you beleve only Bible-believers are constitutionalists. I don't mind electing Christians to office, but I will never refuse to vote for a non-Christian.

[jf55510]

Keep naming famous judges and you will get the correct one who wrote that quote.

[Torie]

There is a lot of noise in this thread. Most but not all of English common law,and much common law subsequent to American Independence, has been incorporated into statute, incluiding at least in California, a lot of boilerplate from Blackstone et al., adopted in the 19th century, which remains on the books. What has survived from the common law, is the notion that courts interpret the meaning of statutes, and that if it goes to the appellate level, the holdings that are published interpreting such statutes become law as it were, and sometimes the courts revert, particularly in real property law, to rather ancient precedents.

The point is, is that the words of the statutes are king, and the words of the Constitution trump all. When judges are activist, if there is "ambiguity" in the words in a particular factual context, then the courts "refine" the meaning of the statutory and Constitutional words. But where statutes are silent, as in much of the lacunae of contractual law, for example, prior judicial precedents really matter, and legal practioners rely much more on the case law than the statutes. Without my training to parse case law, I would be largely useless as a legal practioner myself. It is not a simple task often.

[Mojave]

As I look forward to seeing your source for claiming the common law was "made up".

[Mojave]

Most but not all of English common law,and much common law subsequent to American Independence, has been incorporated into statute, incluiding at least in California

Very true. The common law isn't static.

[Torie]

It was made up by courts. In property and contract law, we still refer to some English cases. The statutes have either incorporated such concepts, or remained silent. In some situations, statutes have clearly reversed the common law, such as in absolute legal tort liability, in certain situations. A finding of negligence for example, per the statutes, is no longer necessary, in some factual patterns.

[jf55510]

As I look forward to seeing your source for claiming the common law was "made up".

I don't need one. Anyone who has taken a first year torts class knows it was made up by juges starting in England.

[jf55510]

The common law isn't static.

No one is claiming that the common law is static or fixed. I went back through our discussion and I never claimed as such. I only have stated that the common law was made in England, and that the common law is the same but can be changed, ignored, or kept by statute if the states want.

[Mojave]

It was made up by courts.

Precedents, standards and customs of the time and place were recognized by the courts.

[Mojave]

No one is claiming that the common law is static or fixed.

You began spewing strawmen when it was pointed out that the common law systems of the states reflected their precedents, standards and customs.

[Mojave]

it was made up by juges starting in England.

When?

[Torie]

When I went to England last month on a legal junket, one Oxford professor noted that the reason English courts were allowed to create published precedents, which were then followed, and became law as it were, was that it was all in "legal French," until the late 18th century, not understood by Parliament, and by the time the action was writen in English, it was too late for Parliament to recoup its lost power, in that regard. The tradition of courts creating legal precedents, with the force of law. had become too ingrained, to reverse. Tradition, tradition! In Civil Law countries, although it is changing now in many Civil Law nations, courts are not allowed to create legal precedent with the force of law, in the sense that subsequent courts must follow such prececents, if lower courts.

[jf55510]

You began spewing strawmen when it was pointed out that the common law systems of the states reflected their precedents, standards and customs.

No, you started this whole thing by stating the states made up their common law. That is so incredibly wrong, which the point that I have been trying to get across since the beginning.