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."
Starting in the 1100's.
You lie.
"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."Custom, not "made up by juges".
Read a book.
And become the force of law effectively, if the court holdings were published at the appellate court level, unlike Civil Law nations, unless reversed by statute. The balance of power changed. I am a big fan by the way of court legal precedent becoming law, until reversed. Fact patterns are so variable, that without such "law," we would get individual courts deciding cases in more idiosyncratic ways, case by case. That is not "good." It creates more uncertainty as to what the law is, in particular fact patterns. Uncertainty as to what the law is, creates more risk. Risk is a cost, economically and otherwise. That is why Civil Law nations are moving towards the concept of court legal precedential authority. To do otherwise, incurs more risk costs. It also runs increased risk of folks in similar situations, getting different legal results. That is unjust.
That's fine when the precedent reflects the customary local practices for dealing with disputes and crime, but not when judges "make up" laws out of thin air.
Then who made it up and got it to be a part of the legal system?
Well it was "fashioned" by judges, trying to interpret whatever was out there. If the legislature does not like such fashioning, or interpretion or existing statutory or Constitutional law, they can pass a statute, or in the US, and other nations with a Constitution and the common law tradition, amend the Consitution, if it is a Constitutional issue.
You have that right! Looks like I made the hit list of the KH folks because I dared say she is a louzy candidate and told someone to stuff it!
What's with the KH folks?
They were very good. I freaked out when I heard her say that and watched the reply, made several calls, sent emails and she withdrew the statement.
You're the one sourcelessly pretending it was "made up", not me.
And yet you hope that resurrecting your sourceless and refuted argument will avail you something.
The prevailing local customs and practices were out there.
It had to have come from somewhere. So if judges didn't make up, who did? A legal fairy. A dog. A pixie. Druids. Preachers. Who?
You lie.
So you oppose all Jewish candidates on general principle? You're a real class act.
"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."
You must enjoy being thrashed.
As I said, it is a power issue. Courts claim that they are following statute and Constitutional law, and are not rogue, ignoring a reasonable interpretation of saem. When they are rogue, in the eye of the beholder, the remedy is a new statute of amended Constitution, or a new court. The issue is about the relative power of the Courts and the legilature, and whether giving courts the power to create "law," until reversed by new statutes or an amended Constitution, is worth the cost of uncertainty in particular fact patterns, and inconsistent legal results. This is the most controversial of course, when it comes to Constitutional issues, since it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, in the US. But without an independent judicial branch, parsing its meaning, with the force of law, that document would become a largely dead letter, in the sense that it would have not much more force and effect than a mere statute, and would apply differently per different courts, and in different jurisdictions.
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.