Katherine Harris: God Didn't Want Secular U.S.

NewsMax ^ | 27 August 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Florida Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments - which she clarified Saturday - in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.

Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments.

Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."

The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.

Harris' opponents in the GOP primary also gave interviews to the Florida Baptist Witness but made more general statements on their faith.

Harris, 49, faced widespread criticism for her role overseeing the 2000 presidential recount as Florida's secretary of state.

State GOP leaders - including Gov. Jeb Bush - don't think she can win against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November. Fundraising has lagged, frustrated campaign workers have defected in droves and the issues have been overshadowed by news of her dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

[an amused spectator]

So lose the argument, change the debate and then flee. Seems an amused spectator is a coward not willing to standup for his foolish beliefs. Now go back to Sunday School little man before I give you a spanking.

???

And speaking of nonsense, here's Dave S "who?" chiming in with some drooling BS that clearly shows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I see that you already got spanked by 4Runner in post 96, so I won't bother replying to your somewhat "animated" posts.

[Non-Sequitur]

This protects people of all denominations, but does not change the makeup of the people who founded this country or the social basis they considered necessary for its survival, or even the fact that most states did have organized churches.

And Harris, apparently, would overrule that. Would be nice if she actually read the document she swore to uphold. Ah well, come January she won't have to worry about that anymore.

[an amused spectator]

That's a full-blown retreat in the face of Madison's quotes on the intent of the Founders to maintain a wall of separation between religion and goverment.

Madison says nothing about a "wall" in these quotes. Furthermore, he was speaking about religion and government while referring to the extant governmental systems, with which all the Founders were familiar. Their debates on these matters were framed by the existing and historical governmental systems. The present "wall" would confound the sensibilities of the Founders.

[A. Pole]

That's a full-blown retreat in the face of Madison's quotes on the intent of the Founders to maintain a wall of separation between religion and goverment.

It was a personal opinion of Mr. Madison expressed in his private letter. Still at his time even Massachusetts had the official established church (Congregationalist) long after the Constitution was ratified.

[an amused spectator]

If you're so far gone that you think that the Constitution doesn't apply to people not like you, then there really isn't any help for you at all.

Rejecting the premises under which the Constitution was crafted is a rejection of the Constitution itself.

Your "logic" bolsters the crowd that screams that Islamofascists have Constitutional Rights.

They don't, because they reject the premises under which the Constitution operates. They don't believe in Natural Rights as free men know them.

Of course, they LOVE people like you, because the "we have Natural Rights too" argument is a nice little tactic that confuses their enemies - especially the ones who don't really get the whole Natural Rights debate and its framework.

The Internet has lots of reading on these issues. Avail yourself of those resources. ;-)

[4Runner]

(1) What Harris is addressing is the problem of atheism fast becoming the "state religion" of our elected officials. I know that, you know that, everyone on this thread knows that. Don't deny it.

(2) As I said earlier, if you read St. Augustine or St. Thomas Acquinas, they address the need for Christians to act pragmatically in the world where not only God but also the devil entwines itself regularly and prominently in human affairs. The point being, according to these theologians, that God expects us to have sufficient knowledge and spirituality to know the damned difference and to act--in events where it is necessary for us to do so--appropriately. That is the problem with atheism. It doesn't know the difference between good and evil. It treats God and Devil the same way.

(3) There is a terrain of fraternal encounter shared by Christians and Jews, which includes shared tenets and rules of behavior. This terrain is broad and is part of our political and cultural fabric. Neither Christians nor Jews countenece atheism.

(4) Your objection to what Harris said is not that it was exclusive of "other religions". Your objection to Harris is that you don't want anyone with religious belief anywhere near the halls of power in Washington. That's what has you torqued.

[Dave S]

I see that you already got spanked by 4Runner in post 96, so I won't bother replying to your somewhat "animated" posts.

Why dont you try. I bet your type gets sexually stimulated by spanking someone.

[FreedomFighter78]

"They don't, because they reject the premises under which the Constitution operates. They don't believe in Natural Rights as free men know them."

Simple question: Do atheists have Constitutional rights? Because your logic could very easily be used to argue that they do not.

[an amused spectator]

retMD: I don't approve of allowing only those of one religion to make all the laws, based solely on their religion.

I called this a strawman, even without reading the article. Now that I've read the article, I see my gut instinct was correct. Harris talks about the "Salt and Light doctrine" (which you can look up on the Net) when it comes to her politics. She's not advocating a total control of government by one religion, she's advocating "leavening" the legislature with people of [Christian] faith, Christians who will lead through example. So what's objectional about that? What, are you scared of Christians? Last time I checked, they weren't the religious nutcakes chopping off the heads of "unbelievers" or enslaving women and anybody else they can extend their sway over.

HostileTerritory:It's not a strawman when Katharine Harris explicitly warns people against voting for people who aren't Christian, because we would "legislate sin."

Katherine Harris: "But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? 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. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin 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. ...

She says "in essence", and then goes on to explain her position. Her position is sound, from what I see there.

[Dave S]

You are in over your head. I did not say that God wrote the Constitution. Are you mad? The creator endows the right--the U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienability. You need background. Try the Magna Carta for starters. No U.S. court can override the concept of inalienability. Lesson over.

Try going to the court and saying you have an inalienable right to pray aloud in school or stone some sinner. See what that buys you.

[Virginia-American]

Yet it seems to me that one must make some effort to see these words in context of the times. When Madison wrote, religion was not excluded from the public affairs, for example, the schools. This suggests to me that words that had limited extent then have been given more emphasis and power today. We did not have public schools through twelfth grade then and, in general, the public sphere has grown. So banishing religion from the public sphere means more today than it would have in Madison's time, even if that had been the practice, which it was not.

What public schools? From the Wikiedia article about the University (of Virginia)

An even more controversial direction was taken for the new university based on a daring vision of higher education, completely separated from religious doctrine. One of the largest construction projects in North America up to that time, the new Grounds were centered upon a library (then housed in the Rotunda) rather than a church — further distinguishing it from peer universities of the United States, virtually all of which were still primarily functioning as seminaries for one particular religion or another.[5] Jefferson even went so far as to ban the teaching of Theology altogether. In a letter to Thomas Cooper in October 1814, Jefferson stated, "a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution" and, true to form, the University had, nor has, no Divinity school or department, and was established independent of any religious sect. Replacing the then-standard specialization in Religion, the University undertook groundbreaking specializations in more "scientific" subjects such as Astronomy and Botany. (A non-denominational University chapel, notably absent from Jefferson's original plans, was constructed in 1890.)

(bolding added)

Were there any publicly-funded schools, at any level, at the time Madison wrote? (Except the University, of course)

[an amused spectator]

Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independance is of no legal value. The Constitution - which prohibited religious tests in Art. VI, Paragraph 3 - and the Barbary Treaty are controlling.

This is a legalism. Pulverise the rock on which the Constitution is built, and the rest crumbles.

There are reasons why it took legalistic termites a couple of hundred years to come out of the woodwork to argue that "the Declaration is of no legal value". The Founders would have laughed such persons out of the public forum.

I'll humor you here:

The statement in the Barbary Treaty [and you are of course correct about treaties entered into by the U.S. government] is "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" does NOT argue for a secular government. The commonly shared concept of a Creator who endowed the Founders and their fellows with Natural Rights is the basis of our government. Arguing about the "legal standing" of the Declaration is sheer Sophistry. Big deal. Reject it, aqnd pretend that the Founders didn't all know exactly what was meant by those words, and you reject the basis for the Constitution.

Of course, that IS the aim of many in this country. They WANT people to think that the Constitution is where the Rights are "granted".

Sorry, I know that my Rights came from the Creator, and that makes me dangerous to your kind. :-)

[an amused spectator]

My understanding of the term "inalienable" is that it also includes situations where, for example, through coercion or ignorance someone compels you to sign a document wherein you agree to "forfeit" your rights under this or that Article of the Constitution. Your signing that document changes nothing. You are still endowed with that inalienable right, whichever it may be, because not even YOU, the possessor, has the power to dispose of that right. That is powerful stuff.

I've read an article wherein is described the takeover of a government of free men. The government passes laws abrogating the various Natural Rights, and enforces the abrogations at gunpoint and with prison.

The article went on to state that the Rights still exist, even if you are imprisoned or killed over your assertion of them.

Your interpretation is even more powerful than that one. I like it!

[retMD]

I read the entire article before posting. However you or she explain it, "if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin," clearly says she believes that only Christians are going to be good legislators, and by implication, only Christians should be elected. And no, I don't think "Judeo" is understood before Christian as some Harris defenders argue.

So yes, although it sounds like you asked the question as a rhetorical device, I'm scared of what will happen to my country when Dominionist Christians insist they are the only ones fit to "rule." I've read lots of history, and there was a time when some Christians felt they knew all the answers for everyone else, and enforced it with a sword. It's those type of Christians that scare me.

I find myself also distressed with her words "God is the one who chooses our rulers." She needs to read the constitution and learn to understand it. Our Senators and representatives are not our rulers, but public servants.

[an amused spectator]

Simple question: Do atheists have Constitutional rights? Because your logic could very easily be used to argue that they do not.

No one has ever forced atheists to explain where their Constitutional rights come from. They are indulged by the majority in this American Republic. I would have to conclude that they don't have Constitutional rights, using the available material.

[an amused spectator]

Try going to the court and saying you have an inalienable right to pray aloud in school or stone some sinner. See what that buys you.

The previous discussion of inalienable Rights went right over Dave's head.

Shut up, Dave.

[sinkspur]

No one has ever forced atheists to explain where their Constitutional rights come from. They are indulged by the majority in this American Republic. I would have to conclude that they don't have Constitutional rights, using the available material.

The rest of us, Christians and non-Christians, will work very hard to keep Pharisees like you away from the levers of power in this country.

[FreedomFighter78]

"No one has ever forced atheists to explain where their Constitutional rights come from. They are indulged by the majority in this American Republic. I would have to conclude that they don't have Constitutional rights, using the available material."

The available material? How about starting with the Constitution itself?

Article I, Section 2: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United State, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Article I, Section 3: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the Age of thirty Years, and ben nine Years a Citizen of the United States...."

Article II, Section 1: "No Person exept a natural born Citizen..."

Article IV, Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States....

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law....prohibiting the free exercise thereof....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Amendment II: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."

Amendment IV: "The right of the people...."

And, of course:

Amendment V: "No Person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I see a lot of "persons" and "citizens." I don't see anything referring to "Christians" or "persons of faith" or even "atheists." You are correct in pointing out that the Declaration points to rights endowed by the Creator - though even there, they point out that "all men" are endowed with these rights, not "all religious men" (the Founders would likely say that even those who reject the Creator are endowed with his rights, since they are inalienable). But, the Declaration carries with it no legal weight. When the principles espoused in the Declaration were codified into law - through the Constitution - they were put in more neutral terms.

No "person" may have their rights deprived. No "citizen's" rights may be abridged. All "persons" born or naturalized are "citizens." To argue that atheists do not have Constitutional rights is to ignore the most important "available material" - the Constitution itself.

Don't call yourself a "Constitutionalist" if you can't even read the document. You're embarassing yourself.

[HostileTerritory]

What, are you scared of Christians?

Oh brother.

[ChessExpert]

Were there any publicly-funded schools, at any level, at the time Madison wrote? (Except the University, of course)

As far as I know, no.

This helps make the point that a modern day “separation of church and state” has more impact than at the time of the founding. As an extreme, if everything is “state,’ there is no place for religion.

The quote notes that the University of Virginia’s lack of emphasis on religion was controversial, and that most Universities at the time were seminaries.

This helps make the point that education at the time was highly religious. I think it is true that the people were religious, specifically Christian. Perhaps our “Bible Belt” compares today. I am sure there were some Jewish Americans, perhaps about the same percentage as today.

I have a copy (reproduction) of the McGuffy readers from around 1890. These readers went from K to 6. They did not hesitate to teach morality or to mention God. The six grade reader was advanced. I would say college level today. I don’t think we had public schools then either.