Posted on 08/27/2006 7:01:21 AM PDT by 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.
I'm taking the position that a nation of atheists would have been incapable of writing the Declaration or the Constitution, or defending their break with the nation of England, which was ruled by a king who had a divine Right to his position.
They would have infuriated the nations of that place and time, and all men's hands would have been raised against them.
So, I'm not embarrassing myself - I was answering your post "Because your logic could very easily be used to argue that they do not".
Which is true. They get a pass because the majority who get their Rights from the Creator protects their areligious attitude.
In the real world, it wouldn't have flown. Not in the 1700s or the 1800s.
It's not going to be much longer before schoolchildren are taught that Rights are granted by the Constitution - a mere empty document without its historical and religious underpinnings.
Good reply.
Not many will dispute the Judeo-Christian culture our civilization is built upon, but we can't ignore the Greco-Roman tradition either.
There's a reason why the Federalist Papers look for historical examples in the Venetian Republic and the Achaean League, and why many of our government buildings are constructed in a neo-classical style.
One of the great things about this country is that a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, an atheist, and even a Muslim that isn't into all that Sayyid Qutb crap can all become Americans.
Say, why don't you run along and find a Coulter or Unser thread so you can write some more baseless slanders about people you don't even know. ;-)
It would be entertaining to watch you in court arguing what you argue on this thread, about constitutional rights contracting for certain persons based on their beliefs. Oh well, I can fantasize can't I?
retMD: 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 think we're well beyond the time when Christians will enforce their beliefs with a sword, though it was true in a distant past.
Who cares what happens in a court in a nation ruled by oligarchs?
What's important is what happens when the Creator is excised from thought, and is replaced by the Constitution as the grantor of Rights.
The truth of the matter is that atheists got a free ride in the beginning of this country - but of course atheists were rarer than hen's teeth back then.
If you've seen what's coming out of the "schools" these days, you'd be scared. For in that entertaining court, the law would be in the mouth of the judge, as it too often is these days (or didn't you notice our little black-robed tyrant from Detroit these last several weeks?).
" I'm taking the position that a nation of atheists would have been incapable of writing the Declaration or the Constitution, or defending their break with the nation of England, which was ruled by a king who had a divine Right to his position.
They would have infuriated the nations of that place and time, and all men's hands would have been raised against them."
You might be correct, historically. Given the political dominance of Christianity in the Western world at the time, it would have been very difficult to break free from the King without framing the debate in religious terms. But to argue that the Founders (or, more specifically, Locke, since that's where they got the idea) couldn't have philosophically defended the idea that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of all human beings to life, liberty, and property is absurd.
It's also notable that, while the Declaration frames things in religious terms (seeing as how that was the document being used to "break" from the divine King, and build the world's support), the Constitution does not. Once we were free, once we were independent, the Framers did not find it necessary to base Constitutional rights on any sort of "Creator." In simplistic terms, I read that to support my position - that from a historical perspective, the reliance on a "Creator" was probably necessary, but from a philosophical perspective, it was not.
My kind? And what kind is that?
See, this is where people slide into the notion that the Constitution is the source of the Rights. I know from your postings that you yourself are aware of the fact that the Constitution is NOT the source of the Rights, but the very phrase "Constitutional rights" allows the descent to that wrong understanding.
My position is that it was understood that the Rights came from the Creator, the Founders all knew this, signed a document that said so, and I'm not aware of any that repudiated this document or its wording in their lifetime.
So, the Rights discussed in the Constitution were these self-same "Natural Rights" granted by the Creator.
In simplistic terms, I read that to support my position - that from a historical perspective, the reliance on a "Creator" was probably necessary, but from a philosophical perspective, it was not.
I would tend to disagree, but believe that it would take a lot of research to disprove your position, if it could be done at all.
I have tended to frame my thought in terms of what was being debated at that time, and have not much considered the form the debate would take today (other than noting that many in today's societies would be ill-equipped for the sophistries of the Rights-grabbers).
Thanks for the thoughtful posts! These are the kinds of discussions that force us to think about the important issues involving our system of governance. Most people are too distracted by the shell games going on in the nation's capitol and the state capitals to take notice of what's REALLY going on.
You've forced me to delve deeper into the structure behind my positions, and I appreciate that exercise.
That's an interesting concept. So if I reject the premise under the IRS was formed then I don't pay taxes?
Why, the kind of person who wants people to think that the Constitution is where the Rights are "granted", of course.
They can, but so long as the core group (WASPs) preserves the cultural foundation on which American Republic was established. The source of American republicanism is Protestantism, especially in its Congregationalist form.
Same was with the Roman Republic, once the core Latin group was marginalized by the diverse immigrants, the republic had to evolve into syncretic cosmopolitan Empire and Roman citizenship lost its original meaning
Pretty frickin "Christian' of you meathead. We are not talking metaphysics we are talking about a loose frickin canon by the name of Harris who just knocked herself another ten points down in the polls. If you want to talk about the Masons and all kinds of non-physical stuff being the basis of our country go right ahead. By the way you have a inalienable right to check out if you want and it wouldnt bother me one bit. Bye!
No, then you form your own government, or guys with guns come for you.
Come to think of it, even if you form your own government, guys with guns will come for you.
:-)
Why don't you understand the part about inalienable Rights being out of the reach of a mere court or mere judge, Dave?
Oh yeah, if Britain couldnt show us our errant way, the France, Spain and the Ottoman empire was going to do it for them. Sure thing. Most of the so called Christians who signed the declaration and approved the constitution were Deists.
Anyone who would deny constitutional rights based on religious (or non-religious) belief has seriously flawed judgment. You've destroyed your credibility.
And under judge "An Amused Spectator", we would have a holly roller tyrant playing with his snakes in the court room and preaching on White Christian Identity. Makes the Taliban look good. Look what happened to your favorite judge from Alabama, he got beat in a Republican primary. Shows how powerful you fools are.
Deists believe in a Creator, Dave.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. What I said is that the Constitution, and our treaties, as supreme law of the land, unequivocally state that the United States is and always has been a secular state.
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.