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.
That's how her words read, however you try to spin it. If she didn't mean it, fine - she needs to come out and say so.
I've debated the meaning of the Founding documents for many years here on FR. I can see by your post that I won't learn anything new about those documents from you - though I might learn a little Sophistry.
This strawman "It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian" proves my point succinctly. Any newbie Constitutionalist knows that.
You're dismissed. Don't bother me with your nonsense any longer.
I'm pretty sure that's your opinion.
"You're not my Creator so your opinion as to when or why the Creator nullifies anyone's unalienable rights is as big a mystery to you as it is to me."
These things WOULD be a mystery, wouldn't they? **snicker**
;-)
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.The United States has always been a secular nation. A look at the religious wars in European history give ample explanation why.
It's not a strawman when Katharine Harris explicitly warns people against voting for people who aren't Christian, because we would "legislate sin."
-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.-
Indeed, you can't argue with facts. Oh, wait, lefties can and will.
I'll repeat - one of the two Founding documents that matter specifically names the Creator as the giver of our Natural Rights, and all that flows from that gift.
Speculate about secularity all you want. The Creator stuff is right there in the Declaration.
I've got to cruise off and get some work done, but I'll get back to this post - fear not.
Why are you on a Constitutionalist site if you neither understand nor wish to understand the U.S. Constitution?
I have it right here. What part do you need help with?
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.
And, as any first-year Constitutional law student can tell you, once a treaty is ratified, it trumps even the Constitution unless it is annulled - which the Barbary Coast treaty has not.
The United States has always been, and always will be a secular nation.
A more compelling reason to keep religious nutjobs from political office could not be found.
Are you kidding? Let's round us up all them thar Heendoos and Boodists and kick 'em out! They ain't got no rights on account of they worship a differnt god than the Reel One. I mean, what wuz they thinking? Sheesh!
You seem to have an unworkably generous interpretation of her statements. What I got out of it was that Christians are the only people fit to govern and that the rest of us are a bunch of immoral/amoral slobs.
I think you are probably right. Harris is contrasting Christian with secular/atheist. I suspect she is not thinking about other religions at all. They are a small proportion of the US population. When she says Christian, does she mean to exclude devout Jew? I don't think so. My reading of her is that she is approaching Christianity as something very positive that facilitates positive results. She could easily meet and work with a Rabbi and Synagogue - if they would have her. I think that kind of rapprochement, if you'll forgive my french, would be a very good thing.
Thanks for the backup. And your comment about another poster's efforts being "sophistic" is right on point. The George Washington quote blew me away. It clearly annihilated the poster's own position.
If I may add my two cents: 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.
Yes, we scary Atheists. Demanding strange, un-American things, like religious neutrality, scientific evidence, and a secular interpretation of the law.
Why are you at this late stage of the game so concerned about the color of the tank the opposition and the reinforcements are riding in while your house is tumbling down around you?
Call me crazy, but we could probably use fewer bigots in government. I know, I know, it's a radical idea but I think it might work.
/sarcasm
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
You know, I'd argue with you, but it's not worth it. 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.
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.