Posted on 08/27/2006 10:20:17 AM PDT by dukeman
'Are you going to seriously suggest that she couldn't have gotten the point across just as strongly by using words that do not seem to exclude Jews?'
Why stop at Jews? Why not include religious Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists etc?
It does not mean She 'Couldn't have', it means she 'doesn't have to' include other religions when discussing it in a Christian journal.
The people who spin it off as anti-Jewish are sadly misguied.
"The people who spin it off as anti-Jewish"
Save it for someone who did this. I didn't.
What I am saying is that these "Christian" comments directed at a "Christian" forum were ill-advised. What's going on in the world is giving American Jews (a small percentage of voters, but apparently important enough to inspire laments about left-leaning tendencies) reason to re-examine their worldviews from a Conservative perspective.
Remarks like this, which don't have to be taken too far out of context to appear exclusionary, are not helpful.
Why stop at Jews? Because this country was, or so I've been told, founded on JUDEO-Christian principles. Not Hindu, or Buddhist, or Taoist.
That's not a good enough reason for you, I suppose?
I say again, this could have been easily avoided.
Does the Constitution really forbid me, a voter, from selecting a candidate based on a religious test?
"I'd really like to vote for Senator Lieberman because he's a Jew, but the Constitution says I can't do it...good morning, Senator Lamont..."
I think the Constitution forbids appointing unelected officers based on a religious test. I'll read it again...if you will...
She could have used the words 'Judeo-Christian' maybe maybe not, hindsight is great and probably there are better vocabulary and better grammar for Harris to have expressed her views.
But then again there would be some who would still be outraged at her words and at her mentioning of the 'Judeo Christian' word which would deeply offend their agnostic sensibilites. I dont think she can satisfy everyone.
This is also a primary campaign , where candidates seek out their base. Harris is doing to the same by reaching out to Christian value voters who are a major part of the Republican primaries.
So...this was such a difficult conclusion to come to?
I don't concern myself with who would be offended by a politician making the point she was trying to make by referring to Judeo-Christian principles. I know of no agnostic outrage as the result of being presented with the idea that this is what the country was founded upon, and I can't see a reason to assign any validity to such potential outrage.
There are those who will pounce on the littlest thing to inspire divisions. This is not necessarily huge, but it's not the littlest thing, either. It's a poorly-chosen remark that gives a spin doctor ammunition to alienate a voting bloc some apparently consider to be important. If this was in Utah, perhaps it's not as controversial. But it remains a point that could've easily been made without stirring up this nonsense. Regardless of it being a primary campaign, given how foolishly this was worded, I see no validity in rationalizations relating to 'the base.'
I'm glad that you are willing to acknowledge this.
Sorry, not specifically my last sentence or paragraph, but my overall point.
Exactly - glad you finally came to that realization.
In the scheme of things this is not as big as it makes out to be, considering the small voting block you point out I dont think they would vote for Harris as they concentrated in South Florida and are devoted liberals.
A hugely negative MSM which despises Harris for spoiling Gores shenigans during the recount , will try to pounce and Harris is facing a tough media. Conservatives need to stick by this courageous women , and concentrate their energies on winning the senate seat for the Republican party.
Other words and sentences may have been used, but I do think this is a huge overreaction and Conservatives should be aware of the MSM strategy and not pounce on their own, they should be concentrating on the senate election.
You can vote for whomever you want and bring all the bias and bigotry (if any) to the poll with you. This is an your right.
And Harris can say that no one who is not a Christian is not capable of being an elected official, That is her right.
But that it shows a basic misunderstanding of our system of government, the Constitution and makes the herself and, by extension, all Republicans look re-freaking-diculous is what is at issue here.
Anyone who says what she says is too ignorant, unstable and stupid to be holding any meaningful public office.
She has committed political suicide and taken others with her.
That's all fine and well, but if the voting bloc in question is so small, then I don't understand why I keep seeing threads on this site questioning why so many Jews tend to lean left. If it's such a small bloc, why bother worrying about it?
On one such thread there was a really nice post talking about how American Jews are sick hypocrites who should never speak of loyalty, of right or wrong.
Let's just say I disagree with such a sentiment. And as time progresses, American Jews have more reason to vote Republican, not less. Unless they're given what they consider sufficient reason to not do so. I daresay this qualifies.
So I cannot see these remarks as aiding in the Conservative cause, whether you see it as an overreaction or not.
They have enough reason to vote Republican, evidenced in the threats Israel is facing and Republicans being the most committed to the security of the nation( Israel and America).
Many of them are highly addicted to the liberal cause, they wont bother to switch, Republicans should have more realistic hopes of winning this vote bank, but it does not have to be shy of its traditional identity and the Christian right support in the primaries.
No. You'd think they have enough reason, but apparently they disagree. Why should we endorse reasons for them to remain on what I believe we would agree is the wrong side of the fence? I'd rather focus on the reasons why they should in fact look at the virtues of the position they seem to consistently vote against. I say that if this pursuit means anything to those complaining about this bloc voting the way they do, this episode is destructive rather than constructive.
If Abe Foxman wants to pounce on some piddling inference that requires a magnifying glass of atomic proportions to read anti-semitism into, that is one thing. This is quite different.
It has provided more ammunition than should be available to discredit this candidate. Just as significantly, I cannot see how this should be considered a comment that bears well upon Christians.
And if I wanted secularism, I'd vote for the Communist Party-USA.
Where are they? We always hear from the Alan Dershowiczes and the ACLU types, but where are these conservative Jews defending Judge Moore and the Ten Commandments?
Well, you better leave the USA, because it is a secular country.
See ya -- maybe they'll take you in the Phillipines.
Sorry, but we are still divided on that issue. We were once clearly a Christian nation. Since the liberal religion of secularism is in the ascendancy, the liberals believe that we are a secular nation. Secularism like its child, communism will eventually decline.
Oh, I get it now, the topic wasn't conservative Jews, but the state of Florida. My bad.
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.