Posted on 08/27/2006 10:20:17 AM PDT by dukeman
I think you will find that your version of Christian conservatives is a lot smaller than you think.
Sheesh. There's no sense in wasting time arguing when one party feigns ignorance to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion.
'She said everyone except Christians would legislate sin'
She said not electing christians would mostly likely mean a agnostic would be in its place and legislation for immorality.
She does not have to say not electing Christians, orthodox Jews, Buddhists, Zorastranians, Confucians, Taoists, Shintoists. religious Wiccans etc means others would be elected legislating for sin.
Try thinking clearly and stop falling in to the liberal trap, she does not have to talk about other religions in a Christian environment.
who asked you to?
I am not really keen on wasting effort on some dumb liberal who cannot think beyond the MSM lies and spin.
Your idea of logic was formed in a spin machine dedicated to demonization. What I want to know is why you have picked Jews to go on about? Are there Jews on the ballot?Why not Hindus? Shinto, Native American shamans? Why she could have gotten so far afield placating your PC nonsense that her point was missed. Obfuscation is the work of Satan, you know.
Spend another five years on this site, and then you can criticize my political credentials.
Dolt.
It could be that the vast majority of Jews vote liberal. Hence, the outrage here.
Spending years on a site and repeating DU style liberal arguments is not a great achievement, lout.
Ok, you just keep believing that to be a pure conservative you have to preach from the campain trail that there is no tolerance for anyone not towing the Christian line and see how far the movement gets. And I'm saying that as a conservative and a Christian it's just that I don't want politicians to insist that only if you practice their religion will you get elected and be chosen to lead. I want prayer to be allowed in the classroom, voluntarily, I want the speaker at a high school graduation to be able to mention God's name if he or she wants to and I want God in the pleadge and on our money. I just don't want a religious goverment that dictates what religion i or anyone else needs to practice or one that says if you don't elect us then you will be electing sinners. I think the majority feel this way and so did the founding Fathers. So if I'm part of the problem as you suggest at least I'm not alone.
She may just have sparked a controversy that has legs. It is substantive and will give her a chance to dicuss things she cares about.
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, so that even you can understand it. (If possible, try not to move your lips while you read.)
You state:
"She said not electing christians would mostly likely mean a agnostic would be in its place and legislation for immorality", yet Harris' direct quote is, "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."
It doesn't get any more clear than what Harris said. We don't need to interpret the meaning of "is", or parse her words here. So one of two things is true:
1. You're unable to comprehend her simple and straghtforward statement
2. You're deliberately misrepresenting her statement for your own political ends
Which is it?
Try some reading comprehension. There was no liberal trap until she created one.
Using the term 'Judeo-Christian principles' or 'people of faith' would have somehow been so difficult?
In a time when world events would appear to give reason for left-leaning American Jews to move towards the Right politically, a statement like this is extremely foolish and destructive.
Can you name one athiestic elected member of Congress or high office? Being non-Christian is not being athiest, your fundamentalist mouth foaming won't make it so. Also, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were deist and were the architects of our nation.
Again repeating it, you have to understand the context of the speech.
Is she was saying it in a townhall style meeting or a rally at a local mall, then of course it is inflammatory.
She said it in a Christian forum where it is clear what she was trying to say about the dangers of putting agnostic anti Christian, ACLU types in political office. She does not to say not electing Christians + host of other religions would mean legislating for immorality.
It is pretty clear to me and other reasonable people what she was trying to say, why that viewpoint escapes you and others is puzzling and especially since a conservative is known not to fall in the MSM trap of using a Republican words out of context.
> Try thinking clearly and stop falling in to the liberal trap, she does not have to talk about other religions in a Christian environment.
Anyone running for office has got to assume that anything they say in any publicly available venue is going to be aired and published.
If she wanted to say that we need more religious, morally right people in office then that's what she should have said, instead of having to make her "Kathy-can-do-no-wrong" followers to spin like dervishes to try to make it so.
Now it is bemusing the Speech and thought PC police like you are out there dissecting every single word of what Harris said and spinning it out of context.
If you interpret the President speech literally, sometimes it does not make sense( a tactic repeatedly used by Liberals to mock the President), even though when seen in its context the speech is very clear on what it means.
> What I want to know is why you have picked Jews to go on about?
Because morally straight Jews are the most prominent non-Christian conservative group.
Because there's a lot of Jewish people in Florida who will probably be royally PO'ed by this (and not vote for Harris, or even campaign against her as a result-- hello!).
What's *your* point?
Thought police? Oh, please.
The 'thought police' you refer to are the ones who are going to use this to divide non-Christians from Christians, and there are plenty of non-Christians that make up her potential constituency.
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?
This could have been easily avoided. Instead, the point she was trying to make, which is an important one, is clouded by the existence of the liberal trap you're decrying. And the steadfast defenses of the statement, as it was issued, are sadly misguided.
'If she wanted to say that we need more religious, morally right people in office then that's what she should have said'
Imagine if she said that, then some Liberal( and a few others in this site) will interpret it and say what about Muslim militants ( who are religious and morally right in their own twisted way) and use that to attack her. So then will you be arguning that Harris should said we need more religious, morally right people minus the militant muslims in office ? See the downright sillyness of your argument.
I dont care really whether Harris wins the primary or not, I want that sneaky Bill Nelson to be defeated by a Republican.
As a Christian I am defending Harris views to a Christian religious journal, she is being unfairly attacked for her right to do so.
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.