Rep. Harris' Comments on Religion Draw Ire

AOL.com ^ | 08/27/06

[MikeA]

MIAMI (Aug. 26) - 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 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.

[brytlea]

OK, so now I have your opinion (and much more informative than just someone calling someone else an idiot or something) and thank you for that. Now, what about the poster I actually addressed? Anyone can call names. It takes a bit more to explain why we think what we do.
susie

[Spyder]

Next time just search on a single pertinent word, such as "Harris." Very rarely are thread titles, even if based on exactly the same source article, completely identical.

[MikeA]

"I don't think she should back pedal one step."

Fine, then in her unemployed state come January she'll have all the time in the world to become a TV minister where she can be as in your face with her religious beliefs as she wants. But in a political setting, she went about it entirely improperly. We need more people of faith in government, but we are not a theocracy and what she expressed sure makes it sound like that's what she wants. Unfortunately her reckless remarks open all of us conservative Christians up for ridicule now.

See my post #20 to see the contrast between how Bush expresses his faith and the sloppy way she went about it.

[MikeA]

Will do, thanks. I've usually had good luck just using the title though. Usually it will show something similar. Today it showed not a thing, not even similar titles. Who knows what I did wrong?

[Spyder]

This sends up huge red flags to those Christians who worship on Saturday. Her comments are about as close as it comes to reverting to the days of Blue Laws. The comments by freepers on these threads has me even more scared than the fact that Katherine Harris actually uttered them. It is obvious that there are a lot of politically active folk who would prefer a theocracy with only their own religious beliefs being legislated, banning other religions.

[MikeA]

I believe God had a hand in setting up our system of governance including the drafting of our Constitution. But I don't believe for a minute he put a Bill Clinton in there. If God allows free will, then he allows the free will of the people to decide who their leaders will be, and that comes of their own righteousness or wickedness in chosing either good or bad leaders. That being said, I do however believe God had a hand in ensuring Bush won the Florida recount Supreme Court decision because he would have wanted a strong leader in there to handle 9-11.

[MikeA]

Unfortunately I think you're right. And it is something that should give us all pause.

[Joann37]

Maybe her presentation is not politically astute, but she says what she believes. She is a loyal partisan, and would never betray the administration as has Arlen Specter and others that the White House has supported. Further, it was idiotic of the GOP to just give up that Senate seat to Bill Nelson.

If we want "nuance", we could have supported John Kerry (barf).

[brytlea]

I'm sure this is open to interpretation (or perhaps you do not believe in a literal translation--I'm not arguing about it here, just giving you the reference). Romans 13:1 says:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Your mileage may vary, just wanted to let you know where my comment came from.

susie

[loboinok]

"I think President Bush has struck a good balance with showing himself to be a man of faith but without being over-the-top with it"

What did Christ say about being "lukewarm?"

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot."

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

Would you criticize her for practicing her politics in the same manner? Try not to be too conservative so as not to offend liberals? Don't be too Republican so as not to offend Democrats?

We expect our soldiers to be the best as do we our engineers, scientists and most all other professions and areas of endeavors, yet expect our Christians to be some kind of 'Touched by an Angel', 'plastic Jesus', wisheywashey type of Christian. We need to get away from that mindset.

[JohnEBoy]

"but we are not a theocracy and what she expressed sure makes it sound like that's what she wants."

I don't see how. She knows we are not a theocracy and she advocated for candidates who are Christian. If she were Jewish or Catholic, would merely supporting more candidates of her same background mean she wants a theocracy? Secular Humanists (liberals) advocate electing others like them all the time. But, people of faith should not be elected because there is a danger of establishing a theocracy?!?

The argument is specious. It's the "straw man" argument, i.e., accuse her of wanting to do something she never said, then rail against that.

I know liberals would love us not to elect people of faith, but most POF respect the constitution and want to follow it more closely and the constitution clearly does not want an establishment religion. But it does not prevent people of faith from running for office.

[retMD]

I don't see how. She knows we are not a theocracy and she advocated for candidates who are Christian. If she were Jewish or Catholic, would merely supporting more candidates of her same background mean she wants a theocracy?

There is a big difference between saying "I support electing more Christian candidates" and saying that ONLY Christians are worthy to be elected, because otherwise the non-Christians will legislate sin. If you can't tell the difference, it's why you probably aren't a politician (and the care needed in phrasing is why I never want to be a politician, either.)

[Texas_Jarhead]

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

Who exactly? Doesn't say. So the "ire" drawn was that of unnamed Repubs and a Jewish Dim.

[JohnEBoy]

Does Hillary support Lamont in place of Lieberman? She's a politician, so I've heard. I assume he is pro-abortion, else she would not support him. I tell you, the pro-death crowd considers it a "sin" to support a pro-life candidate (see Bob Casey, Sr.), but they are not chastised in the media for wanting to establish a secular Humanist theocracy, which I do believe they would go for.

See Ann Coulter's latest book to see if liberals consider what they are doing a religious rite.

No, I'm not a politician and apparently neither is Harris, because she seems to be saying what is on her mind without PCing it, first.

[MikeA]

My religion takes that to mean that God expects obedience to earthly governments, not that he chooses our leaders for us. Just my take.

[MikeA]

What did Christ say about being "lukewarm?"

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot."

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

---

Clearly Christ was talking about one's provide devotions and faith. Or do you walk around your workplace throwing Bibles at people and calling them sinners if they don't believe as you do? Or do you recognize there's a time and a place for everything and that constantly sizing up every opportunity as one to preach the Word is not a wise approach?

One can be a very devoted Christian but also recognize, as Christ said, there is a time not to cast your pearls before swine. In other words, there are times to forebear. And when not forebearing, there is a wise way to go about speaking of one's religion. Being in your face about it is not at all what I believe Christ had in mind. I think Christ spoke precisely of using discretion when he said this:

Matt. 10: 16
16 ¶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

[MikeA]

But, people of faith should not be elected because there is a danger of establishing a theocracy?!?

---

Oh please, I never said any such thing. But making comments like that people who aren't necessarily religious will establish evil laws and that God picks our leaders makes her sound like a toned-down version of that rat faced president in Iran. The fact is, many good people who are necessarily religiously devoted have served and are serving in govt. Try to justify all you want, but I'm an active Christian who thinks it's a good thing to have people of faith in government and her remarks to me sounded extreme. And if she sounds extreme to a committed Christian like me, imagine how she's sounding to others. Look, she badly tarnished herself with these remarks. Put lipstick, eye shadow and blush on a pig all you want, but it's still a pig.

[MikeA]

Clearly Christ was talking about one's provide devotions and faith.

About one's PRIVATE devotions I meant to say.

[brytlea]

Yeah, I'm sure there are several possible interpretations...I'm Presbyterian, so you know what that means.... ;)
susie

[Keflavik76]

Katherine Harris in 2000 was brave enough to do her job, and was bashed by the media and democrats and made to look like some lunatic. So now most Florida Republicans have bought into these media lies and have painted her as unelectable. Has she been charged with a crime or is she just a victim of a massive smear machine? Its too bad she is unable to shake hands and lie about what she stands for, then we would have a sure winner.

So your an active Christian but your able to call her a pig in good conscious.