Posted on 08/25/2006 7:47:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
ORLANDO, Fla. _Rep. Katherine Harris said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that a failure to elect Christians to political office will allow lawmaking bodies to "legislate sin."
The remarks, published in the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, unleashed a torrent of criticism from political and religious officials.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said she was "disgusted" by the comments "and deeply disappointed in Rep. Harris personally."
Harris, Wasserman Schultz said, "clearly shows that she does not deserve to be a Representative . . ."
State Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, demanded an apology, saying the statements were "outrageous, even by her standards.
"What is going through this woman's mind?" said Slosberg. "We do not live in a theocracy."
The criticism was not limited to Democrats.
Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris' remarks "were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican."
"To me, it's the height of hubris," said Brooks, a former Largo Republican Club president and former member of the Pinellas County Republican Executive Committee.
And Jillian Hasner, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said: "I don't think it's representative of the Republican Party at all. Our party is much bigger and better than Katherine Harris is trying to make it."
The fallout follows an interview published in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. Witness editors interviewed candidates for office asking them to describe their faith and positions on certain issues.
Harris said her religious beliefs "animate" everything she does, including her votes in Congress.
She then warned voters that if they do not send Christians to office, they risk creating a government that is doomed to fail.
"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," she told interviewers, citing abortion and gay marriage as two examples of that sin.
"Whenever we legislate sin," she said, "and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong . . ."
Harris also said the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
In reality, she said, "we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will. Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers," she said.
"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women," then "we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's (sic) certainly isn't what God intended."
Harris campaign spokesman Jennifer Marks would not say what alternative to "a nation of secular laws" Harris would support. She would not answer questions about the Harris interview and, instead, released a two-sentence statement.
"Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government," it stated. "She continues to be an unwavering advocate of religious rights and freedoms."
The notion that non-Christians "don't know better," or are less suited to govern disturbed Rabbi Rick Sherwin, president of the Greater Orlando Board of Rabbis.
"Anybody who claims to have a monopoly on God," he said, "doesn't understand the strength of America."
Sherwin and others also said Harris appeared to be voicing support for a religious state when she said God and the founding fathers did not intend the United States to be a "nation of secular laws."
The alternative, they said, would be a nation of religious laws.
"She's talking about a theocracy," said Sherwin. "And that's exactly opposite of what this country is based on." A clause in the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion.
Ahmed Bedier, the Central Florida Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said he was "appalled that a person who's been in politics this long would hold such extreme views."
Bedier said most Christians would find such comments "shameful."
Harris has always professed a deep Christian faith and long been popular with Christian conservative voters.
In the Senate primary race, she has heavily courted that voting bloc, counting on them to put her into the general election against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
But publicly, she rarely expresses such a fervent evangelical perspective.
University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said the comments will appeal to Christian fundamentalists who typically turn out for Republican primaries.
But he said the strong evangelical tone could alienate non-Christians and more moderate Republicans who had been thinking of supporting Harris.
"It's insane," he said. "But it's not out of character for Katherine Harris."
Harris, a Republican from Longboat Key, is running against Orlando attorney Will McBride, retired Adm. LeRoy Collins and developer Peter Monroe in the GOP Senate primary.
McBride and Collins also did interviews with Florida Baptist Witness. Both said faith is an important part of their lives, but Harris' responses most directly tie her role as a policy maker to her religious beliefs.
Ruby Brooks, the Tampa area GOP activist, said such religious "arrogance" only damages the party.
"This notion that you've been chosen or anointed, it's offensive," said Brooks. "We hurt our cause with that more than we help it."
=)
That's true.
I am *this* close to bugging out of here.
I honestly hoped better from Freepers.
So if we're discussing basketball, and I say "Now let's talk about baseball," I can expect you to object on the grounds that baseball isn't relevant to basketball?
Have you ever discussed any subject other than the common law, perchance, or do you find the changing of subjects simply too wrenching to carry off?*
* Note multiple question marks.
:-)
Yes, It is; thanks for concurring.
Except your false claim of uniformity.
The British common law for libel "presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary."
What state has that as a standard in its common law?
Except your false claim of uniformity.
The British common law for libel "presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary."
What state has that as a standard in its common law?
I don't understand; do you agree with her or not?
Ah, you were just changing the subject.
Can you say "disingenuous"?
I have no idea, and once again, it is completely irrelevant. The common law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein. How many states have that common law definition? Zero. The common law was derived from England, not the states. The principles of common law are uniform. The states can get rid of them, change them through statute, use them, or whatever. But the common law is the same.
Sorry. Torpedoing what should be a Republican gimme seat affects us all.
The alcalde is Spanish.
Why not? Seeing as how you never responded to the post of mine immediately prior to my question (182), wherein I laid out a much larger portion of Jefferson's letter to Cartwright, I figured that, rather than leave your awkward non-response out there to embarrass you further, I'd offer you the opportunity to move on to something else. I guess I was just raised that way, insofar as calling attention to the lack of a response might have been perceived as impolite.
You're welcome.
You continue to support her. Good for you. I just hope more than you are. It just does not appear to be. The only thing I don't understand is why Republicans are putting their foot in their mouths lately. We would DEFINITELY win every election if our candidates would keep quiet and just focus on issues.
And I always thought the people who used the word "theocrat" where exaggerating before...
Why should I support someone who spews bigotry?
I've been told that for Christians it's not sinful to make personal attacks. That's one way we differ. I find it unconscionable that you call fellow Freepers "worthless" as if you are God judging our worth. You aren't God.
The purpose of Biblical law, and all laws grounded on a Biblical faith, is to punish and restrain evil, and to protect life and property, to provide justice for all people.
Conservative Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs agree with those kinds of laws. They are based on logic and reason.
A Buddhist wouldn't want to legislate vegetarianism unless he was a socialist totalitarian nannystater. And then that would be his problem, not his religion. There are many Christian socialists as well. It's their ideology of law, not their religion that matters.
Unless you are a theocratic bigot.
" It's whats in your heart, not the name of your particular denomination."
Well stated.
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.