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.
What they implied in reason was the awareness of Divine source for the universe called sometimes the natural religion (as opposed to the revealed one). Atheism was for them foolish and not reasonable.
That is why the rationalistic Deists can see the natural rights as self-evident.
They will say that moral sense arrose because a person with moral sense is more likely to get along with others in his community, and is thus more likely to survive and pass on his genes.
The problem with such a position, of course, is that falls victim to the naturalist fallacy: just because a moral sense evolved (and it probably did, BTW) does not mean that one ought to follow it. Their explanation is descriptive but not prescriptive. But the atheists I know don't really worry about this and treat their moral sense as if it were prescriptive anyway.
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.Can she get any weirder? Since Harris was in the middle of a media storm in 2000, she knows better than making such "quotable" statements.
A few months ago, my local Republican heavy hitters told me that Harris was weird, unstable, unable to conduct a decent campaign for a US Senate seat. Everything they told me about Harris has been proven correct.
So sad. I've gone through all the stages of grief, from denial to depression to anger to acceptance.
We had such a good chance to get rid of the weird astronaut. Unfortunately, our Republican candidate is a card-carrying member of the weirdo society.
And so they prove that they are foolish. The right is a moral or legal or cultural category, not scientific one.
Objective and unalienable rights have to derive from the absolute source.
Sophistry is an interesting subject. Can you point out exactly where it is in the post you've replied to, and why it sophistry?
Well, now you're simply playing with language, claiming all substantives are substances, when they can be events also.
So basically Jews and other people of other faiths have no rights since they are not Christian???
It pi$$es off the conservative Jews, too.
So Jews and other people of faith have no Creator?
The question that arose through the thread was how would an atheist go about securing his/her Natural Rights in the climate of late 1700s America and Europe, since the Founders referred to the Creator as the source of Natural Rights, which the Constitution secures in various places (aka Constitutional rights).
My point is that they WEREN'T atheists. It is, of course, problematic that the Founders were declared against the Divine Right of kings - but on the other hand, English Christianity and French Christianity were not one and the same - there MANY issues between the two faiths.
The long rivalry between the nations probably weighed in the balance - but it still took Benjamin Franklin's thumb on the scales to tip them our way.
LOL! Why, yes, they are! :-)
Apples and oranges.
Or, rather - physics and metaphysics.
OK, let us not play games. I asked about definition of matter and you said that "matter is anything that exists in space-time". This is not a definition of matter.
It is a claim that only matter exists in space-time and that no matter exists outside of space-time. But what is matter? And what is space-time?
In ancient times one sophist defined human being as featherless biped. So one guy brought him a plucked chicken and said: "here is your human being".
"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."
____________________________
GO KATHERINE! Right on, wish I could throw my vote your way!
We had a running "conversation" before that post, and LG made several posts disparaging Harris' positions - misrepresenting them for effect.
Here's one sample:
"So, the Founders, a group of individuals fighting to throw off the idea of a man who ruled by divine wish, wanted to create a nation ruled by divine wish?"
I usually try to include a poster's entire conversation in my deliberations on how to reply - not just a cherry-picked version.
Christian God sees ALL people as His children, whether they are atheist, Shinto, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish or Christian. And He judges those who know Him better more strictly.
But I would rather say that what He grants every creature are PRIVILEGES and not rights. He alone has the rights as He is the Absolute Sovereign over all as His is the Kingdom and Power and Glory.
You're response seemed directed to his comments on the Constitution, which I didn't find particularly sophistic.
Was Article VI amended out while my back was turned?
You pretty much got your ass kicked on the "atheists have no unalienable rights" thingy, didn't you?
Maybe, you need to read up on the subject a bit.
In your dreams, LG. The question of whether atheists would have been able to write a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution remains open.
BTW, what about that Massachusetts thingy that you stepped in? I notice that you didn't have the b*lls to answer A. Pole's smackdown of your Sophistry on that point. ;-)
Maybe, you need to read up on the subject a bit.
LOL! After you get done reading up on Massachusetts history, maybe we'll talk.
I won't hold my breath. :-)
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.