Katherine Harris: God Didn't Want Secular U.S.

NewsMax ^ | 27 August 2006

[marajade]

I think the woman has fallen off her rocker.

[4Runner]

Why don't you just admit you're a card-carrying Democrat-Liberal? It takes far fewer words than your post attacking me in defense of your atheist-controlled secular government did. As a matter of fact, judging by the swarm of vindictive my post elicited, you are in grand company. When I start hearing "far right fundies" I know where I am. I doubt there is another conservative on this thread. You've all done a great purge job. Just like the one you all pulled at the CIA and at State. Oops, better get this one before he gets away....

[richmwill]

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."

Translation- "I was only telling them what they wanted to hear, so they'd like me!"

[an amused spectator]

And I know there are many atheists who are good people who are more than qualified to lead.

By definition, atheists reject the Founding documents:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

Basically, atheists are NOT endowed with inalienable Rights.

Period.

And neither are those that these athiests lead.

Period.

[freedumb2003]

Basically, atheists are NOT endowed with inalienable Rights.

Theer is nothing there that says you have to BELIEVE anything to be endowed with these unalienable rights. You have them no matter what (or are you going to say Hindus don't get them? Buddhists?

Or are you going to kick all atheists and Hindus out of the USA as "unfit?"

And neither are those that these athiests lead. Period.

And screw the US Constitution! Who needs it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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?

Here's James Madison, Father of the Constitution, on the subject of religion and government:

• The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

• Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

• Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

  I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

• To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

[freedumb2003]

Why don't you just admit you're a card-carrying Democrat-Liberal?

Why don't you admit you are a card-carrying extreme right0wing fundamentalists bigot who wants to establish an American Taliban?

It takes far fewer words than your post attacking me in defense of your atheist-controlled secular government did.

All I had to do was read the Constitution. You should try it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Basically, atheists are NOT endowed with inalienable Rights."

A more compelling reason to keep religious nutjobs from political office could not be found.

[an amused spectator]

It takes far fewer words than your post attacking me in defense of your atheist-controlled secular government did.

See my post #44.

People like this have NO understanding of the Founding documents, and the fact that the Founding documents were the Founders' response to the "Divine Right of Kings" arguments advanced by Europe's nobility and enforced by the armies and navies of the European kings.

Idiots who follow "atheism" reject their Creator-given Natural Rights, at their ignorant peril...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Idiots who follow "atheism" reject their Creator-given Natural Rights, at their ignorant peril..."

How ling have you had this God complex?

[an amused spectator]

Your post reveals your ignorance.

Why are you on a Constitutionalist site if you neither understand nor wish to understand the U.S. Constitution?

[dogbyte12]

She just lost the jewish vote. She basically accused all jews of being sinful. That's a nice way to get elected in Florida. If she said Judeo-Christian it would have been passable, but she doesn't know what she is doing.

[monkapotamus]

[an amused spectator]

So, Luis, why are YOU on a Constitutionalist website?

The Founding documents are based on a Creator, who gives us Natural Rights as free-born men.

Deny the Creator, and deny your Natural Rights. It's really very simple.

How far we have fallen from the learning of our forefathers...

[dread78645]

> 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."

We have rulers now? Who knew?

But think of all the time and money saved. No voting. No elections, No campaigning.
Just let God pick 'em!

[4Runner]

I cannot state it any clearer than did a poster on another Harris thread earlier today:

People often use Christian for Judeo-Christian. Morally the two are inseparable.

The distinction is not between Christian and Other, it is between people of faith and people of anti-faith. Issues like this are thus not always great for soundbites, and are usually covered in religion journals, where the distinctions can be drawn. But anyone using their brain knows Harris isn't talking about favoring 'Christians' like Clinton or excluding Jews, et al. That's CLEARLY not the point.


31 posted on 08/27/2006 1:47:51 PM EDT by JohnnyZ (I ha' da Steve Nash DO befo' Steve Nash DID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Have none of you heard of the "Judeo-Christian ethic"? It is what unites Jews and Christians. It is what they share from Abraham. Does this frighten you?

Were the caliphate to begin its takeover of U.S. institutions tomorrow, whom do you think it would wish to place in office? Judeo-Christians? Or Atheistic Liberal Democrats who, as the Islamists do, despise Christianity and Judaism, but proceed as though they are only concerned about "secularization"?

Harris is the only one in Florida who supports HR 4437 (the House Immigration Enforcement Bill). What you stand for becomes ever more obvious the louder and more mean-sprited your attacks upon Ms. Harris become.

[retMD]

That's called changing the subject when your argument hasn't stood up. She said something offensive to a fairly large Florida voting bloc, whether she meant to or not. She also said something that the constitution does not agree with, although obviously individual voters always make up their own minds.

And yes, I'm very concerned that people not come to agree with that particular statement of KH's. I don't approve of allowing only those of one religion to make all the laws, based solely on their religion.

[an amused spectator]

Let's clarify this a little for these anti-Creator numbnuts, shall we?:

The Declaration opens with a statement of personal dignity, an acknowledgment that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation."

Then comes some of the most revolutionary language in history:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This reverses the usual order of things. It starts with all people being equal – not in intelligence, wisdom, wealth or other endowments, of course, but of equal dignity in the eyes of God and therefore before government. This natural equality denies the legitimacy of special privileges granted by government.

An "unalienable" right is one that cannot be taken away legitimately, and then not without doing damage to the very humanity of the person. Any institution that tries to deny or encroach upon these rights upsets nature and God's plan, for it is the Creator who grants these rights, not government or any other institution.

That's radical. - Alan W. Bock (Roots of American liberty, July 2, 2006)

===================

Methinks a lot of people on this thread need to study some metaphysics (I of course exclude you, 4Runner). ;-)

[an amused spectator]

I don't approve of allowing only those of one religion to make all the laws, based solely on their religion.

Nice strawman, retMD.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Deny the Creator, and deny your Natural Rights."

Why?

Because you say so?

You're not my Creator so your opinion as to when or why the Creator nullifies anyone's unalienable rights is as big a mystery to you as it is to me.

Furthermore, it's not whether or not I believe that I was granted unalienable rights from God that makes those rights stand, it's the fact that YOU believe that those rights were granted to me by the Creator that stops you from violating them.

"How far we have fallen from the learning of our forefathers..."

"The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (James Madison Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 370)"

And as far as your statement about forfeiting unalienable rights...here's George Washington:

" In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. (George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)

Methinks it's you that's lost sight of the Constitution.

When it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Consti­tution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God (other than in the date), Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian.