Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a “nation of secular laws” and that the separation of church and state is a “lie we have been told” to keep religious people out of politics.
“If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin“
Because religious people currently sitting in elected office are without ‘sin’ – right? Don’t even get me started on that one – I’d be here all year.
If the separation of church and state is a complete fabrication with the explicit intent to keep religious people out of politics, then I ask when, and who?
Who was the last religious person to be kept out of politics under the pretense of such a separation?
How easy would it be, for example, for an atheist to get elected into the White House? If a candidate declares him/herself an atheist – what would the ensuing debate about their candidacy be about?
Would he/she have an easier time getting elected.. harder time — or roughly the same? What if a candidate just simply said “The question of my faith in a higher power is not available for public record” – would it be simply left at that, no questions asked?
Personally, I think an atheist would have a far more difficult time in this country getting elected than a religious candidate. I’m not seeing any oncoming shortage of theists in office in the name of said separation.
Who is trying to keep religious people out of politics… and where is it happening? Perhaps Ms. Harris is feeling her own slip in the polls and needs religion as the scapegoat?
Harris told the journalists “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.
Really, money and campaign fundraising has nothing to do with it. Seriously, the very idea of being chosen or annointed into office has to be offensive to the religious and non-religious, alike. Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Senator Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi – - all chosen by god, were they? Must be a whole good balancing out evil thing. Because good Republicans like Giulliani, Dole, Hyde and Gingrich would never do something sinful like..for example .. cheat on their wives.
“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 certainly isn’t what God intended.”
Oh really.
Like Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson? : “A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.“– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Or, perhaps, John Adams: “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation..[]..As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; : no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” — Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)
Or, maybe, Benjamin Franklin: “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies.” – Benjamin Franklin, Toward The Mystery.
Are those the Founding Fathers Ms. Harris speaks of? Maybe she had a different group of men in mind when she made her statements?
Katherine Harris is running for US Senate for the state of Florida. Once the GOP darling fter the 2000 presidential election, in which Florida’s disputed vote for Bush was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, Harris parlayed her notoriety into two successful House campaigns, in 2002 and 2004 – She’s not so popular with the GOP these days.
Gee. I wonder why?
Does Katherine Harris wish the United States of America be governed by a theocracy?
Allow me to take a moment to introduce our new RV Poll started today – the question asks:
Assuming all qualifications were met to your satisfaction – would you vote this politician into office if he/she were an atheist?
Your options are: Yes or No
my link.
Keep going.
I would use findlaw, as your link is very unorganizewd in its presentation.
Mike Kilo – I see where you’re coming from, but you have to remember that abortion is the religious right’s marijuana. Once they get their “high” they move on to the hard stuff like birth control and federally funded abstinence programs. After that the really hard luck cases wake up under a pile of picket signs with no job, no family, and no idea how they got there. There’s treatment for them, but it’s hard to come by. The current system just doesn’t have the capacity for all of them.
To answer Lisa’s excellent questions:
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay? Being an atheist wouldn’t sway me either way. It depends on how I felt about their ability to represent me.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? I haven’t looked recently so I don’t know how many have been elected. I think it wouldn’t be too hard to determine this scientifically. My gut feeling is that it really depends on their opponent. I don’t think being an Atheist would marginalize any politician.
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion? I think the public belives that if you’re going to serve them, they have a right to know what you believe in. Certain things, like how much you and your wife/husband have sex, is off limits but for some reason religion isn’t. Personally, I’d be more comfortable voting for a politician knowing that they have a satisfying and expressive love life than I would with disengenious displays of religiousity (images of a lone white politician clapping off beat in a predominantly black church come to mind).
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials? Without balance, this country falls off the deep end. Both sides need to be equally cranky that they aren’t getting their way. I believe that in the future, this will be measurable by taking the “temperatue” of the political blogosphere scientifically (it’s called text analysis). So what does that have to do with how important religion is when it comes to our elected officials? Religion has a titration effect on the direction of the government. If it becomes too liberal, the electorate opens the stopper and lets some conservatism flow in. If it becomes too conservative, the electorate turns the stopper off.
..Chuck..
For christs sake, Woodshed, what the hell is your point? I’ve read the damn decision already!
She’s pandering, Lisa. I liken it to Gore and his “You (black people) will go back to being 3/5 of a person” and “more black churches will burn.”
Considering I know some atheists who are more Christlike than some Christians I know, I could vote for an atheist if one met my qualifications. Having said that, I would be less inclined to vote for Harris given what she’s said.
(BTW, no real Christian would ever say they are without sin, but I gather the point you were trying to make.)
I’m a Christian myself; a rather conservative one at that. I would challenge K. Harris to show me where in the Bible something can be found to justify those statements.
English Common Law on which our system of law is based predates Christianity in England, so to claim that Christianity is its base is historically inaccurate.
There is no requirement for balance in this country. What is sorely missing isn’t “Balance” it’s a sense of doing what is right for the country versus what is most politically expedient. The Democratic party has become the party of opposition without regard to what is actually best for this country. Tax cuts have repeatedly resulted in economic growth. They have continually opposed them despite this historical fact. Instead they continually insist on raising taxes which have repeatedly caused the economy to take a down turn. They themselves have said that Social Security is bound for bankruptcy. When President Bush put forth a plan that would save it and provide the potential for substantially higher benefits for most future recipients, the Democrats banded together to kill the planned overhaul and telling lies about it, all the while enrolled in a comparable plan themselves. They have fought tooth and nail to defeat the Patriot Act while proclaiming themselves to be strong on defense, two positions that are mutually exclusive. Also while they have worked to present an image of being strong on defense, they have repeatedly voted to cut military spending. Exactly how is any of this “opposing balance” good for the people of this country? Harry Reid ( the Senate Minority leader) was bragging about killing the Patriot Act. Nancy Pelosi (The House Minority Leader) has decreed that while the party must not put forth any positions because they will lose in a direct debate with the Republicans, they are to oppose any Republican plan at all costs. How does the opposition of good legislation benefit anyone but those who stand on their soapboxes making up lies to deride it? Aren’t these SOBs supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituents instead of their own?
I’m beginning to think that Paul Verhoeven had a good idea in his movie, “Starship Troopers” wherein only vets were allowed to serve as politicians or vote. The whole pretense is that since only vets have been willing to put their lives on the line to support the government, they’re the only ones who should be allowed to say how it’s run. Anyone unwilling to take the risk, wouldn’t be allowed to vote. Sort of run the country like a corporation. People with little or no investment in a corporation have little or no say in how it’s run. Basically they had a representative republic that was run by the military.
FAO good points. That’s why I have repeatedly been saying that the Democrite Party has become an organized crime syndicate and should be prosecuted and shut down. All parties have their problems with corruption, as does every human enterprise. But the Democrite Party has shown that it is not interested whatsoever in what is best for the nation.
A comparison could be the way the California Teacher’s Association thinks about their role in education. A number of years ago their President, or Guru, or whatever they call that position was being interviewed and was talking about the Association’s position. The interviewer said something like “Don’t you care about the children?” to which the CTA leader responded “We’ll care about the children when they become dues-paying members”.
It seems the Democrites feel that if they get enough money, enough privilege for themselves, it doesn’t matter what happens to the country, because they’ll have theirs, so what?
Lisa Sabin…
Please! Please post more. The site you helped make is overrun with weeds.
Peejz
“I have no problem with atheists. Yes I do think they would have a hard time getting elected, but it would not prohibit me from voting for one.â€
HELLO!!! Did it ever occur to you that politicians lie? Yes; ever Republicans. Do you think an atheist politician is above lying about religion? Read my lips: Most politicians lie about religion and everything else.
“Read my lips: Most politicians lie about religion and everything else.”
59? What are you talking about. The question asked was Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? , and I answered the way I did. Call me crazy, but I believe that Lisa was referring to a politician declaring themselves an atheist during an election. Are you suggesting that the person is lying and just saYing they are atheist?
I’m saying that many of our “Christian”politicians are atheists. They just lie about it.
I can buy that Zelda.
I’m sure there’s a Republican politician out there who says he/she’s religious ONLY to get elected…
Why not?
62- I agree with your statement. But Lisa didn’t ask that. As I said, she was setting up a scenario in which a candidate fully discloses they are an atheist. Hence my answer. Had she asked it like you presented it…”Do you think there are atheists in the closet that feel they need to lie about it in order to get elected?” I would say..hell yes!
I have only one problem with Atheists and that’s the same problem that I have with most liberals. They stand around and scream that they are being discriminated against and everyone else is being intolerant of them. The problem is that while most people are simply exercising their right to exercise their religion, the atheists are in fact trying to suppress the religious person’s Constitutional rights.
The Constitution says “CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, (note it doesn’t say anyone but Congress is thus restricted from establishing a religion. Considering that at the time Pennsylvania had been founded by Quakers, Maryland by Catholics, Massachusetts by Puritans (an Anglican sect), etc etc. This was put there to prevent Congress from legislating a national religion.) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. While the atheists are so damn offended by the appearance of a religious symbol on public property, isn’t their insistence on it being removed actually suppressing a Constitutionally protected right? There is nothing in the Constitution that says someone exercising their religion may only do so as long as it doesn’t offend someone else. Why is it that those who scream for tolerance are the least tolerant ones of the lot?
FAO- The owner of this site, Lisa Sabin, is an atheist and she is neither a liberal, nor one to scream about inequality. She has stated her reasons and they seemed very clear to me. In no way did she put down anyone that does belong to another religion!
That being said, I don’t think that many that claim to be an atheist, really understand the meaning. In other words, I think that many just jump on the bandwagon just to be a part of the crowd. Kinda like the gays say today..”I was gay when it meant something.” The ACLU claims to represent atheists..yet I think that those being represented are really just people that have a problem with life. I think that the ACLU is standing firm to it’s original mission statement which was to erase all religion from America. (except for islam)
Perhaps I should’ve made myself more clear in saying that my only problem is with “Vocal” atheists and liberals. I have no problem with those who allow others to live their lives without interference, only with those who don’t. And that goes with any religion. I’d take up arms against any government that tried to force people to observe one religion over another. I just think that everyone should allow everyone else to practice as they see fit as long as it doesn’t involve physically injuring anyone. That being said, I feel that placing a Cross, Mennorrah or any other symbol of faith on public grounds does not impede on the atheists’ rights to not believe, nor does it constitute establishing a religion. Suing to have one removed on the other hand does infringe on the rights of the people who put it there to exercise their religion. As long as Congress isn’t passing a law to force it, it isn’t unconstitutional. The Constitution does not limit the authority of the States in this regard, only of Congress. BTW, I don’t particularly practice any religion. I’ve seen the effects of man’s hand in using faith to enrich themselves at others’ expense. Ask the Feds about Thomas Kincaid’s current situation for a recent example. When a preacher in a $2000 suit is asking an out of work coal miner for 10% of his welfare check PLUS an additional offering for a new AC for the packed church, I have to wonder why the preacher can’t buy an off the shelf $200 suit and pay for the new AC out of his pocket. Likewise when a parishioner asks the church to find a home for some used furniture and the church takes it and sells it instead, I find that a little hypocritical as well. I’ve seen both of these happen personally.
67-is with “Vocal”atheists and liberals. That sounds more like you. Thanks for clarifying FAO.
Good points FAO. Those nicely sum up how I feel on the subject as well. I think a corollary argument to your point is that it’s important to be vocal when someone is being hurt (“do what ye will, hurt none”). Or as Patrick Swayze put it in the movie Road House, “Be nice, until it’s time to not be nice…”.
..Chuck..
Peejz has got my back… thanks
FAO – personally, I refer to them as “Atheists with an agenda”, of which I am not one of. I have my own beliefs (or non-beliefs) and others have theirs. There is a certain balance in this world that I enjoy and I am very happy that faith and religion are present in the lives of those who need it and find comfort in it.
The Pledge of Allegiance, our federal currency, the 10 commandments in a courthouse, a cross at a veterans memorial – - none of that discriminates against me or my beliefs. None of it gets in the way of me just living my life – - nor do I feel inferior in the face of it. Maybe those Atheists with an agenda who are so vocal and fight against such things are doing it BECAUSE they feel inferior when faced with symbols of religious sentiment? At that point, I say a person needs to look inside – rather than outside – for their answers.
Now, on the flip side – if I DID feel that I was directly being discriminated against because of my (lack of) faith… I would surely step up and say so.
For example, I worked for 15 years as a Hospice nurse. Most hospice organizations are faith based… it really comes with the territory, ya know? Anyways – they used to start every single staff meeting out with a prayer. I didn’t try to change their ways . . I just simply sat during those first 10 minutes and read through my notes, or something that allowed me to sit quietly. I didn’t participate in the prayer sessions – - but I also respected my peers need to.
When my boss noticed and one day pulled me aside and suggested that I participate in the prayer because she found it disrespectful for me to just sit there – not participating…. I suggested that, perhaps, I show up at these meetings 10 minutes late. We agreed – and I worked an additional 5 more years at the place before leaving for self-employment.
I did not have a problem with their prayer. But they had a problem with my non participation in it. However, they could not make it a condition of my employment that I pray before meetings – so we struck a compromise.
Look people the system is falling apart and if you can’t see that its going to be a bad day at black rock for millions of people.:sad:
Peejz, the above post is a spam. Please delete it asap.
..Chuck..
keracare http://keracare-m1bi.blogspot.com keracare lipstick
cheap tramadol
[url= http://cheap-tramadolru.blogspot.com ]cheap tramadol[/url]
cheap international airplane ticket
[url=http://cheapinternationalairplaneticket.blogspot.com]cheap international airplane ticket[/url]
life insurance
[url=http://lifeeinsurance.blogspot.com]life insurance[/url]
phetermine
http://www.xa-board.com/cgi-bin/foren/foren/F_5324/cutecast.pl mosquito ringtone
free nokia ringtones
[url=http://myblogma.com/free1nokia1ringtones/]free nokia ringtones[/url]
cheap airfares [url=http://cheapairfaresfor.blogspot.com]cheap airfares[/url] http://cheapairfaresfor.blogspot.com
nextel ringtones
[url=http://myblogma.com/nextel1ringtones/]nextel ringtones[/url]
free sprint ringtones [url=http://freesprint1ringtones.blogspot.com]free sprint ringtones[/url] http://freesprint1ringtones.blogspot.com
air fares [url=http://air1fares.blogspot.com]air fares[/url] http://air1fares.blogspot.com
http://bigwetbutt.infogami.com
Big Wet Butt
[url=http://bigwetbutt.infogami.com]Big Wet Butt[/url]
Rolex Replica
[url=http://rolexreplicaxz.blogspot.com]Rolex Replica[/url]
coach handbags
free roulette free slot games
[url=][/url]