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
Amen to that for too many years the leftist ACLU and other including the secular Humanists movment have been trying to bar chirtiaity from the public and tuern our nation into a secular socialists nation and the infamous 1963 secision by the supreum court should be overturned along with ROE vs WADE:mad:
I have found that historically, one can quote the Founding Fathers to support either side of this issue. That’s is not what’s important.
What is important is to protect our individual right to freedom of religion in an honest manner. “Seperaion of chuch and state” is highly debatable in it’s context and meaning, and doesn’t appear in the Constitution at all. This is one of the most abused ideas in modern law, next to gun owner’s rights.
That said, Ms. Harris does seem to go overboard. It is true that our laws are largley based on those of Christian laws, but it does not mean that those laws are exclusively Christian. This is meant to be a religious nation, but not necesarily Christian. It is intended for us, the people, to practice whatever religion we feel free to practice (or, none if we choose)with out fear of persecution.
1.
I disagree. Secularism in it’s intented form is fine. What the ACLU and the Humanist movement consist of is anti-theism, which is often confused with secularism.
Wow, Ms. Harris knows what God wants…
She should be proposed to be the next pope!!!
…after she convinced the catholic church that God also allows women to do that job…
Great point, Ted… and for exhibit A, see post #4.
5- Indeed.
Mike Kilo, this is the kind of politician we’d get (for starters) if we let Wyoming, Kentucy and Utah decide what’s best for us, like you mentioned in another topic yesterday.
You and me are Atheists; and yet you honestly wouldn’t mind Ms. Harris being the status quo in your government?
I wouldn’t BAR her based on her believing in God.. you see, that’s the difference between you and I.. I’m an atheist, but I believe in diversity.. true diversity, and having evangelicals in government to counterbalance the secular nihilists is not a bad thing.
you don’t seem to mind Ted Friggin’ Kennedy being the status quo in your government.. a thought that wakes me in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
I also wouldn’t “bar” anyone based on their religiousness, but I would expect them to keep their personal religious to themselves and their families, and NOT legislate their beliefs in my government.
A secular government is the best government for EVERYONE involved.
yeah??? And what do you call what those baby butcher proponents do? Are THEY legislating THEIR beliefs?
goes both ways, my friend.
you seem to think that only beliefs based on religion are to be discarded, discounted, ridiculed, scorned and banned.
I can see why, they have such horrifying beliefs as:
thou shall not kill
thou shall not steal
I can see why they frighten you so.
I guess when your goal is a society where anything goes, babies are killed at millions a clip, gays are married and treated as man and wife, 8 year olds are given condoms, yes, those beliefs may scare you.
You should be careful going down this road, you are one step away from advocating the burning of books……maybe the bible????
“And what do you call what those baby butcher proponents do? Are THEY legislating THEIR beliefs?”
Reproductive freedom isn’t a religious belief, it is a civil right.
A womans decision of what to do with her own body and anything inside of it is her own choice, not to be made by men or government.
Forcing anti-abortion beliefs onto the masses is wrong. If your wife opposes abortion, good for her, she won’t have one. But don’t for one second think you tell MY wife what choices she can or can’t make for her own body…
———————–
We should probably steer clear of talking about abortion…it’s kind of a lightning rod for some people.
“thou shall not kill
thou shall not steal
I can see why they frighten you so.”
No Mike, those are just fine by me, but I find serious problems with “Thou shalt not have no other gods before me” and the like…
Oh please, civil right.. and what of the baby’s civil rights? Out with the dumpster, right?
Forcing sick, gruesome, murderous beliefs on the masses is wrong.
No Mike, those are just fine by me, but I find serious problems with “Thou shalt not have no other gods before me”and the like:
and how exactly does that affect you? Jacob Miller from the Tupelo Mississippi first Evangelical Church of Christ is gonna behead you if you put a god before his?
I think not.
Reproductive freedom isn’t a religious belief, it is a civil right.
That isn’t the case at all- this is a perfect example of how Roe v. Wade is twisted to meet agendas. Roe v. Wade did not establish abortion as a civil right. Roe V. Wade was a compromise.
SFL, perhaps you should read up a bit on the decision.
Freedom to practice ones religion is a civil right as well.
“…and how exactly does that affect you?”
We’re talking about evangelicals beliefs being put into government, not regular people holding religious beliefs.
Are we still talking about the same thing here?
“SFL, perhaps you should read up a bit on the decision.”
30+ years of women having the right of reproductive freedom…
“Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it would not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.”
—————————
“Freedom to practice ones religion is a civil right as well.”
Of course it is. And?
So, in other words, you are saying that evangelicals should be excluded from public office on the basis of your fear that they will become a sort of Jesus Mullah, issuing fatwas and otherwise putting a damper on your Starbucks-soaked giddy existence?
yeah, I see that.
The Left generally long ago accepted Satan as it’s Lord and Master.
Anyone who says that Christianity is irrelevant should take a good look at all our historical documents and speeches.
30+ years of women having the right of reproductive freedom:
You still have no idea what I am talking about, do you? Please read Roe v. Wade. I will not do your homework for you.
Rocky Lore – no one is arguing that christianity is irrelevant.
Ms. Harris said “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin”
I would think that statement, alone, would be offensive to anyone who believes in freedom of religion…and religious tolerance.
“So, in other words, you are saying that evangelicals should be excluded from public office on the basis of your fear…”
NO, that’s NOT what I’m saying AT ALL.
Jesus Christ, I’ll repeat it one more time: All I’m saying is that I would not vote for an evangelical. NEVER said they should be banned from office.
“You still have no idea what I am talking about, do you?”
Actually, I DO know what you’re saying. You think that Roe V. Wade does not grant a “civil right” of reproductive freedom on American women.
right?
Lisa #26 – Right on.
SF, for someone who is such a big backer of the “popular vote” determining elections, I HARDLY think you would want matters of baby murder put to a popular vote…if you did…
partial birth abortion – banned
parental notification – mandated (sorry Justice, 12 is old enough Ginsberg)…
Adoption and alternative counseling – mandated
then you’d see the murders start to decline.
28.
Just read the decision, and study it thouroughly
but no….you just go to the courts and your liberal activist judges on this one, and THEY IMPOSE THEIR FUCKING BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy crap (pun intended) this has got to be the best rightvoices post I’ve seen in ages. Nice job Lisa! That was really good stuff.
My takeaway message (which I happen to agree with) is that Government won’t work unless we have a balance. That’s interesting because I heard the *EXACT* same thing from the Democrats booth at our local county fair last weekend. They very astutely pointed out that the most damage to this country is done when only one group is in power. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, I believe that the majority of people in this country prefer it that way too.
..Chuck..
Thanks, Chuck.
Now that we’ve debated the abortion thing in this thread – I’m interested to see feedback on some of the questions asked in the post, itself.
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay?
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian?
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion?
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials?
“Just read the decision, and study it thouroughly”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Abortion is the law of the land. It has made reproductive freedom a right for millions of American women.
What are you trying to say?
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay? Why not? I’m an atheist.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? No, they would have an EASIER time..due to the paranoia and fear perpetrated by libs like SF (except of course for black churches, where democrats pander for votes, that’s completely acceptable).
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion? Why not?
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials? I don’t think it’s any more or less important than any other factor. Unlike liberals, I like a diverse legislature, I want christians and Jews, Buddhists and atheists, Doctors and house painters, teachers and laborers all serving in a citizen legislature..instead we have 500 lawyers.
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.
I think an atheist has a better chance of becoming POTUS over a Jew in this country.
37. I think Peejz hit it pretty well, though I’m not sure about the Jew bit. I’d sooner vote for a Jew than an Atheist…AND I’M A FRIGGIN’ ATHEIST!!!!
Why does this threaten liberals so much? If there are 300 pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, socialist heathens in congress…is it so bad to have a couple christians to provide a different perspective? Come on folks, this IS diversity, not that racism that the democrats call “diversity”.
Liberals HATE diversity, and LOVE racism.. how many times do I have to say it! Look what they did to Bob Casey in 1992.. he is pro-life…. at the Democratic Convention he was literally BARRED FROM THE STAGE.
yikes….it’s like a child dismemberment gustapo.
Liberalism is fascism, enforced using political correctness.
“Abortion is the law of the land.”
No abortion is not the law of the land. As I said, please read the decision.
34.
Religion is of little relevance when I vote for a candidate as long as the cabdidtae has no history of antitheism or wanting to break the Establsimsnt Clause’s original meaning.
Woodshed, what is your point?
39. no doubt! They run it like the SS… if you are not about baby murder on demand, gay marriage, pacifying terrorists…forget it, buddy! YOu are out!
41.
The point is that you should propably educate yourself on this topic before making baseless claims. As I said, I won’t do your home work for you. Read the decision. findlaw.com is an excellent source.
42.
Yep. Just ask Joe Lieberman.
lieberman… casey….the corpses of those detroyed by liberal facism are strewn throughout the land…
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay?
Yay.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian?
Probably.
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion?
Probably not.
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials?
Depends. On One hand, a politician who is a fundamentalist of ANY religion is a dangerous person if they cannot separate their beliefs from their actions in the service of the public.
On the other, being a religious person and running for office really shouldn’t matter. Again, as long as they keep that shit to themselves while at work.
Woodshed, I’ve read the decision.
Now what?
If you’ve read it, then tell me what the decision says about “right to privacy”.
Abortion is not the law of the land. In 1973, the SCOTUS gave us a decision on Roe V Wade. State laws are supreme. A state can pass laws restricting abortion. Until it is challened in the SCOTUS, we are bound by the abortion laws of the individual states!
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
Ok, and?