Separation of church and state a "lie" according to Katherine Harris

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redworm

Moderator
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/senate.harris.ap/index.html

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- 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 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-Florida, 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.
Click to expand...

At least some of the Republicans have distanced themselves from this but who knows how many GOP politicians and voters actually believe this line:

"wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Scary.
 
I just think that it SUCKS that it really seems that the only viable choice we voters have if we want legislators who will protect RKBA is god-crazy religous whackos.

I'm sorry -- apart from RKBA, I don't relate any more with them than I do with anti-gun statist sociofascist left-wingers. :barf:


-azurefly
 
Well, we'll fight for your rights anyway, Azure, whether you relate or not.

As for the "Separation of Church and State" as it is portrayed today? She could not be more correct. A lie it is.
 
I don't think we need this discussion. It will simply degenerate into folks calling each other names and rants from some folks that aren't productive.

There are plenty of outlets to debate views of God. I will skip my diatribe.

Not one person will be convinced that their 'true' beliefs are false.
 
Israel is often referred to as "The Jewish State" even though the Jewish percentage of its population is about the same as America's Christian percentage. If Israel is "The Jewish State," then America is "The Christian State."

She's right, though - the First Amendment does not posit a religion-free federal government, it only requires that the federal government not have an established religion. It imposed no such requirement on the states until a 1947 interpretation of the 14th Amendment suddenly discovered it. (If only they'd do that with the Second Amendment, eh?)

In fact, it wasn't until 1833 that Massachusetts officially disestablished its state-supported church, the Congregational Church, forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment.

But the First Amendment also prohibits government interference with free exercise of religion, and judging by the stridently anti-religious zeal of some public school administrators, going so far as to cut the microphone of a high school valedictorian who dared to extoll the virtues of Jesus in her speech, we've got a "cafeteria-style" interpretation of the First Amendment by government officials.
 
How about we keep this on thread as to weather or not this statement is true.
"The separation of church and state, as it exists today, is a lie."

Besides, I thought we've already been legislating morality. With the booze prohibition in the 20's, drug prohibition today, there are more examples but those are my two favorite biggies...

Every law that exists against consensual crimes (that harm neither the person or property of ANOTHER) is an example of legislating morality, and therefore forcing someone else's existing moral code upon another. Something also chiefly done by 'religious' folks. Reason #432,197 that I severly dislike 'organized' religion.)
 
For the reasons Mr. Mayer stated, my initial tendency is to close this thread.

If the focus of this discussion is limited to the constitutional provisions relating to religiion and it remains dispassionate, it may remain open. If, however, I read more words like, "god-crazy religous whackos" or "statist sociofascist left-wingers", I'll shut it down right quick.

This thread must remain focused on opinions supported by facts, not beliefs which require no such support.

The fact of the matter is she is somewhat correct. There is no constitutional provision for the separation of church and state.
Article VI - Paragraph III
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
It could be argued that "separation of church and state" is a catchy but technically inaccurate catchphrase, sort of like "assault weapon" or "cop-killer bullet."
 
The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson (hardly a liberal revisionist) to describe the intent and application of the First Amendment. The fact that the phrase itself does not appear directly in the Constitution does not make it a "lie".

In a similar vein, the phrase "trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible, yet it's an established doctrine in the Christian religion. Is that because the term is an extrapolation of established Biblical concept, or because it's a "technically inaccurate catchprase"?

Look, we can argue back and forth for six pages about the "so-called separation of church and state", but the fact remains that the Founders and writers of the Constitution had a free hand in composing it, and they could have written in any religious basis they wanted. Yet there is no mention of God, Jesus or Christianity in the entirety of the Constitution, and the only mentions of religion are in a proscriptive clause ("Congress shall not...") That's pretty convincing evidence that the Founding Fathers believed that individuals ought to be free to exercise their personal religion any way they wished, but also that the Government must by necessity be absolutely neutral in the matters of religion, neither hindering its exercise or favoring any religion over all others.

The separation of church and state only sits wrong with people who parse "church" as "my church".
 
The sadest part of this disgusting phrase is that it was extracted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and later Quoted by a Supreme Court Judge and all of a sudden it became the new catch phrase of the Anti Groups like the ACLU who have used it very efectively agianst the Constitution and the Public in general, even to the point of getting an Alabama Judge removed from office, I get real upset when I hear ACLU Lawyers make the statement that what ever is unconstitutional because it violates the Church and State clause as if it actually did exist somewhere in the writings of the Constitution, which it does not.
 
She is correct-----especially about our nation's founding fathers wants---they would be rolling in their graves right now:(
 
I don't care if you agree with her or not I personally give her credit for taking a stand she believes in. Today people don't take a stand because some one might be offended, that is plain wrong! When anyone expresses thier belief openly good for them, they are speaking thier mind, if you disagree so what, if you are offended so what ,if I am offend so what. Be glad you know where a person stands on a topic. If you are one who gets offended by someone makeing a stand for what they believe GET OVER IT! If I have offended anyone by my post oh well.
 
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but Franklin's and Jefferson's political philosophy and the US Constitution were based in significant part on Seneca's interpretation of Stoic philosophy. One reads Stoic threads all through the writings of the founding fathers. We tend to ignore the fact they are religiously based because we as a culture are generally inept in recognizing Paganism as an establishment religion. Most of the Stoic meanings of these writings were self interpreted as Deistic by the writers IMHO.

(Stoicism was a philosophy whose theology was based on classical Paganism, though it was later borrowed by Christian philosphers. Reference to some of Seneca's writings. Information about Zeno, founder of Stoicism. Brief discussion of Stoicism.)
 
While I will agree that the use of the term to justify legislation against Christianity in particular is nowhere near how I perceive the term "separation of church and state", I found the statement about legislating sin ludicrous.
 
actually my beef was mainly with the line I quoted

"wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."
Click to expand...

Wasn't the whole divine right of kings idea one of the big reasons for the American Revolution in the first place?
 
That brings up an interesting issue: if she truly believes that God chooses our rulers, why is she exhorting people to vote one way or the other?
 
The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson (hardly a liberal revisionist) to describe the intent and application of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

A letter to the Danbury Baptists, no less. A letter meant to lay to rest their fears that the new government was going to institute a State Religion. IF we are going to use that letter to create a Doctrine then the proper interpretation would be: The government does not restrict nor endorse the free expression of religion.

The result would be a manger scene on the courthouse lawn and nobody whining about it. AND any other religious symbol someone cared to put up, too. Which would be, probably, nothing in rural America and just about everything imaginable in metro areas.

But that's not where we are today because the left did in fact move first and most effectively to drive home their interpretation instead. Their Spin has now been in place long enough many(most) people accept it because, really, most people don't care enough to do more than scratch the surface of the issue.
 
The result would be a manger scene on the courthouse lawn and nobody whining about it.
Click to expand...
But then you'd have to accept a courthouse lawn containing Pagan, Wiccan and Scientology symbols paid by you. Would you be ok with that? There are far too many religions in this country to simply say "sure, put the manger up and let everyone else have theirs as well" because some Wiccans won't want to pay for the manger and some Christians won't want to pay for the Wiccan symbols.

You'd rather shove every single religious symbol you can find onto government property - and require the rest of us to pay for it! - than take the simple route and say no religious symbols at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top