Separation Of Church And State "Is A Lie"

[jochhejaam]

In Kathryn Harris's opinion. You go girl!

An Excerpt from an interview with a representative from The Florida Baptist Witness.

Question: What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

Harris: The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. So it’s really important that members of the church know people’s stands. It’s really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said I’m going to run a campaign of integrity. I’m not going to run it like all of the campaigns that I’ve seen before…. And you know, it’s hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But that’s why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that’s why I’ve gone to churches and I’ve spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it’s so important that they know. And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

Question: Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

Harris: Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to sexuality.

Question: Do you support a federal cons utional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?

Harris: I fully support a federal cons utional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. I have voted in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment because we should not undermine the uniqueness of an ins ution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society.

Full interview: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article

[Melmart1]

That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God

Uhhh.. which God would that be? Yours? Mine?

Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues

Sooo.. gays are not individuals?

undermine the uniqueness of an ins ution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society.

So in order for something to be essential to our society, it must be unique? And I don't get why people treat marriage with such kid gloves. We live in the age of 3-day marriages and drive-through wedding ceremonies from your car (yes, I know someone who got married that way). Straight people have completely bas ized the ins ution of marriage. Gay people couldn't do any worse.

[sabar]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.

[Spurminator]

Wow. I always thought Katherine Harris was just a convenient punching bag for Democrats upset about the 2000 election, but it looks like she's really a complete moron.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would be interested to hear that they intended this to be a nation of non-secular laws...

[Zunni]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.

The funny thing is, she is NOT supported by the GOP. They asked her to withdraw based on her numbers, and she said no.

[Extra Stout]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.

Actually, it is unlikely she will get elected.

[ChumpDumper]

If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.

Nice move alienating the Jewish vote in Florida, cupcake.

[Ocotillo]

In her Senate race she is polling in the thirties somewhere......

Adios Cruella.....

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Uhhh.. which God would that be? Yours? Mine?

I'm quite sure she's referring to hers, which would be the same as mine.
Which God do you claim as yours?

Sooo.. gays are not individuals?

Far be it of me to pretend to be able to correctly interpret Harris's interview, but I would assume that she's saying that a lifestyle in and of itself is not by definition an individual.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really trying to present the words of Katherine Harris as serious political discourse?

[Extra Stout]

Are you really trying to present the words of Katherine Harris as serious political discourse?

I'm not sure that I would pick Katherine Harris as the sentinel of Christian morality and ethics in Congress, any more than I would pick Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, or Duke Cunningham.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'm quite sure she's referring to hers, which would be the same as mine. Which God do you claim as yours?

Um.... so yeah that whole freedom of religion thing...they were just kidding about that right?

[Extra Stout]

Um.... so yeah that whole freedom of religion thing...they were just kidding about that right?

The Religious Right does not read the Fourteenth Amendment into the First, nor do they recognize established case law precedents. Unlike all Supreme Court justices except Clarence Thomas, they reject the concept of stare decisis.

So, in their line of thinking, "freedom of religion" means only that Congress may not establish a national church, nor may it pass laws to restrict the practice of a religion.

Or, in other words, there cannot be a Church of America like there is a Church of England, nor can, say, Islam be banned or the construction of new mosques prohibited. Those are the only protections they read into the First Amendment regarding "freedom of religion."

[boutons_]

The Bible-thumpers continue their push to install their theocracy,
to render what is Caesar's unto God.

[Extra Stout]

The Bible-thumpers continue their push to install their theocracy,
to render what is Caesar's unto God.

Well, boutons, you should be pleased that Katherine Harris is going to lose this campaign, and that the litany or GOP corruption scandals have snared enough members of the RR so as to undermine the moral underpinnings of their message.*

*--In an alternate world where the Democrats were not overrun with hostile parties bent upon marginalizing the practice of (Christian) religion in America into irrelevance (i.e., freedom from religion), a message working to tie pious religious action to social justice might gain some sway, as it has in black churches, since corruption is endangering the GOP hold on those voters.

[Ya Vez]

she is as crazy as al sharpton and jesse jackson are on the left...

[jochhejaam]

Actually, it is unlikely she will get elected.

Bill Nelson is up by almost 30 percent (61-30) with 1/3 of the Republicans preferring Nelson.

Harris isn't electable so she's now throwing caution to the wind.

[scott]

we are becoming a society with no moral direction. our society is not going to last because we so divided. most people are looking to get "his" and not thinking of the future. this will spell a quick and bloody end to the USA.....if those muslims have anything to say about it.............and the chinese will be all to eager to cash in when we fall.

I just hope more and more people could be united under a strict christian way of life, but the pressure to get "his" permeates almost every american church and their clergy. christianity is the key, uniting christians into a strong and moral political and fighting force would be the only answer. without that we will become and are becoming an amoral giant ameoba that can, and eventually will, be manipulated by the rest of the world. nukes or not.......we are a country for sale, to whomever wants a piece.

Okay I'll bite... to what lengths should we go to ensure the US is united under Christianity to avoid becoming this amoral giant ameoba?

[PixelPusher]

Okay I'll bite... to what lengths should we go to ensure the US is united under Christianity to avoid becoming this amoral giant ameoba?

I say repeal the cons utional admendment and ins ute a Christian monopoly STAT! Ins ute laws and penalties against heretics and non-believers. America will then transform into a peaceful, loving, morally correct paradise...kinda like Europe back in the Middle Ages, before those damn artists and scientists like Da Vinci and Galileo had to go and ruin it with their loathesome "Renaissance".

Ah, good times...

[jochhejaam]

I say repeal the cons utional admendment and ins ute a Christian monopoly STAT! Ins ute laws and penalties against heretics and non-believers. America will then transform into a peaceful, loving, morally correct paradise...kinda like Europe back in the Middle Ages, before those damn artists and scientists like Da Vinci and Galileo had to go and ruin it with their loathesome "Renaissance".

Harris's arguements are not compelling (I respect her as a Christian) nor are they representative of Christianity's problem with the currently applied interpretation of the First Amendment.
I think it's the extremes that people such as Newdow and groups such as the ACLU have taken this "Separation of Church and State". This is a nonsensical "crying a river" over things that pose no threat to citizens that wish to worship some foreign god. (don't go getting your boxers in a wad over the "foreign god" thing)

Such as:
-Prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments and Nativity Scenes on public property.

-Removing "In God We Trust" from our currency.

-Banning the voluntary recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools.

-
I personally couldn't care less if some athiest or someone that has exported their religion into our Country is offended by these things. They are not preventing you from worshiping your god. Tough it out, get over it and move on.
You're more than welome to stay here but if it's too unbearable for you here, there are Countries that won't bother you with these things, nothing's preventing you from relocating.
We don't have to knuckle under or cater to a handful of loudmouths who can't sleep at night at the thought of these beastly things going on in our Country. (Watch out, the Starbucks is startin' to kick in! )



If the Separation of Church and State activists want a fight, get on the Muslims in Dearborn and Detroit Michigan who are broadcasting their "call to prayer" on loudspeakers throughout their Cities 5 times a day (somewhat amusing is that some Catholics in these Cities are chiming their Church bells during this "call to prayer" in an effort to drown them out ). http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001658.php


That's all.

[MannyIsGod]

Whats amusing about that?

[jochhejaam]

Whats amusing about that?

Nice contribution to the thread.

[boutons_]

"you should be pleased that Katherine Harris is going to lose this campaign"

KH is spouting this desparate, rousing, divise, hateful, polarizing tripe because she knows southern/red-state/bubba/simpliistic/rabble FL is full of people who will suck in her tripe and vote for her. Agreed, all indications are that she will not only lose, but is reportedly embarrassing the Repugs who have told her to cancel her campaign (but NOT because of its content). If the Repugs thought she was the front runner, they'd be 100% behind her, no matter what tripe she spews.

[FromWayDowntown]

I personally couldn't care less if some athiest or someone that has exported their religion into our Country is offended by these things. They are not preventing you from worshiping your god. Tough it out, get over it and move on.

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

[Extra Stout]

FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades.