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

Quote :

"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. "

8/28/2006 11:45:49 AM

oh god, not her again

8/28/2006 11:57:11 AM

i'm shocked nobody made a thread about this before today

8/28/2006 11:58:30 AM

it is sort of a lie in that everybody and their brother will tell you about seperation of church and state being mandated by the bill of rights which is untrue.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:13 PM. Reason : a]

8/28/2006 12:13:05 PM

^ ding ding ding

8/28/2006 12:50:45 PM

its too bad some of the middle eastern countries that hate us so much dont have a "separatation of church and state" policy

8/28/2006 12:53:55 PM

So those of you who don't believe in separation of church and state as mandated in the Bill of Rights: how would you interpret the place of religion (specifically, Christianity) in national politics and lawmaking? Just curious.

I personally would stick to the obvious laws (killing, stealing, etc) due to their functionality and leave the rest to be decided by the individual.

8/28/2006 1:13:44 PM

i dont believe in a national religion or anything like that

but shouldnt politicans be able to be open about their own religions? i mean on one hand you dont want religion mandatory but on the other hand you dont want to infringe on the religious rights/choices of any citizens, including the politicians, right?

8/28/2006 1:27:31 PM

And that's why I believe that such beliefs should not be mandated as laws governing those who do not follow or even respect said religion. It should not infringe on my right not to follow a belief system.

8/28/2006 1:30:29 PM

i agree and i think harris is way too religious

but when is the line drawn between her own opinions and rights given to her by the 1st amendment, and the interpretation of the establishment clause?

8/28/2006 1:31:40 PM

I am just throwing out a tidbit. this discussion is important, but for those who dont know, many people suggest that the 'separation' clause was not to prohibit religious activities in our laws, but to prohibit the exclusivity of one religion over another (think Church of England). I believe that is what Harris is referring to, but I havent read the statement.

8/28/2006 1:34:58 PM

this is a pretty interesting non partisan view of the history of interpretation

http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

8/28/2006 1:35:56 PM

Quote :

"but when is the line drawn between her own opinions and rights given to her by the 1st amendment, and the interpretation of the establishment clause?"

uh.... the line is drawn clearly when she tries to create legislation based solely on religion

she's even admitting that

8/28/2006 1:55:55 PM

where does she try to create any legislation? i didnt notice it in the article

i noticed a pretty dumb political move for her to say her skewed point of view like she did

but i didnt see anything about her trying to create any legislation based on religion

8/28/2006 1:58:01 PM

Quote :

"The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage."

regardless of whether she has tried to or not, her desire is obviously to create religious based laws



[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : or maintain them]

8/28/2006 1:59:29 PM

no

she said that "if Christians are not elected, politicians will 'legislate sin', including abortion and gay marriage"

I took that to mean "if you elect Democrats, they will legislate sin, like gay marriage and abortion"

so again, where does she try to create legislation based solely on religion?

also how is it so obvious to you that her desire is to create religious based laws? sounds to me like she's just catering to her hardcore christian voting base

8/28/2006 2:02:38 PM

Quote :

"So those of you who don't believe in separation of church and state as mandated in the Bill of Rights: how would you interpret the place of religion (specifically, Christianity) in national politics and lawmaking? Just curious."

Obviously any functioning moral code (religious or otherwise) will include things such as not killing or stealing which will be reflected in law.

Shit like not being able to buy liquor on Sunday that we can trace back to our puritan roots needs to go.

8/28/2006 2:05:21 PM

I don't disagree Joshua. The only point my 3 word comment was meant to convey is that the beloved separation does not actually appear in the constitution. The first amendment is the only mention and it has currently been interpreted to mean that laws should not dictate religion. You can't tell people which God they must worship.

However, extremists on one side of the argument would like to destroy that interpretation while extremists on the other side would like to re-interpret it to mean no one can worship any God within earshot of an atheist.

Both of them are fucking retarded.

8/28/2006 2:49:27 PM

Quote :

"the other side would like to re-interpret it to mean no one can worship any God within earshot of an atheist. "

and thanks to micheal newdow, people continue to believe that there is a large, somewhat powerful and threatening group of people actively pursuing this.

8/28/2006 2:52:23 PM

^ ding ding ding

8/28/2006 2:52:46 PM

I don't think there are many actively trying to pursue this, but here's what I think is more accurate

There are many groups of isolated individuals that are troubled by one particular aspect of current law. A perfect example is school prayer. (not mandated prayer, but one of those school districts that recently banned even private prayer at lunch) Ok, so one small group gets upset about something like that and makes a stink. The policy gets changed.

Another small group has another small problem mostly unrelated to the private prayer. Maybe it is that the school offers a class in Old Testatment (like my high school) but not one on the Koran. They complain, make a stink, and the school drops the class.

Someone is upset because "In God we Trust" is printed on our money.

This happens ad infinitum and all traces of any God are slowly erradicated from society.

You see this kind of thing in public school dess codes. You start allowing anything to be worn...next you have someone wear a nazi shirt. That's taken down. Then someone says "we can't wear nazi shirts, but he can wear his "Abortion is Murder!" shirt. Then that's gone, again and again until you're in a uniform.

I am well aware that this argument can appear "slippery slope"ish but I think there is decent evidence of this progression in contemporary society.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 3:20:40 PM

basically people get offended that their perceived freedoms are being taken away, so they raise a fuss and end up taking away more freedom(s)

8/28/2006 3:23:44 PM

Everyone knows that "In God we Trust" was placed in the Pledge and money buring the 50's by Eisenhower. So thats a shitty example to use.

8/28/2006 5:44:51 PM

Dentaldamn, are you kidding or do you think "in god we trust" is in the pledge?

8/28/2006 5:49:04 PM

i know the word 'republic' is in the pledge but not 'democrat' or 'democracy' haha

8/28/2006 5:50:23 PM

I'm guessing he meant "Under God", and you know that. Don't play that.

8/28/2006 5:50:33 PM

hahahaha its been awhile since we had to say it.

under god, lets not get all techie

8/28/2006 5:51:25 PM

Well he called my example shit and implied that I was saying it was in the pledge.

And you know that


The point being is that he didn't even read the argument. He saw a line he thought he could counter and he jumped on it like OJ on a white bitch.

8/28/2006 5:51:40 PM

i'm guessing george bush meant Iraq MIGHT have wmd's

don't play that PinkandBlack

8/28/2006 5:51:55 PM

OJ didnt get caught.

bad example

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 5:52 PM. Reason : point still stands, shitty example]

8/28/2006 5:52:17 PM

Here is what I do not understand, Katherine Harris also said that God chooses the leaders of the nation. Polls show that she is not a contender in the Senate race and the GOP wants her to withdraw. It does not look like God is on her side.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:02 PM. Reason : k]

8/28/2006 5:58:37 PM

maybe Harris would feel better in Saudia Arabia

8/28/2006 6:06:22 PM

^^ clearly you have no idea how it works...

she would say that God has deemed that she should not be a representative...and while she might not be thrilled about that...she would accept it as Gods will

8/28/2006 6:08:21 PM

i would have to say God does not give a shit about our politics.

and if you think he does then you must be a terrorist

8/28/2006 6:10:08 PM

ok...

tell that to her...just pointing out how she would feel about it...

8/28/2006 6:11:59 PM

Katherine Harris having a shot at election is a lie

8/28/2006 6:19:29 PM

Quote :

"i'm guessing george bush meant Iraq MIGHT have wmd's don't play that PinkandBlack"

what the hell does that have to do w/ someone typing the wrong phrase?

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 6:33:07 PM

She is right, and liberals cant stand it.

I'd actually support her, but i guess the gop is too scared of nominating a strong conservative and would rather shift the way of the aggressors in this election.

8/28/2006 6:35:14 PM

how is she right?

8/28/2006 6:40:16 PM

because Jesus told her she was.......duuuuuhhhhhhhhh

8/28/2006 6:48:18 PM