In the news

[wil]

On CNN today...

Rep. Harris: Church-state separation 'a lie'

POSTED: 10:45 a.m. EDT, August 28, 2006

var clickExpire = "09/27/2006"; 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."
Electing non-Christians a 'legislative sin'

"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.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

[Quahom1]

Well, she is correct on the seperation of church and state, partially. In a letter to New England AnaBaptists, Thomas Jefferson assured the elders that "The State would have no authority to dictate what religion was to be served or that no person of intent to hold office would be denied because of their religious belief".

Separation of church and state is no where in the Constitution, nor the Articles, nor amendments, only in a letter from the then president to a group of concerned believers (concerned about having a state mandated religion established).

First Amendment garuantees the religious rights of the people shall not be infringed...

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

First Amendment garuantees the religious rights of the people shall not be infringed...

The government endorsing a religion infringes on the rights of members of another religion. Particularly so if it's a religion that believes all should and need to follow its doctrines.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Karimarie

The government endorsing a religion infringes on the rights of members of another religion. Particularly so if it's a religion that believes all should and need to follow its doctrines.

The government did not endorse a religion, nor can secular interests stop the influence of religion upon a government, only that the government cannot influence a religion, nor create an official one...

Case in point is the truly diverse City of Dearborn in Michigan. There is much influence of religious beliefs on the government of the City (both Christian and Muslim), but the city can not infringe upon the rights of the citizens, an official decree pertaining to any religion. Hence, Ramadan is as celebrated openly as Christmas. Displays of faith on public property are the will of the people.

Once again, in this country the goverment IS the people.

v/r

Q

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Once again, in this country the goverment IS the people.

Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Karimarie

Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

Majority rules, even in a representitive Republic. If the minority doesn't agree, then they must recruit enough representitives that will change the rules. That is a Federal republic based on democratic principles, not tyranny.

v/r

Q

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Majority rules, even in a representitive Republic. If the minority doesn't agree, then they must recruit enough representitives that will change the rules. That is a Federal republic based on democratic principles, not tyranny.

v/r

Q

So it's acceptable for governments to be elected that only care about 51% of the country and would not care one whit if the other 49% all starved to death? It's acceptable for them to genocide the other 49%?

No, it's not. A republic without minority rights violates the spirit of a democratic society.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Karimarie

So it's acceptable for governments to be elected that only care about 51% of the country and would not care one whit if the other 49% all starved to death? It's acceptable for them to genocide the other 49%?

No, it's not. A republic without minority rights violates the spirit of a democratic society.

You don't live in such a country with such a government...unless you're posting from a third world country and using New York as your avatar address...

"It is a Federal Republic, if you can keep it..." Benjamin Franklin, 1776.

[taijasi]

We do not live in a democracy. I'm not sure we ever have, but if there was any longer a shadow of a doubt (that this might still become a democracy anytime soon), that has been successfully stomped dead ... in the last few years.

Our Founding Fathers, those curious slave-owning deists and Freemasons, may have had some clue where things were headed ... but I doubt they ever anticipated the likes of the evil shrub, much less a Katherine Harris, to come along.

As one wise Magi might have happened to say: the ark of [Humanity's future] is already being built. Let us trust that it will be larger than Noah's!

Namaskar,

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

We do not live in a democracy. I'm not sure we ever have, but if there was any longer a shadow of a doubt (that this might still become a democracy anytime soon), that has been successfully stomped dead ... in the last few years.

Our Founding Fathers, those curious slave-owning deists and Freemasons, may have had some clue where things were headed ... but I doubt they ever anticipated the likes of the evil shrub, much less a Katherine Harris, to come along.

As one wise Magi might have happened to say: the ark of [Humanity's future] is already being built. Let us trust that it will be larger than Noah's!

Namaskar,

andrew

We live in a Federal Republic, based on Democratic Principles...I am certain I have made that clear before...Democracy (pure) would never survive in this country. It has too many people...

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You don't live in such a country with such a government...

Irrelevant. Such countries exist and would be morally and legally acceptable according to your way of thinking.

The United States could conceivably, under your understanding, be such a country at some point in the future acceptably without any problems. I see such a society as dangerous.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Karimarie

Irrelevant. Such countries exist and would be morally and legally acceptable according to your way of thinking.

The United States could conceivably, under your understanding, be such a country at some point in the future acceptably without any problems. I see such a society as dangerous.

Irrelevence is a perception...and you are not my perceiver.

[kenod]

Everyone has the right to lobby the government to bring about policy change - there is the business lobby, the union lobby, the environmental lobby, the gay lobby ... so why not a Christian lobby.

The rights of minorities are extremely well protected in Western countries. Most of the laws that limit the rights of minorities are there to protect the vulnerable, and to prevent exploitation of public resources.

[seattlegal]

There should be no prohibation of religious display on government property. That is part of religious freedom.

It's the area of policy making, or legislation, that needs to be guarded from being hijacked by any one religious/non-religious/anti-religious philosophy {including Secular Humanism, Christianity, Paganism, Atheism, Scientific Materialism, Dialectical Materialism, or any other belief system, especially if it seeks to exclude freedom of religious speech.} This is where the door becomes opened to fascism, or to worship of the State. JMHO.

<edit to add>

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
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.

Notice the connection I made to "policy making" and "Congress shall make no law?" That's the important part, IMHO.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It's the area of policy making, or legislation, that needs to be guarded from being hijacked by any one religious/non-religious/anti-religious philosophy

Legislation is made by elected representatives. Those representatives will vote according to their conscience (I hope). For most representatives their conscience will be influenced by their religious beliefs. They're not robots, they're flesh and blood.

How are you going to guard against a person voting the way their conscience dictates ... and why should we? That is the very situation we are currently facing in my country concerning therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research; the rights of refugees; and the mining and exporting of uranium.

An anti-discrimination law here could make it illegal for a minister in a church to refuse to marry a couple solely on the basis of their gender. By protecting the rights of one group, you can take away the rights of another.