Katherine Harris: If you're not voting for Christians, you're legislating sin - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-26-2006, 10:31 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Katherine Harris: If you're not voting for Christians, you're legislating sin

Link.

Lovely woman, isn't she?

Quote:
Speaking to Witness editors, Harris said:

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

"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's (sic) certainly isn't what God intended."

On Friday, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Democrats and Republicans blasted the comments, saying Harris was suggesting non-Christians were less suited to govern or should be excluded altogether.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-26-2006, 10:49 PM   #2
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:34 AM
You know, if the political climate were a little more sane I would say that this sort of comment would pretty much be the death sentence for Katherine Harris' political career. But the way things are, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a few more votes because of that appalling comment.

The sheer stupidity of that comment boggles the mind.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-26-2006, 11:15 PM   #3
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Oh, yes, we can't have secular laws. Let's make everything pro-Christian and discriminate against all the godless heathens. Discrimination: it's what Jesus would do.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 08-27-2006, 12:51 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 08:34 AM
There is so much work to be done before this fall and 2008.
She's just one example
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 03:30 AM   #5
Blue Crack Overdose
Get me off the internetz!
 
Carek1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: wishing I was somewhere else....
Posts: 114,606
Local Time: 05:34 AM
Can we say IDIOT?
__________________
Carek1230 is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 08:00 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:34 AM
**sigh**
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 09:20 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:34 AM
I will defend her comments because they have bene cut and pasted and taken out of contex of the interview with her.

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

Here is the interview. In particular I find the way quote number two was ferreted out to be quite interesting. It was the one that bothered me most. it does not in the context of the conversation with her.

[Q]"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's (sic) certainly isn't what God intended."[/Q]

The question she was asked was "What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?"

Her complete response including the quote out of context is about the fact that for the longest time, evangelical Christians in this countries history have shunned politics and involvement in them. Her quote about the founding fathers has to do with getting rid of this belief that separation of church and state meant people of faith cannot get involved. The whole quote in context means something completely different.


Quote number one, I disagree with completely, but again, in context and in looking at the question she was asked, I understand her response. I disagree with it because I disagree with her stance on the issue. SHe was asked Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election? Here is the reponse in context:

[Q]But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong. ...[/Q]



A perfectly reasonable response given that the question was about Baptists who would view these hot button issues as sinful.



So let me understand the uproar. She is being interviewed by a Baptist paper. She is responding to their questions. SHe answers them honestly. The mainstream takes two sentences out of context in the article, and turns it into something else? Shocking.

I appreciate her candor. I know where she stands. I disagree with her. ANd yes, I bet she is a lovely woman.

Have fun demonizing her.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 09:24 AM   #8
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:34 AM
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 10:27 AM   #9
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 01:34 PM
Her campaign has been riddled with setbacks, her staff regularly resigning. I won't demonize her because she's running a poor campaign, but I can't forget that she was one of the people who facilitated the Florida 'win' of George Bush in 2000.

Thanks so much!
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 10:50 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:34 PM

Can't say that mentioning the context works in this woman's favour.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 11:02 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
Can't say that mentioning the context works in this woman's favour.
In context it does not mean what was implied by taking them out of context.. And I agree with you, it makes it all the more clear to me that I am not someone who favors her.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 11:56 AM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
Can't say that mentioning the context works in this woman's favour.
I agree.

I find her remarks just as tasteless and inappropriate in context and completely understand why so many groups have complained.

She's been ostracized by her own party for this, so I think context does nothing for her.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-27-2006, 12:06 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
She's been ostracized by her own party for this, so I think context does nothing for her.
It's not really for this. She's trailing in the polls so badly for the general election that they had asked her to drop out of the primary even.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 12:08 PM   #14
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Her complete response including the quote out of context is about the fact that for the longest time, evangelical Christians in this countries history have shunned politics and involvement in them. Her quote about the founding fathers has to do with getting rid of this belief that separation of church and state meant people of faith cannot get involved.
I can't agree with your second sentence there--it seems pretty clear to me that the context does not modify the meaning of what she meant about "founding fathers." What is it that the founding fathers and God allegedly didn't intend? That "we're going to have a nation of secular laws." I don't understand why you would read the "That's not what..." immediately following that clause as referring to anything else. Yes, she is portraying this allegedly unintended outcome as a consequence of evangelicals misinterpreting "separation" to mean No active involvement in politics. But I don't see why this matters with regard to the negative reactions to her statement, because so far as I can tell, the negative reactions are to the idea that the "founding fathers and God" intended a nation of non-secular laws, not the idea that it's OK for evangelicals to be actively involved in politics.

Did you read Harris' clarification in the article anitram linked to?
Quote:
Asked if the U.S. should be a secular country, Harris said: "I think that our laws, I mean, I look at how the law originated, even from Moses, the 10 Commandments. And I don't believe, that uh . . . That's how all of our laws originated in the United States, period. I think that's the basis of our rule of law."
I'm also skeptical, though less so, about your first sentence, as she really was very vague there about what precisely "avoiding politics" entails. Is she talking about evangelicals who refuse to vote? Is she talking about evangelicals who only vote, but otherwise reject all forms of political participation? Is she talking about evangelicals that prefer to vote for career politicans who also happen to be Christians, like GWB, rather than those with more explicitly religious platforms, like Pat Robertson (who also stresses the importance of "electing godly men"), because they fear the latter might muddy the message, "settling for a lesser king and lesser kingdom" as Cal Thomas once put it? Or is she simply alluding to what she explicitly states at the end of that paragraph--i.e., that just because churches are 5013C organizations (and/or because of "separation of church and state") doesn't mean that it's problematic for politicians to speak in them? IMO, it's simply not very clear which, if any, of the above she's suggesting. And the first two aren't that common anyhow, and haven't been since the 70s, so far as I know--at least not among Southern Baptists, which is the denomination this paper serves.

As far as the "legislating sin" quote, I was not all that bothered by it either; however, even in context, I can certainly see why some religious minorities, as well as some Christians, took offense to it, since it appears to suggest that A) non-Christians who also hold a concept of sin (Jews, Muslims, etc.) are incapable of determining what non-sinful legislation looks like; and that B) if you are a "tried and true" Christian, then it's a foregone conclusion that you'd be opposed to the legality of gay marriage and/or abortion.

I do appreciate your insistence on taking the context into account however.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-27-2006, 12:50 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:34 AM
[Q]I can't agree with your second sentence there--it seems pretty clear to me that the context does not modify the meaning of what she meant about "founding fathers." What is it that the founding fathers and God allegedly didn't intend?[/Q]

In the context of the question and the response, having attended an evangelical college, having many friends who are evangelicals, I interpret her remarks differently.

I know that separation of church and state to you and I would apply towards the establishment of a theocracy ect.

Historically, evangelicals prior to the 1980's separation of church and state carried more than this. It carried with it a stay out of politics mentality. SO when she is addressing this audience and referring to it, it most definitely carries a different meaning. She is saying do not sit on the sidelines, that the founding fathers did not mean for religious people not to vote, or make laws.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com