Krazy Kate kan’t read
Katherine Harris Calls Church-State Separation ‘A Lie,’ Then Clarifies Remarks After Criticism
MIAMI Aug 26, 2006 (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. (Story.)
Okay, just an honest question here. At what point do you cross the line into treasonous territory? Not saying Krazy Kate has done so, but there becomes a point where you’re advocating something that’s antithetical enough to the system that we have to start asking questions like this. And it’s only fair. If a Commuist were running for office on a platform that advocated, I don’t know, abolition of state’s rights and the suppression of religious practice, there’s no question that the Right would label that as an attack on our Republic. And they’d be correct in doing so.
So when Krazy Kate starts “revising” the establishment clause and pretty much ignoring Jefferson’s own writings on the subject, are we justified in suggesting that she has wandered into terrain that might reasonably be construed as an attack on the Constitution?
And if not, where is the line?
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
If what she advocates is treasonous, than isn’t the majority of her district equally treasonous? They voted her in. I don’t think the line is here if she got there through legal means. I highly doubt Ms. Harris would risk angering her base in an election year if she didn’t think it would help her.
If what she advocates is treasonous, than isn’t the majority of her district equally treasonous? They voted her in. I don’t think the line is here if she got there through legal means. I highly doubt Ms. Harris would risk angering her base in an election year if she didn’t think it would help her.
See, you’re assuming rational thought on her part. We have no basis to do that, do we? 🙂
See, you’re assuming rational thought on her part. We have no basis to do that, do we? 🙂
treason?
Sam,
Sorry, but you’ve moved into some territory that really fires off my remaining brain cell.
The call for freedom of speech is not to be ignored, even if we find words offensive. In fact, the Supremes/Holmes basically stated that freedom of speech is most especially for protection of the speech we hate. Speech we find agreeable or tolerable, doesn’t need protection.
And then there was this philosopher, name of John Stuart Mill, who made a buttload of common sense, even though he was a philosopher. He had four primary reasons for justifying the idea of freedom of speech, and while all four of them point to this issue you’ve raised, I find myself needing to point out one in particular.
When we confront speech that really counters all that we expect and hold true in this world, it needs protection for the above reason. But Mill noted that speech that challenges what we believe also provides the benefit of causing us to reexamine our currently held beliefs, and possibly reinvigorating our dedication to that belief. There is huge value in this, because any number of things may have changed. For example, I believe there may be a lot fewer postmodernists because the event of 9/11 caused them to bring their beliefs into examination, and then question them.
Finally, restriction of speech appears to be limited to that speech which has an “imminent” threat of violence and whatever. I doubt that anyone listening to Katherine Harris will be moved to violence.
A last value in letting her words out freely … we can all see what we have on our hands here and make our decisions accordingly. Better you know you are dealing with the devil (the through freedom of speech), than not (through censorship).
cody
treason?
Sam,
Sorry, but you’ve moved into some territory that really fires off my remaining brain cell.
The call for freedom of speech is not to be ignored, even if we find words offensive. In fact, the Supremes/Holmes basically stated that freedom of speech is most especially for protection of the speech we hate. Speech we find agreeable or tolerable, doesn’t need protection.
And then there was this philosopher, name of John Stuart Mill, who made a buttload of common sense, even though he was a philosopher. He had four primary reasons for justifying the idea of freedom of speech, and while all four of them point to this issue you’ve raised, I find myself needing to point out one in particular.
When we confront speech that really counters all that we expect and hold true in this world, it needs protection for the above reason. But Mill noted that speech that challenges what we believe also provides the benefit of causing us to reexamine our currently held beliefs, and possibly reinvigorating our dedication to that belief. There is huge value in this, because any number of things may have changed. For example, I believe there may be a lot fewer postmodernists because the event of 9/11 caused them to bring their beliefs into examination, and then question them.
Finally, restriction of speech appears to be limited to that speech which has an “imminent” threat of violence and whatever. I doubt that anyone listening to Katherine Harris will be moved to violence.
A last value in letting her words out freely … we can all see what we have on our hands here and make our decisions accordingly. Better you know you are dealing with the devil (the through freedom of speech), than not (through censorship).
cody
Re: treason?
Actually, no, my point is a lot more specific and directed. This isn’t about Krazy Kate’s right to think what she wants or speak what she wants. This is rather specifically about a politician running on a platform that seems to have as a primary plank a promise to disregard the 1st Amendment. A pol issuing a call to elect only those who will act accordingly.
This is, in essence, a suggestion that we organize ourselves to deny religious freedoms to those who disagree with us.
I know the world is full of nutjobs, and there are probably some who are crazier than SHE is. And I ain’t about muzzling anybody. But there’s a point where it stops being speech and starts being legislation.
Re: treason?
Actually, no, my point is a lot more specific and directed. This isn’t about Krazy Kate’s right to think what she wants or speak what she wants. This is rather specifically about a politician running on a platform that seems to have as a primary plank a promise to disregard the 1st Amendment. A pol issuing a call to elect only those who will act accordingly.
This is, in essence, a suggestion that we organize ourselves to deny religious freedoms to those who disagree with us.
I know the world is full of nutjobs, and there are probably some who are crazier than SHE is. And I ain’t about muzzling anybody. But there’s a point where it stops being speech and starts being legislation.
Dang. That picture is hawt. Bwaaaahahaha.
But seriously. She should be able to SAY what she wants. And supposedly, the three branches of government will keep her from doing any permanent harm, right? (insert snicker here) I don’t think it’s treasonous yet and I think our system is strong enough to deal with this kind of thing. But maybe I just have more faith in the process…
Dang. That picture is hawt. Bwaaaahahaha.
But seriously. She should be able to SAY what she wants. And supposedly, the three branches of government will keep her from doing any permanent harm, right? (insert snicker here) I don’t think it’s treasonous yet and I think our system is strong enough to deal with this kind of thing. But maybe I just have more faith in the process…
As it turns out, faith seems to be the key.
As it turns out, faith seems to be the key.
I know. That’s why I chose the word. 🙂
I know. That’s why I chose the word. 🙂