In another edition of “At Least They’re Not Your Legislator,” we take you to Florida, where Republican Rep. Katherine Harris – also a candidate for U.S. Senate – has been drinking too much of the kooky juice. As the Associated Press reports, Republicans are running from Harris like her last name was Clinton after a series of bizarre comments:
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.”
Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: QuBase
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Harris has gone through at least four complete sets of campaign staff this season. One comentator said she’s been re-enacting Gen. Sherman’s March on Atlanta – with her playing the part of Sherman and her campaign office playing the part of Atlanta.
So, to those who despair about BWB’s performance so far – it could be worse. Much worse.
…come back to your sane ways and don’t compare Bob Beauprez to Katherine Harris. I have been a great fan of yours until I heard these comments.
Say it isn’t so PHX! Come back to sanity and amend your comments.
Harris is in so much worse shape than Beauprez and has gone so far over the loopy fringe that I don’t know that I can compare her to *anyone* in Colorado politics. But, like most Democrats in this seemingly Dem-leaning season, I’m always on scout for “willing” GOP examples!
😉
Posted this on Saturday in the Weekend Open Thread. My personal favorite is the one where she says that God choses the rulers.
http://www.rawstory….
….cheap shots and broad brush strokes won’t cut it with me, Toodles. You’re way out of line to make these broad generalizations. I am as Religious Right as they come yet I do not at all support Harris. She’s whacked.
What broad generalizations? for that matter what broad brushstrokes and chep shots? She said it. I am wrong for quoting her? As far as I am concerned Katharine Harris is the epitome of the religious right. And just because you dont support her doesnt mean you dont agree with her?
Katherine Harris is an American hero in the mold of Marilyn Musgrave, who is working to bring God back into American life. If we don’t have leaders who will stand up for Biblical Principles against the tyranny of Leftist Relativism, our great Nation is lost!
Our Nation is in spiritual crisis!!! We need real leaders who will turn back the tide of RINOism and Liberalism and bring God back into our childrens lives!!!
http://www.ag.org/pe…
The last thing we need is more religous fanatics – all they do is start more wars and spread hatred.
I’m starting to think that Rizzo is a “Lamborn Has Godlike Qualities” parody poster. A very ham-handed parody, but parody nonetheless.
I’m not sure you’re wrong. But in the past it’s seemed he’s pretty “real”. Either way comments like the above are threatening to make my mind explode.
Until today I believed Rizzo was a Marilyn shill with a habit of inserting himself into the CD5 debate on behalf of Lamborn. But he’s getting more and more silly, so I just don’t know. Rizzo, whither art thou? Enlighten those of us who are wandering in the dark.
There is nothing funny about the antichristian attitudes Christians are fighting against these days. Katherine Harris stood up for the Rule Of Law for President Bush, and has shown that she will fight against the hateful lie that God has no place in our lives!!!!
Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn are fighting for our Constitutional Religious Liberties against the forces of extremism. They are for the Free Exercise of Religion, just like Thomas Jefferson was. We all have freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion! I’m proud of all of these good Republicans.
Keep fighting the good fight! Lies and self-delusions are the only way to go man! I really shouldnt even respond because a debate with you will get nowhere, but I thought I would enlighten you to what Thomas Jefferson said:
http://www.coloradop…
Just click that link and all of your wildest dreams will come true. Or just scroll down to the bottom of the page and look for the post titled “love to.”
You may want to read
You may want to read An Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, written by Jefferson and Madison.
It is the basis for the Establishment Clause and contains much of the wording used by the Supreme Court in determining “freedom of religion”. And, it prevailed over a counter-proposal by Patrick Henry making Christianity the official religion of Virginia – not Anglicans, or Baptists, but Christianity. And while the final wording of that law does make extensive reference to God and the Lord, it also makes distinctively clear that mankind has ever fallen prey to false leaders claiming “the one truth”, and promotes the rational truth as the only true and sure method of government. It expounds on the principle that a religious declaration that a specific practice is “of ill tendency” should not be used to pass judgement prohibiting the practice, but rather that only overt acts against peace and good order rise to the level of the criminal.
Jefferson is no friend to Musgrave and Lamborn on the subject of religious freedom, nor to you if you agree with them.
Jack St. Martin, Bob’s former campaign manager, is (I believe) still running the campaign for Harris’s primary opponent, McBride.
and Katherine Harris twins separated at birth? Rowland said the same things when she was asked about separation of church and state. “At least she’s not your congresswoman”? Sadly, Rowland is indeed our County Commissioner. Hopefully she will not be our lieutenant governor.
Those are adjective which describe Rowland’s comments.
Rowland’s comments are not mainstream statewide. I’m not even sure that they qualify as mainstream out on the West Slope – in fact, given the reaction of various papers, I’d say they weren’t!
You’ll need more than spin to make that claim stick.
…the “mainstream” which thinks pornography is protected by the first admendment and finds abortion rights in the penumbra of the constitution.
tell GW that Mullah Omar is alive and well and posting here under the handle of Padre?
“Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us”…Dostoevski’s “The Grand Inquisitor”
…explain clearly how my statement fits within the Dostoevski model as stated in the quote you cite.
It’s good people blurt out what they think so we can elect someone else.
1) “Separation of Church and State” is clearly not part of our constitutional framework. 1st Amendment is clearly misinterpreted on the “free exercise” end. Religious sentiment and outlook is clearly something the Founders hoped would infiltrate public policy. John Adams said “this constitution was created for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” This included, in his mind, diests and moral atheists who centered their philosophy in the Natural Law. They never invisioned a government inculcating (especially in the public schools) a secular dogma as a societal good or goal.
2) The “legislate sin” statement is goofy on its face. I will let Samuel Adams clear up Harris’s erroneous statement: “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” I agree with Adams’ statement wholeheartedly. To put up dishonest men into positions of trust is a dishonor to our constitution and founding principles. I would hope Republicans and Democrats would follow this principle. To that end, I would hope Democrats would wholeheartedly support Joe Lieberman for Senate in CT.
Liberman? You mean the guy who conveniently called Lamont supporters out as “favoring terrorists” after he lost? The “Independent Democrat” who seems to have gotten the de-facto Republican endorsement, but says he’ll still caucus with the Democrats after the election should he win?
We’ve seen that play before. It was called Ben “Nighthorse” Campbell. No more Switchocrats, thanks.
…your hatred of his politics. Lieberman will stay in the Democrat party because his politics more closely aligns with the Dem party.
And, by the way, Campbell was never treated by Republicans like Lieberman has been by Democrats. Campbell was pro-abortion within a part which has a pro-life plank.
Big tent if you ask me.
While I am no expert in these areas I must offer a different view point…
(1) With all due respect to John Adams’s position in history, his implication that a person must be religious to be moral is illfounded. We have no clarification to what he means by “religious”. Many fundies will have a very narrow difinition, one that many other “Christians” would have trouble with. The flap about Harris is a perfect example. Is a devout Buddhist or Muslim not also a “religious” person who is in all liklihood “moral” as well? And I may be wrong, but wern’t the Deists, as a part of the enlightenment, open to the ideas of evolution with “God” as the first cause? The clockwork universe model.
(2) Isn’t it true that the first lawsuits that took prayer out of schools were brought to the courts by Catholics and Mormons because they were having a specific kind of prayer/dogma being taught to their children? I think it takes a great deal of care to be sure that the state is not promoting one form of faith over another, and IMHO that should include the right to refuse faith all together. For example, how would you feel if your children’s schools were to promote a Mormon form of praying because there was a majority of Mormons in your district?
I am open to correction and comment.
1) He didn’t say you have to be religious to be moral. He said the “religious” and the “moral” are the two groups of people necessary to sustain a republic over the long run. I am afraid we may too little of either before long.
2) Three points on this: a) breaking up the government school monopoly through true choice with a system akin to Belgium where the money goes with the child and not with the school district would take away any problems with forcing religion on others. b) the problem is the way that religious expression is squelched by court order in the public schools (and elsewhere for that matter) not whether sectarian prayers are in the public schools, and administrators should have the right to decide that, not the courts. c) How would I feel if my children were forced into Mormon standards? The same way I would feel if they were forced to be taught evolution over creation.
…show me the transitional forms in the fossil record. Prove that the machines within cell structure which replicate using DNA patterns came about by any method except design?
Evolution is the means by which God created Man. See, there’s no inherent disagreement between science and faith.
http://www.coloradop…
Got off topic there. Before I get drawn into a science vs. faith debate I should point out that my position is merely that religion shouldn’t be taught in science class. Science seeks to understand nature without relying on faith. This approach has led to countless advances in medicine and technology, and anyone who attacks this is essentially attacking all the benefits we have reaped from it. Keep that in mind if you’ve ever taken medicine that made you feel better (or support nuclear power, for that matter).
As I stated above, there is no real conflict between faith and science (unless you subscribe to a completely literal reading of the Bible). It’s possible to view the findings of science as understanding (in small part) the nature of how God works.
Padre, just so you know, I haven’t checked out your videos yet.
…on having not reviewed the videos.
Don’t discount the Biblical relation to science too quickly, though I understand how you might have a problem with at at present.
And just for clarification, were fossils put there to test our faith, as in the world was created within the last 10,000 years?
…and you may consider my response by observing these videos. You may be the judge
http://video.google….
http://video.google….
I recommend an honest review, not a quick dismissal.
But Padre, I will watch these videos and give you an honest review on two conditions: (1) you allow me to find internet videos that also argue my position, and (2) you allow me to watch them tomorrow. I am in the middle of homework and I have to get to bed at a reasonable hour tonight.
This is the concept I am attempting to forward as a basic problem with Darwinian theory.
… something that has appeared in any peer-reviewed journals?
Note the array of scientists in the second video. They are all academics who have been peer reviewed over and over.
… that the scientists have been published. But the question is, has this concept been peer reviewed? Are the articles about it going through that process? That’s one of the major steps of the scientific process.
Padre, have not seen the videos as I am on dialup (sadly), but I do have access to Wikipedia and it seems that irreducable complexity=intelligent design=creationism. I have seen this kind of evidence used by “new agers” as well. They claim that the Kosmos has an innate Will that allows it to spontaneously generate leaps in evolutionary stages, hell even the Buddhists have their own linking of conscious intention/evolution…and I admit a soft spot for the poetic and mystical answers to life’s big questions. But, the part of the irreducable complexity=intelligent design=creationism theory that troubles me is where the intelligent designer is…dadada daaaa….non other than the contemporary Christian God…most specifically the american protestant christian God who is worshiped in megachurches and who creates gay peole then bannishes them to hell, intergects his will by selecting our representatives to government, and punnishes the poor sinners in New Orleans by unleashing terrable storms.
I would love to see these ideas taught in high schools, but not in the science classroom. Rather it should be studied in philosophy classes alongside other historical and contemporary beliefs about creation and morality.
“Bacterial Flagellum”….
Clearly a philosophical, not scientific, idea.
Ok, let’s look at your logical progression here: “irreducable complexity=intelligent design=creationism.”
Let’s look at it the same logic with different variables: “Random chance=Natural Selection=God is non-existent”
Now, let’s take a look at the final conclusions of the two down a different logical path.
God is non-existent -> There is no law except that which is made by the one who can whip all others -> Totalitarianism
God exists -> Natural Law exists and holds all men to account -> Justice
Your line of reasoning is so absurd it literally makes me want to pound my head against a wall. Have you study logic before or are you just trying to apply your belief system to something which you have absolutely no grasp?
No God equals totalitarianism/God equals Justice? Are you serious? Is this some sort of backwards Lockean rigamarole?
Just because Natural Law has been co-opted by Christiantiy from the pagan greeks, like most of their traditions, its modern day application as seen through Hobbes’ nine laws and Locke do not assert that there is a creator behind Natural Law. Look at the Social Contract.
“Prove to me …” kind of says it all. Education is a two-way street. If you are so resistant to this topic, ain’t no amount of patient explanations going to do any good, no how.
None the less, here’s a beginning…
All organisms are examples of “transitional” species (your demand for such a thing only serves to demonstrate how little you know of the science).
Evolution uses the same scientific method that atomic physics uses. (Tell me, do you spend time blogging about whether or not electrons orbit atomic nuclei in planetary-like rings versus clouds of quantum probabilities? Why not?)
Every cladogram/phylogeny (those “trees” showing species relationships) is a hypothesis based on evidence (e.g., bone structures). As new evidence comes in (e.g., molecular structures) those hypotheses are tested. If the hypothesis fails, then a new hypothesis (cladogram) is constructed which is then further tested.
In great contrast, creationism & intelligent design & irreducable complexity have (among them all) failed to produce even a single testable hypothesis. They are not science. I doubt many find them satisfactory theology.
The onus is on those who wish to overthrow the current paradigm to come up with at least one testable hypothesis for evaluating whether or not “design” is possible. You’ve got your work cut out for you.
So, what do you say? Should we maybe stick to politics? Opinions carry a lot of weight in politics. However, no amount of opinion (no matter how desirable and strongly held) can stand up to the facts and tested hypotheses in science.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled program…
All you can give me here is evidence by hypothesis?
“In great contrast, creationism & intelligent design & irreducable complexity have (among them all) failed to produce even a single testable hypothesis. They are not science. “
Really? And you find Behe’s concept of irreducable complexity untestable within the examples he gives, particularly as discussed within the bacterial flagellum? That’s hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that the refutation comes through the untested theory that the flagellum is the product of a reduction of a more complex system. So from where did the more complex one arise? It’s bad logic no more compelling than an evolutionary one.
“I doubt many find them satisfactory theology.”
Intelligent Design implies intelligence implies complex thought system implies personality implies person. Design implies designer implies person. Design implies origin. Origin implies creation. Creation implies creator. ….you do the math here.
BY THE WAY. Did you ever consider the origin of music? Where did that come from?
Another interesting attempt to divert the course of the debate off its course. I’ll handle this one… What does music have to do with biology? If that’s your proof of the existence of God (or gods), great, but that’s still faith. How does that disprove or invalidate the field of biology? Remember – faith and evolution are not incompatible (unless your interpretation of the Bible is a rigid and literal one).
1) You completely ignored the first part of my post. You might answer those questions before you harangue me with your “expertese” in biology.
2) What does music have to do with biology? That’s the whole point I am making. What in the stinking world (because of the primordial soup of course) does it have to do with biology? If we are descendants of the chance combinations of amino acids, why in the world do we pursue music? If we rose by means of biology, so did music, the arts, and (*holding hand over mouth in shock*) politics.
… because it wasn’t addressed to me. I’ll let the biologist handle the biology questions. Unlike you, I won’t pretend to be qualified to criticize it. (See, you’re being disingenous again – I hardly “harangued you with my ‘expertese’ [sic] in biology.”
And yes, what does biology have to do with music? You seem to say that since biology doesn’t explain music then it’s invalid. You might as well say that since Christianity doesn’t explain the revelations expericenced by Mohammed then Christianity is invalid. (Besides, why should music prove the existence of a creator? It could just as easily prove the existence of alien experimenters who use monoliths like the one in “2001: A Space Odessy” to manipulate life on Earth to see what happens. Oh wait, who created the aliens, right?0
Face it: creationism has no place in science. Creationism is faith. Faith is fine but science operates under different rules. Creationism belongs in religion and philosophy, not science. If you want a theological argument, go to a theological blog. Just keep your theology out of the science classroom. Don’t stoop to such disingenous arguments – what would God say about that?
Ok. So I am not a biologist so “just sit there in your little corner, nice little boy and we’ll handle the science stuff. Go play in your nice little church and shut up on the science stuff.” Aristotle, that is not an argument: it’s a non sequitor (oops! Padre said something smart!)
I thought it was Plato who advanced the concept of the Philosopher King, not Aristotle.
And as to music v. biology: I am not discounting biology. As I have said before, I think there is evidence in biology to–at a minimum–cast doubt on the concept of Natural Selection. But to cast aside the fact that humans (as opposed to animals) pursue the fine and engineering and technical arts as irrelevant to your theory based in biology is absurd (in the intellectual sense) and, frankly, unscientific as it eschews critical analysis of a relevant factor.
Oh, and by the way. What a crass, self-serving, intellectually dishonest approach you take in your response to my post. You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Isn’t that just a bit intolerant. Oh, sorry. Liberal tolerance seeks to bind belief threatening faith with being pushed over the precipice of hate which delineates its scope of acceptance.
Until creationist arguments stand up to peer review, it’s not science.
When you dodged my earlier question about whether this stuff was peer reviewed (remember, you said the scientists had published peer reviewed articles, but apparently not about this), you were guilty of intellectual dishonesty yourself. So watch how you throw that charge around lest it stick to you.
And watch the lame talking points. I’ve seen many a conservative blogger use the “I though liberals were tolerant” rant. Letting cons have the run of blogs, radio, TV news, and politics in general isn’t tolerance. And your last sentence doesn’t make any sense.
Peer Review=”Philosopher King”
Of course I, like you, trust peer review as the best way to filter out unnecessary arguments. And I understand your perspective when you criticize the lack of peer review on Behe’s concept of “irreducable complexity.” But, PUHLEEEEEZZZZEEEE! Don’t tell me that there isn’t a bit of politics in this particular case. To wit:
“He [Behe] published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science , which he claims supports the idea, based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers.”
Well, to me this means the broad concepts of Behe’s theory ARE peer reviewed except for the messy details. And, I would maintain that his theory, even for you professional biologists, is worthy of further peer reviewed study. AND you cannot under any circumstances claim Behe is not a serious, capable scientist. Apart from his “irreducable complexity” theory, he has, according to his peers, done some of the best work out there studying the function of bacterial flagellum. This is serious, important scientific work he has provided. Why in the world would peer reviewed journals NOT open up that debate broadly in the scientific community unless there was a political motive (i.e. if IC were peer reviewed, the Dover case would have been much more difficult for anti-creationists).
Oh, sure. I read Behe’s Wikipedia entry like you did. I read his testimony in the Dover case. I understand the gave up some ground. That in and of itself is NOT an argument against IC. Throw it out for more research and let’s see what happened.
I challenge you with this question: would it really be so bad if we found out that Intellegent Design (I seriously doubt we’ll ever come up with anything more than scientific inference to creation in this life) were a viable, well-reserached, testable theory?
… I’ll skip to the bottom of your post first: “I challenge you with this question: would it really be so bad if we found out that Intellegent Design (I seriously doubt we’ll ever come up with anything more than scientific inference to creation in this life) were a viable, well-reserached, testable theory?”
Of course not. Then you have science, and then it belongs in the science curriculum. It would be controversial, to be sure, but no one could say it’s not science then.
Now, without being there when they took out intelligent design, we can just as easily infer that it didn’t hold up to the peer review. But we can certainly entertain the possibility that politics played a part. If I were in his position, however, and I thought my work was being unfairly edited/criticized I’d let the whole world know about this gross violation of the entire peer review principle. But I’m not this gentleman so who can really say.
I’m sure he’s a learned scholar who has done important research. But I can’t help but be reminded of Albert Einstein. For all his hugely important work in physics, he insisted that quantum physics just wasn’t possible. But he couldn’t prove it – unlike the pioneering work done in that field by (I believe) physicists like Niels Bohr, his criticism didn’t pass peer review, and a whole new field of science was established. I haven’t read any Einstein biographies so I don’t know for sure, but it sounds like he objected because it just didn’t fit with his personal beliefs.
BTW, I didn’t read the wikipedia entry, that was someone else. And your entry is the first and only encounter I’ve had with the story of Mr. Behe. I’m a business analyst, not a biologist, but I remember what I learned in high school and college, plus the occasional book and magazine article read since then. If intelligent design can fairly pass peer review and enter the scientific curiculum the same way everything else has, then it’s science. Until then, I maintain that it’s religion or philosophy and can be taught as such.
….as attempting to give due credence to my points. I still see the politics of it all both in the shutting out of the Behes of the world and the reflexive lack of criticism and re-review of the theory of Natural Selection. I see the usefulness of the scientific community embracing this promising theory of origins (IC). It is worthy of further analysis.
Can you, who seems to be a man (woman? well, probably not with a handle like “Padre”) accept the possibility that God (or the creator, or gods, or whatever) began the creation of the world millions or billions of years ago and used set into motion evolution as the means?
The sentence that reads:
“Can you, who seems to be a man (woman? well, probably not with a handle like “Padre”) accept the possibility that God…”
should read as:
“Can you, who seems to be a man (woman? well, probably not with a handle like “Padre”) OF FAITH accept the possibility that God…”
No offense intended.
Rowland – Separation of church & state “is not in the constitution. We should have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.”
Lamborn – had gone outside to get fresh air when results from the roughly 19,000 absentee ballots were announced. Asked why he had left to take a walk, Lamborn said simply, “I had to say a prayer and ask that God’s will be done.” “I was saying a prayer, and I guess it was answered”
Kopp – “it’s God’s will that I’m a Senator”
Then there’s Musgrave
What works in CO probably works in FL too.
this have to do with Colorado politics?
I thought this was supposed to be a blog on Colorado, not just find dirt, anywhere in the country, on Republicans.
What a joke this blog has become.
You are probably disappointed that BWB is not getting the national attention that he, like Katharine Harris, deserves, but cheer up gecko I’m sure BWB or his running mate, or a member of his staff will say something, while not equally as ignorant as to Harris, stupid soon. If were lucky, maybe he will say that he is doing away with publicly funded higher education as to give you a doubly good reason to post.
Come on Gecko, lighten up…It is fun to poke fun at the radicals of both parties when they say something that is wacko. I personally had a good laugh at Kucinich when, during the runup to the Dem primaries on Hardball, he said that he would put a transvestite on the supreme court to promote diversity. I don’t know if it was blogged on here, but if not it should have been.
So I was reading the Constitution today. I was trying to find that whole separation of Church and State thing that my lefty friends keep telling me about. It’s not there. I’m hoping that the enlightened “progressives” (that name is a joke) can help me out.
You are right the whole seperation of church in state is not within the constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of baptists. If I may quote the man:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
And if you allow me, James Madison:
“Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States…practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”
also in a letter to a group of baptists.
And finally the establishment clause of within the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Hope this helps!
Mr. T. And if I may add one more observation. The reason these missives were directed to Baptists is that the time they were the outsider, upstart denomination, with Methodists (I think) the dominant in Virginia. Funny how the Baptists were receptive to hearing all about separation of church and state then, but now that they predominate in half the country they find it un-American.
I think it is hilarious that the baptists, once the bane of the community advocating for the seperation, now are totally against it. I had totally forgotten about James Madison. Thanks Wikipedia, you are always there when I need you.
Madison and Jefferson both knew that the separation of Church and State was ultimately set to protect religion from governmental interference. To keep the two separate will allow all free men to practice their sacred beliefs without any incroachment from the tyrannical majority, or from the minority.
To infringe upong that doctrine will lead to far worse consequences for religion, such as the exploitation of it’s values. Leaders will begin begging for money to show “their” influence upon the meak, rather than seeking the forgiveness of sins.
For those of you that do understand the real boundary of separation, please look to see what happens when you bring together greed and religion, you produce religious legislators like Frist, DeLay, and Bush who care not for religion, but use its sway over the poor for more money.
The reaction is even stranger than her comments. Daniel Larison Nailed Harris