Dark Christianity
dark_christian
.::: .::..:.::.:.

May 2008
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Krazy Kate kan't read

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]lullabypit)

Katherine Harris Calls Church-State Separation 'A Lie'

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:

From:
( )Anonymous- this user has disabled anonymous posting.
( )OpenID
Username:
Password:
Don't have an account? Create one now.
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message: