Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Would either of you two care to have a go at making rational sense of Harris's statement that "God chooses our leaders"? Let me clarify the problems here...
1) if so, what does one make of Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Clinton? Did god choose them too?
2) if so, how does one make sense of democracy and representative government? If god is doing the picking, what reason to have parties, elections, why bother voting at all?

I don't recall that Harris specified what religion a head of state must be. She certainly doesn't believe all heads of state are Christian.

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.

Which takes you back to the logic problems.

blatham wrote:

Would either of you two care to have a go at making rational sense of Harris's statement that "God chooses our leaders"? Let me clarify the problems here...
1) if so, what does one make of Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Clinton? Did god choose them too?
2) if so, how does one make sense of democracy and representative government? If god is doing the picking, what reason to have parties, elections, why bother voting at all?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2233185#2233185

Personally I think it's pretty darn irrational to assume that anybody who believes something you don't believe is unstable.

I don't know how to be any more clear than to say you cannot make a rational defense for or against a religious belief.

If you dispute that statement, then make a rational argument for why Katherine Harris is wrong in her religious belief.

If you won't let me use the large numbers who believe something as proof that believing it is not in itself instability, then I won't let you use the large numbers that would be excluded by katherin Harris's belief to prove that she is mentally unstable.

Katherine Harris was speaking to Baptists from a particular perspective. She was speaking from her religious belief. I don't agree that you have to elect Christians to avoid legislating sin, but that may be what she believes and what she thought Baptists would want to hear.

Would you have been as offended if an Atheistic candidate had told the ACLU that if they didn't elect Atheists they would be electing superstitious fanatics?

If you are going to condemn Katherine Harris for tailoring remarks for a particular audience, I sure hope you are fair in equally condemning all other politicians who tailor remarks for a particular audience.

Quote:

I don't know how to be any more clear than to say you cannot make a rational defense for or against a religious belief.

Aquinas and Augustine and Tertullian and Irenaeus and Plantinga and many many others have done precisely that. What one cannot make a rational defence of is that which is so clearly irrational as her formulation..

Quote:

If you dispute that statement, then make a rational argument for why Katherine Harris is wrong in her religious belief.

I didn't say she was WRONG IN HER RELIGIOUS BELIEF. I pointed to a particular notion she forwarded - "God chooses our leaders", and said it was logically irrational because it would also entail that god chose Stalin and Bill Clinton and whoever it will be who beats Harris herself.

Quote:

If you won't let me use the large numbers who believe something as proof that believing it is not in itself instability, then I won't let you use the large numbers that would be excluded by katherin Harris's belief to prove that she is mentally unstable.

That's now the fourth time you have spoken dishonestly on this single matter. I frankly detest this lack of integrity.

Quote:

Katherine Harris was speaking to Baptists from a particular perspective. She was speaking from her religious belief. I don't agree that you have to elect Christians to avoid legislating sin, but that may be what she believes and what she thought Baptists would want to hear.

It is irrelevant whether she believes only christians should hold office otherwise sin is being forwarded in society or whether she said so because she thought her baptist audience beleives this. In the first case, her belief sits in direct contradiction to democratic government and your constitution. If she doesn't believe it but just says it to gain votes, all the worse for her integrity and respect for the constitution.

Quote:

Would you have been as offended if an Atheistic candidate had told the ACLU that if they didn't elect Atheists they would be electing superstitious fanatics?

If an atheist candidate said he believed that only atheists were eligible for public office and that only atheist candidates did not forward evil in the world, yes, he'd be a dork worthy of disdain, in violation of democratic principles and the constitution.

Quote:

If you are going to condemn Katherine Harris for tailoring remarks for a particular audience, I sure hope you are fair in equally condemning all other politicians who tailor remarks for a particular audience.

This assumes she didn't believe what she spoke which makes her a liar. Or it assumes that it's ok to say ANYTHING to get votes, like telling a skinhead audience that Jews eat babies.

Give it up. Your defence of and attempts at justifying this person's statements are not helping your thinking processes and they sure as hell don't reflect positively on your understanding of democracy or the constitution

Foxfyre, in an effort to assist you here, and in an effort to explain the way some people think, possibly including Harris, to blatham, I will give it a stab.

Blatham, some religious folks see God's hand in virtually everything, and certainly they believe God plays a role in the world's affairs, including having the people elected that are supposed to be elected. The people elected may not be the best person, but maybe it is the person that God allows onto the people because of the attitude of the people. A good and morally upright society will usually elect like minded types of personalities. A degenerate society will elect bad people. Call it what God wants or call it what happens because of what the people want, I don't know, but anyway, some people believe it is God that helps this happen. As to why Stalin or Hitler or Clinton were chosen by God, perhaps he allowed a chain of events favorable for them because that is what the people apparently deserved, I don't know. In the Old Testament, the people wanted a king, and even though according to the Bible, God did not want them to be ruled by kings, he gave them a king.

It is my belief that the quality of government and quality of leaders are pretty much a reflection of ourselves. As to whether God does that, I don't know, but many religious people believe that many things happen because God either wants it that way or allows it that way, and that the ultimate destiny of history and mankind will occur according to God's plan on the matter. I do not think that is particularly far out or unusual. The key is that the people recognize the full legitimacy of elections and the rule of law, and I think Harris surely does. I do not know her so I can't read her mind, and I admit I have not read every word posted here. If I've missed something in the debate, please let me know.

Hey, there are athletes on sports teams that believe God wants them to win the Super Bowl or the World Series, or whatever, and made it happen. I think that is patently ridiculous myself, but I personally think God may actually be interested in world events.

But did any of them [aquinas, augustine, etc] prove their case other than arguing it?

foxfyre said

Quote:

But did any of them [aquinas, augustine, etc] prove their case other than arguing it?

Prove? "Proving" is not the province of theology. Proof for heaven? Proof for jesus as son of god? Proof for "let he who has no sin throw the first stone"? There are no proofs here which are not circular... the proof for the inerrancy of the bible can be drawn from the bible which is inerrant.

It seems you are quite unaware of the degree to which you are not available for either careful discussion nor for learning. That presents no real problem for me. Other than that it is depressing to watch and because there is already more than enough reason to be cynical regarding the rationality of homo sapiens.

But theocratic notions of the sort you have been defending present a danger to everyone else's liberty, so many of us here will keep pummeling you every time you voice them.

Goodness, "silencing" you is no goal of mine. Revealing you is it.

I think the authoritarian, judgmental, intolerant, and intractable liberal mindset to be far more dangerous to the liberties protected by our Constitution than my willingness to understand and allow such liberties or a Katherine Harris who exercises them.

It is that very principle that applies to the ACLU double standard expressed in this thread.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the authoritarian, judgmental, intolerant, and intractable liberal mindset to be far more dangerous to the liberties protected by our Constitution than my willingness to understand and allow such liberties or a Katherine Harris who exercises them.

It is that very principle that applies to the ACLU double standard expressed in this thread.

I quote part of your post, Foxfyre, which I think summarizes it, but all of what you wrote pretty well nailed it.

If I am remembering history of the Puritans sailing to Plymouth Rock, they were mixed with a few people, including sailors, that had skills or assets necessary for the trip but which did not have any religious faith to speak of compared to the Puritans. I see that situation as sort of a microcosm of the country as it formed. The Puritans and all the others learned to get along out of necessity, be tolerant, and run their affairs in a way that respected each other, and to help each other. There was give and take by all parties involved. Importantly however, the basic framework of the culture retained the religious basis for many of the institutions of how the culture interacted.

All true Okie, but lets don't forget that those Puritans came here so that THEY could enjoy religious liberty, but they had no intention of allowing faiths contrary to their own to co-exist among them. It took them some time to relax their religious prejudices and get along with all the other denominations. They had no problem with government enforcing religion so long as that religion was theirs.

Meanwhile those brilliant and thoughtful men who forged the document that became our Constitution engaged in serious debate about what should be included in it, and that debate included many concerns related to religion. Ultimately they determined that the Federal government would have no say of any kind in what any person did or did not believe, there would be no religious test for elected or appointed office, and there would be no reward nor punishment nor any other consequence for any person or group based on their religious beliefs.

That very same document included the Puritans with all their religious prejudices as well as those of different Christian beliefs, both the tolerant and intolerant, non-Christian faiths, and those of no faith at all.

Now we again have some who would turn all that on its ear and exclude somebody from public service based on what he or she believed as an article of personal faith.

To me that seems like a 200-year step backwards.

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.