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

Katherin Harris did not suggest that somebody was mentally unstable or should be barred from public office if they were not Christian or that anybody should be unable to compete. I didn't take her remarks to be any different than a politician saying we need to elect Democrats to public office or pro-choicers to public office or free traders to public office or strict constitutionalists to public office.

There's a world of difference between saying you will work like the dickens to elect somebody or even beat somebody at the polls and in an inference that the person is unfit because of their personal views.

One is a mater of ideological preference. The other is a corruption of the Constitutional intent that there be no religious test for qualifications for public office. When we get to the point that ones personal views on anything are requisite to qualifications for any elected government office, we are doomed as a Democratic Republic.

I can see the difference. Can't you?

0 Replies

I read the link, mesquite, and I think you are not understanding what you are calling a religious litmus test. Harris is simply saying that religious people should vote and try to elect moral people. Whats wrong with that? If it is a personal litmus test for voters she is suggesting, that is no different than anyone using a personal litmus test of voting for people that agree with them for all kinds of reasons that might and probably does include personal religious beliefs. Mesquite, it is you that is suggesting that people cannot be allowed to vote their conscience by calling it a religious litmus test. Nowhere in the comments of Harris did I read that she wanted to limit anyone from voting on anything for any reason. She is simply encouraging people with religious belief to vote for moral politicians, thats all that I read into it. I would hope that you would agree she has a right to her own religious belief and that she would not be disqualified from running for office because of it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Katherin Harris did not suggest that somebody was mentally unstable or should be barred from public office if they were not Christian or that anybody should be unable to compete. I didn't take her remarks to be any different than a politician saying we need to elect Democrats to public office or pro-choicers to public office or free traders to public office or strict constitutionalists to public office.

Likewise nobody suggested that she was mentally unstable or should be barred from public office because she was a Christian. Katherin Harris did say however, " 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.[/color]"

Foxfyre wrote:

There's a world of difference between saying you will work like the dickens to elect somebody or even beat somebody at the polls and in an inference that the person is unfit because of their personal views.

It is her political view that only Christians are fit to be elected that makes her unfit to serve in a public office that is under oath to defend the Constitution of the United States IMO.

Quote:

="Foxfyre]One is a mater of ideological preference. The other is a corruption of the Constitutional intent that there be no religious test for qualifications for public office. When we get to the point that ones personal views on anything are requisite to qualifications for any elected government office, we are doomed as a Democratic Republic.

I can see the difference. Can't you?

Yes, I can see the difference, and declaring "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.[/color]" is quite clearly a religious test.

0 Replies

Nonsense. Democrats and liberals have opinions on who they think is fit. Republicans and conservatives have opinions on who they think is fit. Unaffiliated voters, independent voters have opinions on who they think is fit. Its called "FREEDOM OF THOUGHT" and personal opinion, for crying out loud.

Mesquite, you can disagree with me, that is your right, and you can disagree with Harris, that is your right, but if you dare to try to disqualify me or her based on our religious beliefs, you are obviously diametricly opposed to what the constitution says. What you are suggesting here is totally, totally reckless, dangerous, and without constitutional support. I don't even agree with all of Katherine Harris's religious beliefs, but I will defend her right to believe it and be just as qualified to run for office as anyone.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I read the link, mesquite, and I think you are not understanding what you are calling a religious litmus test. Harris is simply saying that religious people should vote and try to elect moral people. Whats wrong with that? If it is a personal litmus test for voters she is suggesting, that is no different than anyone using a personal litmus test of voting for people that agree with them for all kinds of reasons that might and probably does include personal religious beliefs. Mesquite, it is you that is suggesting that people cannot be allowed to vote their conscience by calling it a religious litmus test. Nowhere in the comments of Harris did I read that she wanted to limit anyone from voting on anything for any reason. She is simply encouraging people with religious belief to vote for moral politicians, thats all that I read into it. I would hope that you would agree she has a right to her own religious belief and that she would not be disqualified from running for office because of it?

Okie, did you read the same interview thayt I did? I only found the word "moral used one time in that interview and that was in a question posed to her, "is abortion a moral evil?". She however was very specific in expressing that 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.[/color], as if to say that all non Christians are pro abortion and pro gay marriage.

0 Replies

Mesquite, making generalizations is common, which Harris obviously did, and it may not be totally correct. I agree that there is corruption in religious people and there is morality in non-religious people, however I don't think it is unreasonable to contend that moral standards originate from religious beliefs, and that is the goal, although it is not always attained to perfection. I think that is her contention that without religious beliefs, there will be more dumbing down of moral standards in the laws. I think I agree with that.

Non-religious people that have moral standards may not even realize the source of their moral standards, and may not want to admit their religious origins, even though that is where they came from.

0 Replies

Quote:

Mesquite, you can disagree with me, that is your right, and you can disagree with Harris, that is your right, but if you dare to try to disqualify me or her based on our religious beliefs,

Well, that's the nub of the problem, isn't it? No one ought to be disqualified from office on the basis of religious belief or lack of religious belief. That clearly is unconstitutional.

Harris' religious beliefs are irrelevant. EXCEPT for the singular element she voiced regarding non-christians holding office. That's not a problem with christianity, because a Hindu be equally guilty if stating that non-Hindus shouldn't hold office. That's a problem of exclusion of others who don't hold the same version of her faith.

We don't wish to disallow Harris to run for office. What we are doing is pointing out how her exclusionary stance with it's christians only idea sits undeniably in conflict with the constitution. That's the bad thing. So we argue against her gaining office on the basis precisely of that anti-constitutional position.

0 Replies

Come on blatham, Harris is not disqualifying anyone from office. She is merely encouraging people to vote for who she thinks are the best people, the people she thinks are best qualified. That is clearly just her opinion. Surely you have opinions about some people being qualified and others are not. We are not talking about barring people from holding office, but simply who she recommends voting for. Won't you even allow for people to have different opinions from yours, blatham? What is this, a dictatorship now, where you, blatham, and Mesquite, and others can disqualify who runs for office based on their religious beliefs?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't think it is unreasonable to contend that moral standards originate from religious beliefs, and that is the goal, although it is not always attained to perfection. I think that is her contention that without religious beliefs, there will be more dumbing down of moral standards in the laws. I think I agree with that.

Non-religious people that have moral standards may not even realize the source of their moral standards, and may not want to admit their religious origins, even though that is where they came from.

This is a subject for another thread, but I gave my views on it here.

0 Replies

And as the thread title suggests, "Free speech for me, but not for thee." I don't see any conservatives condoning that here.

0 Replies

blatham wrote

Quote:

We don't wish to disallow Harris to run for office. What we are doing is pointing out how her exclusionary stance with it's christians only idea sits undeniably in conflict with the constitution. That's the bad thing. So we argue against her gaining office on the basis precisely of that anti-constitutional position.

Okie responded with

Quote:

What is this, a dictatorship now, where you, blatham, and Mesquite, and others can disqualify who runs for office based on their religious beliefs?

There seems to be a problem with comprehension.

0 Replies

What is your point Fox? You are not suggesting that what a candidate says should not be utilized by the electorate in assessing their suitability for office are you?

0 Replies

This is how speech/ideas are viewed by blinkered Republicans.

http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

0 Replies

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

What is your point Fox? You are not suggesting that what a candidate says should not be utilized by the electorate in assessing their suitability for office are you?

I'm not saying that at all and the merry go round here is making me dizzy. I am saying that a personally held belief should not be any kind of qualification for public office and, when it is a commonly held belief, should not be a yardstick for a person's mental stability.

Nevertheless, I have exaggerated what Blatham has said, and while it isn't a justification, the reason is that he refuses to seriously address any pertinent points other than those he wishes to believe.

So I will apologize for putting words in his mouth and will say that he, and you, are guilty of what you accuse Katherine Harris.

You wouldn't hesitate, I think, to say that a vote for a pro life candidate is a vote for women to be denied their rights? Would you concede that point?

So how is Katherine Harris different in saying that a vote for a non-Christian is a vote for sin?

Both statements are equally absurd when presented as a provable truth. Both are equally constitutionally acceptable as an expression of a personally held belief or conviction.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:
What is your point Fox? You are not suggesting that what a candidate says should not be utilized by the electorate in assessing their suitability for office are you?

I have no problem with you saying you wouldn't vote for Harris because a) she's a right wing nutcase b) she's a religious fanatic c) she believe in little green men from Mars or whatever dumb thing you come up with that you think she is or believes or does.

Going by her words record and actions she definitely a right wing nut case over on the fringe that has no respect for separation of church and state and one that would be very comfortable in a theocracy of like minded individuals.

Foxfyre wrote:

I would respect your using actual issues; i.e. she's pro life (if she is--I don't have a clue on that) and the other candidate is pro choice. You're pro choice so you favor the pro choice candidate.

On the previous page I provided a quote from her (in red) that would have cleared up that unknown for you.

mesquite wrote:

Okie, did you read the same interview thayt I did? I only found the word "moral used one time in that interview and that was in a question posed to her, "is abortion a moral evil?". She however was very specific in expressing that 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.[/color], as if to say that all non Christians are pro abortion and pro gay marriage.

Foxfyre wrote:

Go down the list of real issues and pick your candidate based on what that candidate supports or does not support. And I don't have a huge problem with voting for the candidate of the party you believe is strongest on the issues regardless of what the candidate supports personally. Sometimes we have to vote for the party that we believe will do the best or most responsible job.

A few years ago I would have disagreed vehemently with you on that issue, but the current one party domination is IMO a threat to our democracy. Power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few in leadership positions. Even republicans that do not exclusively tow the party line are threatened with loss of committee positions or reelection support.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do have a huge problem with the politics of personal destruction that declares a person mentally unbalanced and unfit for public service because he or she holds a particular, very common religious belief. I have a problem with any of you who even suggest that a person should be barred from public service based on any personally held belief.

No one that I am aware of has suggested on this thread barring her from public service, but when that personally held belief is that if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. [/color], then such an expression becomes fair game for political discourse.

Foxfyre wrote:

If that ever catches on and becomes policy, our Constitution will be dead and this will no longer be a democratic republic. Blatham says my views are dangerous. I think anybody who even hints at a policy of mind or thought control to be unacceptably dangerous.

Mind or thought control?? Get real. It is Harris herself that is advocating a Christians only club. Deny it all you want, but that was clearly her message. As for the rest of your tirade against blatham, I will defer to him to respond to your gross distortion of his position.

0 Replies

Mesquite, can you comprehend something very simple? Harris has a litmus test on how she votes and how she thinks other people should vote. You have your litmus test on how you vote and how you think other people should vote. Harris is not advocating laws to force people to vote her way. She is not suggesting you can't vote. You are the one doing that. Amazing how this fits the title of this thread, which calls attention to the hypocrisy of the ACLU, the very ones that claim to be for civil liberties are the very same ones seeking to limit it.

0 Replies

It is apparent that Mesquite can excoriate Harris for having a point of view( the voters, of course, can reject her based on that point of view, while the Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who issued a ruling( soon to be overturned by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals) declaring President Bush's national security eavesdropping unconsitutional, IS LISTED AS THE SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN WHICH GAVE $125,000 TO THE ACLU WHO IS, INCREDIBLY,
ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE NSA SUIT.

Mesquite objects to Harris's stated position. Mesquite is apparently unaware that under the right of freedom of speech, anyone, even a person running for office, may elict political positions.

Mesquite would, I am sure, allow the Judge who IS IN OBVIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CANONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST to continue while excoriating Harris who has a right to state her opinion!

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
mesquite wrote:
What is your point Fox? You are not suggesting that what a candidate says should not be utilized by the electorate in assessing their suitability for office are you?

I have no problem with you saying you wouldn't vote for Harris because a) she's a right wing nutcase b) she's a religious fanatic c) she believe in little green men from Mars or whatever dumb thing you come up with that you think she is or believes or does.

Going by her words record and actions she definitely a right wing nut case over on the fringe that has no respect for separation of church and state and one that would be very comfortable in a theocracy of like minded individuals.

Foxfyre wrote:
I would respect your using actual issues; i.e. she's pro life (if she is--I don't have a clue on that) and the other candidate is pro choice. You're pro choice so you favor the pro choice candidate.

On the previous page I provided a quote from her (in red) that would have cleared up that unknown for you.

mesquite wrote:
Okie, did you read the same interview thayt I did? I only found the word "moral used one time in that interview and that was in a question posed to her, "is abortion a moral evil?". She however was very specific in expressing that 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.[/color], as if to say that all non Christians are pro abortion and pro gay marriage.

Foxfyre wrote:
Go down the list of real issues and pick your candidate based on what that candidate supports or does not support. And I don't have a huge problem with voting for the candidate of the party you believe is strongest on the issues regardless of what the candidate supports personally. Sometimes we have to vote for the party that we believe will do the best or most responsible job.

A few years ago I would have disagreed vehemently with you on that issue, but the current one party domination is IMO a threat to our democracy. Power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few in leadership positions. Even republicans that do not exclusively tow the party line are threatened with loss of committee positions or reelection support.

Foxfyre wrote:
I do have a huge problem with the politics of personal destruction that declares a person mentally unbalanced and unfit for public service because he or she holds a particular, very common religious belief. I have a problem with any of you who even suggest that a person should be barred from public service based on any personally held belief.

No one that I am aware of has suggested on this thread barring her from public service, but when that personally held belief is that if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. [/color], then such an expression becomes fair game for political discourse.

Foxfyre wrote:
If that ever catches on and becomes policy, our Constitution will be dead and this will no longer be a democratic republic. Blatham says my views are dangerous. I think anybody who even hints at a policy of mind or thought control to be unacceptably dangerous.

Mind or thought control?? Get real. It is Harris herself that is advocating a Christians only club. Deny it all you want, but that was clearly her message. As for the rest of your tirade against blatham, I will defer to him to respond to your gross distortion of his position.

You picked up a post that I deleted after thinking about it for awhile and decided not to rehash all the same stuff again. But again if you would advocate a pro choice only club what would be wrong with Harris advocating a Christian only club. (Not that I interpreted her remarks to be that in any way.)

0 Replies

Okie, you are in denial. For the umpteenth time, Katherine Harris in her interview said "if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin.[/b]. That was a very simple if - then statement. The only criteria was electing Christians, and to do otherwise was legislating sin. The words were clear and concise as was the context. Was what she said evil? No. Was it stupid? Without question. That coupled with her other comments such as:

"God is the one who chooses our rulers"

"And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren't involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's certainly isn't what God intended."

if she were sincere not only shows a lack of knowledge of our constitution but a serious deficiency in critical thinking ability and logical thought processes.

Okie, I have never forwarded the proposition that you cannot vote for her. I have merely given my opinion as to why it would be unwise.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know