[QUOTE=John Mace]
There’s nothing unconstitutional about her holding those views. It would, however, be unconstitutional to disqualify her for her holding those views. Religious tests work both ways, in case you didn’t know.
[/QUOTE]
It would be unconstitutional for the law to disqualify her. The voters can apply any kind of religious/antireligious test they want.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But even that has no place in the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Since the SCOTUS says it does, it does. Sorry, they get the final say, and there decision is by definition right.
Of course. But I was responding to this (emphasis added):
That would violate the constitution. Unless, of course, the SCOTUS’s majority opinion said it didn’t. 
[QUOTE=Frylock]
It only makes a difference because the OP was worded to refer to Harris’s actual beliefs. Of course, either way, she shouldn’t be voted into office IMO.
It’s just that I’d like to know whether it’s really true that there are religious crazies in office, or just pretend religious crazies in office. That makes a difference. Real religious crazies I can trust to actually act on crazy religious beliefs–a terrible prospect. Pretend crazies I can trust to packpedal when religious beilefs get in the way of their own political gain–an equally terrible, but still different, prospect.
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
I have to take her at her word, particularly if she’s someone who wants to represent the people and feels her interpretation of the world is the best way to do that. I also think she’s pandering, but then, I think most everyone who “preaches it” is, too.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Since the SCOTUS says it does, it does. Sorry, they get the final say, and there decision is by definition right.
[/QUOTE]
When has SCOTUS said “we don’t have a complete separation of Church and state in this country”?
I don’t know what’s worse: religious freaks who are in fact cynically manipulating the electorate to gain power, or religious freaks who think they are in fact on a mission from God.
When one speaks of his holiness, make him pay cash.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
When has SCOTUS said “we don’t have a complete separation of Church and state in this country”?
[/QUOTE]
When they allowed ceremonial deism to exist. Note that I said I was using the term “Church” to mean a general belief in a supreme being, not to mean any particular denomination. The “Lemon test” allows cracks in the so-called wall of separation:
Note that it prohibits “excessive entanglement”, not “any entanglement”.
[QUOTE=Master Wang-Ka]
I don’t know what’s worse: religious freaks who are in fact cynically manipulating the electorate to gain power, or religious freaks who think they are in fact on a mission from God.
[/QUOTE]
I’d rather be dealing with cynical manipulators – they’ll take things toward the edge of the abyss but stop before they get damaged. The true believers will take things right over.
Actually, the Lemon test would probably result in pretty strict SOCAS if it were applied consistently; the three prongs are AND statements, not OR, so even if a law had a secular purpose, it would still fail the test if it had the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; so, if the government concluded that Rastafarians or Methodists or Secular Humanists made better citizens (committed fewer crimes, didn’t cheat on their taxes, higher rates of volunteering for civic organizations and charities), a law giving members of that religious group a tax break still wouldn’t fly, even if it were sincerely intended to reduce crime, combat tax evasion, and foster civic volunteerism.
“Ceremonial deism” really has nothing to do with the Lemon; c.d. is basically just the courts saying “Aw, fuck it!” and grandfathering in certain non-denominational ceremonial monotheistic references, on the grounds that they’ve been going on for a long time, nobody’s been burned at the stake yet, and if the Supremes ever struck down “In God We Trust” or “God” in the Pledge, then they might get burned at the stake (politically speaking).
“Ceremonial deism” certainly wouldn’t permit, say, laws endorsing Christianity, laws against “incorrect” religious beliefs, or laws banning anyone who refuses to proclaim belief in a “Supreme Being” or “Higher Power” from holding public office–which is what Katherine Harris’ statements would seem to logically entail.
That dose it. Kate and her tits have convinced me to move to Florida so I can vote for her. After the election I look forward to her rewarding those who vote for her wit not jobs, because that would rrequire her to win and there are likely to be fewer than a dozen of us, but with boob jobs.
I have dibs on being first.
Ms. Harris is embittered by the way she was used and cast aside by the Republican Party. In a drunken rage, she calls Larry King and starts spilling the beans about Florida 2000. After about ten minutes, the line goes dead…
Coroner rules it suicide, cremated and buried at sea in 24 hours.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I agree with every other quote from her in the article, though.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry to hear that, I will pray for you.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
I think Katherine Harris needs to sit down and shut up.
[/quote]
Really? I’m for giving her a bigger megaphone, to better demonstrate to the world at large the deep-seated insanity that is today’s Republican Party.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Actually, the Lemon test would probably result in pretty strict SOCAS if it were applied consistently; the three prongs are AND statements, not OR, so even if a law had a secular purpose, it would still fail the test if it had the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; so, if the government concluded that Rastafarians or Methodists or Secular Humanists made better citizens (committed fewer crimes, didn’t cheat on their taxes, higher rates of volunteering for civic organizations and charities), a law giving members of that religious group a tax break still wouldn’t fly, even if it were sincerely intended to reduce crime, combat tax evasion, and foster civic volunteerism.
“Ceremonial deism” really has nothing to do with the Lemon; c.d. is basically just the courts saying “Aw, fuck it!” and grandfathering in certain non-denominational ceremonial monotheistic references, on the grounds that they’ve been going on for a long time, nobody’s been burned at the stake yet, and if the Supremes ever struck down “In God We Trust” or “God” in the Pledge, then they might get burned at the stake (politically speaking).
“Ceremonial deism” certainly wouldn’t permit, say, laws endorsing Christianity, laws against “incorrect” religious beliefs, or laws banning anyone who refuses to proclaim belief in a “Supreme Being” or “Higher Power” from holding public office–which is what Katherine Harris’ statements would seem to logically entail.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s not really different from what I said, other than that I disagree about c.d. and the Lemon test. Both are ways of grandfathering in the stuff that they don’t want to deal with. If we had a strict separation, we wouldn’t have any test at all. Or if we needed a test, it would have 1 prong, not 3.
[QUOTE=rjung]
Really? I’m for giving her a bigger megaphone, to better demonstrate to the world at large the deep-seated insanity that is today’s Republican Party.
[/QUOTE]
I’m a Republican.
I’m not voting for her in the primary.
Watch out how you swing that wide brush.
There is help available, we operate a number of outreach locations, to gently guide you from the path of political error.
[QUOTE=ivylass]
I’m a Republican.
I’m not voting for her in the primary.
[/QUOTE]
If she gets your party’s nomination, will you vote for her in the general election?
I doubt she will, since so many Republicans are against her, but if she wins, I’ll likely vote for Belinda Noah.
[QUOTE=ivylass]
I doubt she will, since so many Republicans are against her, but if she wins, I’ll likely vote for Belinda Noah.
[/QUOTE]
Who?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I agree with every other quote from her in the article, though.
[/QUOTE]
Even this one? “God is the one who chooses our rulers.”
Guess there’s no need to vote, or even be informed about the issues, then, huh? God will provide.
Oh, wait, she said “rulers” - apparently this notion I’ve always had, that our elected officials are our employees, has been a serious error on my part. The President is our ruler. We can simply dispense with that Constitution stuff whenever it conflicts with our simply carrying out God’s will by obeying His chosen ruler for us, then. Of course, there is *never * any serious misunderstanding about what God’s will is or who He has chosen to *be * our ruler, fortunately for all of us. Whatever bad shit The Ruler makes happen isn’t our employee fucking up and/or being insubordinate, it’s actually God’s will.
Gee, do ya think Harris had that view during the Clinton adminstration? Did you?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Who?
[/QUOTE]
Does it matter as long as Nelson is reelected, as the polls currently predict?