On September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy’s Catholic faith had raised enough doubt about his candidacy for the presidency that he felt it necessary to address the controversy head-on. He went to Houston, Texas and gave a speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, which was a Protestant organization. After reminding his audience that the country faced many much more important issues, Kennedy explained his vision for religion in America. Here’s an extended excerpt:
…because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe…
Somebody gave this speech to Rick Santorum. He read it. It made him nauseous. Here is what he said about the bolded part:
Santorum, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, was asked to respond to a video clip of him criticizing President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on separation of church and state.
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.
“The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square,” he continued.
What Kennedy actually said was quite a bit different from Santorum’s presentation. Kennedy said that politicians shouldn’t be told how to act by the Pope or any other body of religious leaders. He said people shouldn’t be told how to vote by their religious leaders. I don’t agree with Kennedy but his suggestion doesn’t make me sick. I have no problem with religious leaders telling their leaders what to do and telling their flock how to vote. My problem is with people who listen to them unquestioningly. That’s my problem with Rick Santorum. He takes the church’s official line on everything (except dropping bombs on people) and he doesn’t exercise any independent judgement. A president Santorum would never oppose the Pope (except when he decided to drop bombs).
A representative of the people, even the president, has the responsibility to weigh the facts. If they think they are already in possession of the only facts that matter, that’s a recipe for disaster. Just think about a President Santorum trying to decide what to do during the Bay of Pigs disaster or the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Actually, there’s quite a few areas where Santorum ignores the Church’s teachings. Just about everything ever said by Jesus (and echoed by the Vatican) regarding the poor, for example.
Well, Geov, this is merely a theological dispute, clearly.
But, seriously, aside from the necessity of suffering, Santorum would probably be okay with the Catholic Church providing universal single-payer health care to their flock, provided that the government had nothing to do with it and didn’t tax anybody.
He’s a nut. But when he complains about kids growing with a dependency on the government, that’s not a concern that is transferable to his Church.
But when he complains about kids growing with a dependency on the government, that’s not a concern that is transferable to his Church.
It is a concern that dependency on the state may reduce dependency on the Church and those who run it. Church and state are in competition for the real needs of their citizens/faithful. One gives benefits as of right, another gives charity if you are deemed deserving (and obedient).
This is an argument between entitlement and dependency, and it is the Churches which champion dependency – to themselves.
I’ll defer to the Irishman.
Interestint theory, but you have to remember that the concept of a “Human right simply for existing” is relitivly new, only about 50 years since the publication of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Before this there was a concept of reciprical oblications between you and the state. In return for obediance to the law and goverment, and paying your taxes, you got protection and help from the state. There was a real sense of unity with the society, and the people higher up on the social ladder had increadable responsibilities attached to that position. Within your social class you had freedom to do as you wish. Thats a hard concept for the modern mind to get its head around.
Even americas Bill of rights assumed a kind of balance with society. Yes you have the right to fre speach, but that does not mena you can defame people and if you are deliberatly offensive the consequences are on you. Yes you have the right to Bear Arms, as part of a Well Regulated Militia, which can be called on by the goverment at any time.
But the tention between church and state was always there, and was a major factor in the spread of Protestantism as Luther placed his church under the protection of the state, meaning that the Monarchy now effectivly owned the Church and church lands. This was very popular withthe monarchs of Europe for obvious reasons.
“concept of reciprical oblications between you and the state.”
But the Republicans are trying to almost disappear the state and the reciprocal social goods it owes you and turn you into a consumer/customer/employee subject to the whims of corporations and the market. Healthcare becomes a commodity, not an expression of a very important social good. Even armies are privatised and serve the objectives of their corporate masters. Classical political theory and practice would never have tolerated such a subversion of the state. Now that corporations are people human rights have been effectively replaced by corporate rights, whereas before corporations had only those rights granted to them by the state and contract law (subject to regulation by the state).
Can’t argue with any of that. Frankly I believe that supreme court ruling will be someday be put on the same pedestal as Dred Scott vs Sandford in infamy.
I just realized that what’s so scary about the neo-GOP is not so much their rhetoric or even their beliefs, but the profound and voluntary ignorance that underlies them. Somebody like Santorum might be prevented by his handlers from fomenting faith-based disasters, but his sheer intellectual/sanity deficit would make him utterly incapable of handling new situations without bringing down the house. Same goes for the rest of the clowns on parade, including Romney. Say what you will about Obama, but whoever the Reps nominate, Obama will be the only one in the room sans deep stupidity, ignorance, or madness. What a stark reality for a country to face.
Really?!?
Really.
Now, if your religious leader tells you that there will be karmic consequences or brimstone and hellfire if you vote the wrong way, then I think you should find a new religious leader. But if your religious leader tells you that there’s an important bill in Congress to combat human trafficking or to help the needy, I have no problem. And there are conservative religious leaders that are going to have a conservative view. Kennedy was overcompensating for the strong anti-Catholicism he was facing in places like Texas. And, he won Texas. But he speech isn’t the Gospel. Ironic, no?
I do. The church pays no taxes. They have no business telling how their flock should vote. They want to play political endorsement, they can pay their fair share on all the stolen indulgence and tithe money.
I fear that you will never be an electable politician, seabe.
And how would we go about stifling the opinions of religious leaders on legislative matters?
I can imagine the issue of Darfur, for example. Could a congregation write a letter to the State Department but not contact their congressman?
They can give their opinions on legislative matters. But their church cannot endorse a candidate. So they can shout to the rooftops about abortion all they want. They can tell their congregation, “You should know how God would want you to vote…” But they cannot say, “Vote for Rick Santorum this Tuesday. Amen.”
And yeah, unlikely. The only atheist is Pete Stark.
well, that’s correct. If churches want to maintain their 501(c)(3) status, they can’t endorse a candidate. But our country is divided neatly enough on most issues that it is unnecessary to endorse a candidate explicitly.
I mean, I don’t think Rick and other Republicans/religious people truly understand that separation of church and state gives them actual religious freedom. With the fusion of the two, we’d all be paying taxes to the state (read, church), and then that church would tell you how to worship. They’re too dumb and narrow-minded to see this. They’re also too dumb to see it the other way when you have a secular government with churches that choose to get involved in endorsing candidates: they will need to pay taxes. And if they did that, a lot of those churches wouldn’t exist. Not that I care about that, but you’d think they would care about that.
Upon rereading this excellent post, by your suggestion I tried to imagine Santorum in other president’s shoes. What I saw was Monica Lewinski burned for being a witch.
Santorum seems to swim into a level of consiousnes that is incurious and then twist history and her lessons to seem reasonable…to those who only want a “Pan”.
It’s his twisted translations to his flock that I find the most frightening because he gives them a ‘this is what they really mean’ rendition that they can make sense of to allow him to Fox their minds.
Set aside that his statements lack accuracy, that his beliefs are wrong headed. What matters is that they satisfy his particular flock.