In 1960, then-candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, and delivered one of the important speeches in American history on the role of religion in government. Kennedy, seeking to become the nation's first Roman Catholic president, eloquently explained the value of First Amendment principles.
It seems foolish a half-century later, but there were widespread fears at the time that JFK would somehow be subservient to the pope. It led Kennedy to proclaim, "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."
He went on to note that he was the target of "the finger of suspicion" at the time, but "tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril."
The remarks helped set a welcome, enduring standard for religion, government, and politics that responsible figures in both parties could gladly embrace.
Associated Press
The man who wants to become the second Roman Catholic president brings a very different perspective to the table.
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960 made him want to "throw up."
"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?" Santorum said.
In the same ABC interview, Santorum added, "[A]t least according to John Kennedy," people of faith "have no role in the public square.... Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, 'Faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.' Go on and read the speech. 'I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith.' It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960."
It's hard to overstate how deeply ridiculous Santorum's argument is. Put it this way: the former senator understands church-state separation and JFK's 1960 speech about as well as he understands the Dutch health care system.
Santorum urged viewers yesterday to "read the speech." That's an excellent idea. Any fair read of the 1960 speech will make clear that the Republican candidate simply has no idea what he's talking about.
Kennedy never said "people of faith have no role in the public square"; he simply called on government neutrality towards matters of faith. If Santorum can find anything in the speech to suggest JFK wanted "only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case," he should do so. If he can't, Santorum should apologize for his ignorance.
Just as a matter of electoral common sense, if a presidential candidate argued publicly in 1960 that religious people should "have no role in the public square," how is it, exactly, that Kennedy won the election two months later? Why was this speech celebrated as a landmark oration on a fundamental American principle?
What Santorum struggles to understand is that religion doesn't need government's help. America's public square already has religion in it -- turn on television or the radio and Americans can find religious programming; go to a library or book store and Americans can find religious publications; attend a sporting event and Americans can find athletes praying and celebrating their faith; pay attention to politics and Americans can find politicians from both parties speaking from pulpits, hosting prayer breakfasts, and reminding voters about their religious beliefs.
If Rick Santorum believes religious has been pushed from the public sphere, he needs to get out more.
The larger point to remember, though, is that religion in American public life is already able to thrive, not despite the separation of church and state, but because of the constitutional principle.
Whereas so many countries have official state churches, the United States, the first democracy to separate government and religion, has an open marketplace of ideas. Religious choices are left up to individuals and their personal beliefs, and the result is a vibrant, diverse culture where people are free to worship, or not, as they please.
This, apparently, makes Santorum nauseous. The challenge for the Republican presidential candidate is to offer an alternative model for voters to consider. He's offended by the Madison/Jefferson model, defended by Kennedy? Fine. What would Santorum prefer?
There are some countries that intermix God and government -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.
Leave a Comment:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -
Until a few years ago, Sweden also had a state church, but very few attended services.
I love this Guy!!!...He is Vetting himself....what an idiot!!!...He makes Romney look sane...Santorum Is "Poll Drunk"...He is running for Pope, not POTUS....keep it up Ricky!!!.....Reminds me when herman cain was leading in the Polls....hahahaha...."Poll Drunk Stupid"
Now when you google Santorum, it brings up vomit too, good one rick!
Santorum's America
'Shame' will never be a strong enough word for you, Mr. santorum.
This is perhaps the most disturbing and anti-American statement made yet by Rick Santorum in his long and sorry career as a partisan extremist. The possible Republican presidential nominee is disparaging the very core of American democracy and the foundation of our country. He is saying that the ideals of our founders -Jefferson, Franklin, Washingto - "make him throw up." This immediately disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate. He ought to leave the country if he hates what it stands for so much. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
I'm with you...this knocked the wind out of me....I hope that everyone, Repub and Dem, are as disgusted as I am!!!
The sad thing is that his poll numbers will probably bump a point or two because of it. If there's one thing the Christian right loves it's to play the victim and Santorum is allowing them to do it in spades.
Now lets see ... hmmm ... if I replaced "Catholic" with "Muslim" and "role in the public square" with "guidance provided by Sharia Law" he would be cool with that, too, right?
These people. They make me nauseous.
Excellent Point!!!....One in the Same!!!
"...that responsible figures in both parties could gladly embrace."
Therein is the pertinent point, the GOP are no longer "responsible", nor are they reasonable, sane, or thoughtful!! Today's GOP are so busy parroting the words of "faith" - that they haven't taken the time to understand how those words should really work in themselves and their lives!!
These people are insane and dangerous because they would have Americans living under a theocracy ever bit as backward and delusional as the Taliban!! Burka anyone?
I don't think any of us needed coffee this morning....I'm am stunned awake!!
Does it make anyone else uncomfortable that a person seeking the highest elected office in this country does not understand [at least] one part of the Bill of Rights?
I'm not uncomfortable with him seeking the office. I'm uncomfortable that he's gotten so close to attaining it.
The only remarkable thing about Santorum is that he's bold enough to come right out and say what the others hint at. Of course, he's marvelously self-contradictory in that here he is saying things that (according to him) have been banned from the public square. Oh, wait ...
And, yes, he's a fool. Because there's a very good reason why the theocrats don't dare openly state that they want theocracy: as soon as they do, they open the question of "whose Church?"
Some of them (e.g. Santorum) are so deep in their privilege that the question never occurs to them, others are cynically deferring the day when they settle with the heretics. I seriously doubt that any of them realize that they're trying to introduce American Sharia.
/me smacks forehead: "settle with the heretics" should have linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJfy2x2T5E
That was funny!
It's a classic -- he's even written about how he's a comedian, not a political commentator or sociologist.
Santorum is a religious nincompoop!
derivation of the word "nincompoop":
nin........as in "non"....meaning "without; not having"
com/comp.....as in "comprehension"
poop......as in , well...self explanatory
Santorum is a poopyhead who has no comprehension ability
Go, Ricky!
The more he talks, the better off we all are, as nauseating as he is...
Yeah, if ya didn't know ricky....hahhahaha...ya do now!!! Priceless!!
>> the United States, the first democracy to separate government and religion, has an open marketplace of ideas. <strong>Religious choices are left up to individuals</strong> and their personal beliefs, and the result is a vibrant, diverse culture where people are free to worship, or not, as they please.
And that there is the problem. Sen. Santorum doesn't like all the religious error he see. <em>He</em> should be allowed to say what's right and have everyone follow along. After all, matters of faith are just too important to leave to ordinary people!
It is a sad day when men and women - who otherwise might actually be decent, dedicated, compassionate public servants - stoop to such nonsensical posturing to gather support in their search for power.
Evidently the simple desire for power, with no actualization required, is sufficient to corrupt and befuddle beyond hope.
The others are posturing, but it's pretty clear that Santorum really means it.
Yep, Yep...
Pope Santorum! ...with apologies to the Catholic Church and its sane members.
"Just as a matter of electoral common sense, if a presidential candidate argued publicly in 1960 that religious people should 'have no role in the public square,' how is it, exactly, that Kennedy won the election two months later?" ACORN, of course!
ACORN wasn't even founded until 1970...7 years after JFK died.
You may be entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to just make up stuff and pass it off as fact.
I was kidding, rmeller.
hahahaha...rmeller is pissed off...see what you did Ricky!!!
@MikiMiki,
Just a note, you can't confuse the trolls that visit - it's just way too easy.......Besides, why let FACTS get in the way of their delusions......
What makes him nauseous? He's a hypocrite. He agrees with the Pope on contraceptive; he disagrees with the Pope on pre-emptive war. To be a good Catholic you must follow blindly the "Holy" Father. Ron Paul is the ONLY sane choice for president. Why? He's is a believer in Jesus Christ, but he will not use the government to FORCE his beliefs upon another, which is proper New Testament doctrine. Slick Rick doesn't understand that truth. Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul is also homophobic and would ban marriage equality.
Considering the primary definition of nauseous is "causing nausea or disgust," I applaud the accuracy of the headline. Rick Santorum often makes me want to vomit.
Santorum also doesn't like the idea of everyone going to college. He wants to keep us stupid and uninformed or misinformed, which to me smacks of the ideals of, I don't know.... SATAN???
"...should apologize for his ignorance..."
Why on Earth would he do that??? It's the cornerstone of his campaign and worldview.
Too bad these comments came out before the Michigan primary - I fear it will hurt him significantly. I wanted to see a Santorum win in Michigan that would badly damage Romney and roil the GOP completely. Alas, Ricky stumbles giving Romney a clearer path.
I know what makes Rick Santorum nauseous, Mitt Ronmey with his lies.
Mitt Romney makes Rick Santorum nauseous with his lies. I can not see a man like Romney as President.
Santorum is a 'victim', pure and simple. Every single thing that he spews shows him to live up belief in his 'victimology'. He is the worse person running for President as he doesn't care about the 'country', his party or any OTHER religion. The spin that he talks '90% about things the country cares about' and only 10% about religion doesn't hold up. This attack on JFK's speech shows every single issue is informed by his belief as a Catholic.
Just how old was santorum when this speech was made? Will he say anything to get attention? One fact is obvious: the man needs therapy. We will probably need it too with all the bull being tossed by the gop candidates and representatives. They are leading us down a sick, dark path with no emerald city at the end.
I believe this speech was made last year so... a year younger than he his now.
I meant kennedys
I just looked up his bio and he was born in 1958, so he was two years old when this speech was given!!!. Enough said!!
Seriously, is this guy for real? While he's pandering to the rightwing extremists, doesn't he realize he loses all the sane middle of the road republicans and independents? Didn't anybody clue him in at this point? This guy is either insane or stupid or both. I vote for both.
Santorum is not just woefully ignorant, he is willfully ignorant.
I am a values voter.
Rick Santorum does not share my values (and the same goes for the rest of the GOP).
While it has come to mean "nauseated", the word "nauseous" originally meant CAUSING nausea. That makes the headline a bit more open-ended and humorous. =)
Oh, and by the way, if you ask conservatives to "read the speech," there's one line they'll settle on, regardless of context or truth:
"I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty."
And poof, there's the red herring and the argument is away again.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Address-of-Senator-John-F-Kennedy-to-the-Greater-Houston-Ministerial-Association.aspx
St.Torum and his people of great "faith' seem to have none. Why else are they so afraid of any idea different from their narrow viewpoint? Those of us with an actual life would never waste time trying to harm these pathetic little cowards.