On the eve before the Michigan primary, with polls showing Rick Santorum’s emphasis on social issues is hurting him with voters, this is what the candidate chose to say on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”:
Asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” how his faith fits in with his ideas about governing, Santorum said he disagreed with the “absolute separation” between church and state outlined by [President] Kennedy in a 1960 speech.
Santorum said reading the speech made him want to “throw up.”
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he said. “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.”
At the Washington Examiner, Conn Carroll rightly points out:
Rick Santorum should be talking about his economic agenda today. He has an op-ed titled, “My Economic Freedom Agenda,” in today’s Wall Street Journal laying out a perfectly conservative 10-point plan. But nobody is going to be talking about it.
Instead, people will be talking about Santorum’s appearance on ABC News‘ ”ThisWeek,” where host George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum if he stood by comments he made just last October criticizing President Kennedy’s speech on religion on politics. In that College of Saint Mary Magdalen speech, Santorum said of Kennedy’s speech, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”
If you’ve never heard Kennedy’s speech, take Santorum’s advice and read it over. It may make Santorum “want to throw up,” but it’s actually a compelling defense of religious liberty. In fact, the speech provides a blueprint for what Santorum should be saying to steer the race away from religious issues and back to the serious concerns of our day: the deficit, a nuclear Iran and unemployment.
As Carroll notes, if only Santorum would use a line like this from Kennedy the next time he’s asked about his views on birth control:
“While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election…These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.”
Moreover, Kennedy’s views on the separation of church and state are uncontroversial. He didn’t deny religion played a major role in shaping our country, or that issues of conscience are often decided on religious lines. But he does reject the notion that the leadership of one religion (in his case, Catholicism) should be able to control the president’s actions:
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.
If Santorum opposes this, as he told Stephanopoulos, he needs to be more specific about what he’s disputing. Does he believe the U.S. president should take orders from the leaders of his religion? Does he believe the president should make decisions based on the rulings of religious bodies, rather than his own personal conscience? This is something voters need to know before pulling the lever for Santorum.
Santorum represents just about everything that's turned me off the Republican party — the belief in big government, the weird nostalgic view on sexuality and culture, the neoconservative foreign policy…if it's a choice between him and Romney, that's an easy one, but we can do better. n nCan't we?
Romney is in the full mainstream of the Republican party-including Ronald Reagan. it is a fair bet to say that if Ronald Reagan would be a candidate today-the (extreme) right wing of the party woudl lambast him for not being "right enough" and for not emphasizing social issues -a la Santorum. Reagan was a great President because he understood what the country needed- in his time,tax cuts and a policy of growth. i don't remember Reagan harping on abortion-an issue that has life and death consequences- and surely not about contraception or how to view the separation of church and state. Romney can be a worthy successor to Reagan.
What a crock. Go back and actually *read* about the 1980 campaign sometime and you’ll find it was the Republican establishment blasting Reagan as extremea and “unelectable” precisely *beacuse* his views also included social issue ones indistinguishable from those of the Religious Right who embraced him completely over his opposition. As for Reagan “not harping on abortion”, that doesn’t jibe with my memory of him writing a book “Abortion And The Conscience Of The Nation”.
The effort to retroactively turn Reagan into Gerald Ford by today’s GOP establishment is one of the most bizarre cases of revisionism I’ve ever seen.
You must have been asleep when Reagan wrote "Abortion And The Conscience Of A Nation" and you must also have slept through the late 70s and the 1980 primary campaign when it was the GOP establishment blasting Reagan as "unelectable" because of his social issues among other things. The attempt nowadays by the establishment types to retroactively turn Reagan into Gerald Ford ranks as one of the most bizarre cases of revisionism I've ever seen.
No one is turning Reagan into Ford. This is ridiculous. And yes, Reagan proudly wore his pro-life advocacy throughout his adult life. I wrote as much. but if you cannot see the difference between abortion and contraception, if you cannot see the difference between fighting for famlies and saying that married couples should not use contraception, if you do not remember that the election of 1980 had nothing to do with social issues and evertything to do with Jimmy Carter, the Iranian revolution, the dismal state of ecomonic affairs, then there is no hope for the Republican Party.
The only people who believe Santorum is out to ban contraception are people who are swallowing the shameful attempts by the left-wing media to give Obama cover on his assault on religious liberty with the HHS mandate (you do remember *that* don't you?). Santorum reflects a traditional Catholic position on the issue that he simply believes should be part of the national dialogue on the impact of contraception, and not beause he's out to get them banned. Are you now opposed to the free exchange of ideas in the national dialogue? Sounds quite un-Reagan and un-conservative if you ask me. n nAnd you don't know the dynamics of the 1980 election very well if you're not willing to acknowledge that the abandonment of "born again" Jimmy Carter by conservative Christians helped contribute to the building of the Reagan coalition. You conveniently have forgotten how GOP 'moderates' (i.e. phonies) tried to make a big deal of Reagan's opposition to the ERA and in fact the TV coverage of the 1980 GOP Convention, which I had a chance to revisit recently, had more talking head interviews with "moderates" upset about the fact that the GOP platform was the first time not endorsing ERA and was now reflecting the social conservative position on the issue. n nIf you honestly think you can win elections without social conservatives and can be condesecending to the social conservative position by echoing liberal media spin on the issues, all I can say is, get ready for another four years of Obama and you will have earned it in spades. And then we can see Obama continue the most disgraceful assault on religious liberty and freedom of any administration and this time he'll have GOP 'moderates' to thank for helping him on that.
So to hold on to social cons we have to nominate candidates who conceive it as part of their job as president to denounce married people who use contraception? When did Reagan do this, exactly? I wouldn't even be surprised if the Reagans used contraception, but unlike the scold Santroum I don't want to stick my sharp nose into people's bedrooms. n nYou social cons blew it with Santorum. Even Huckabee would have been more broadly acceptable, though I guess he would not have suited the Catholic conservatives.
Kindly cite where Santorum has once advocated government sticking its nose into people's bedrooms. Your professions of "conservatism" ring very phony if you're going to keep echoing a left-wing media talking point on this matter that was designed to give Obama cover on the HHS mandate. Santorum simply articulated a position that in his church is the mainstream and he has as much right as any person in the public square to express his view of that in the public arena. n nAnswer this question: Are you or are you not offended by Obama's policy on the HHS mandate? Yes or no, please.
the problem with your point is that Reagan helped to establish, solidify, codify, or what have you basic conservative principles that encompass social AND economic issues. Santorum acts like he's fighting the fight again. Though there are more liberal Republican and very few conservative Democrats it's undeniable that the Republican party socially has become more conservative and the Democratic party more liberal- see Jay Cost with charts showing this. I myself am socially conservative, but my immediate, pressing concern is economics and governmental in regards to the Constitution. I'm not interested in prioritizing the re-visiting of issues that bloodied everyone 30-40 YEARS ago. Social issues are important, but have some proper perspective.
Santorum has been issuing his statements on economic policy. However the media's hellbent determination to cover Obama's ass on the HHS mandate is the only reason why "contraception" is becoming a big issue and any "conservative" who piles on Santorum over this matter is only giving Obama cover on the issue of the mandates as far as I'm concerned and revealing more to me how I suppose I can count on more David Souters to the Supreme Court if Romney is elected, and more kowtowing to the Democrats on every social issue of importance.
Meanwhile, Santorum actually VOTED to put Sotomayor on the circuit judges bench. nActually VOTED against Right to Work, actually VOTED for FELONS to automatically retain the Vote, ACTUALLY VOTED to strike a marriage penalty tax RELIEF, actually VOTED against a missile Defense system for USA, Actually VOTED for a number of bizarre Gun Control bills nActually VOTED for media to be required to give politicians price breaks for political ads – pure feudalism, and voted pro-illegal alien use of entitlements numerous times, ACTUALLY VOTED PRO-UNION numerous times including shielding them from investigations, etc, etc, etc.. nI don't know what I'll do about Mitt, and part of that depends on things he DOES between now and then, and who he starts picking to be on his team, as well. I am not PRO-MITT, and lean heavily towards a write-in for someone like Joe Arpaio or David Barton, or some others of that ilk. n nBut I will never consider voting for Santorum. n I won't Authorize a Dim Enabler – he won't do any more Dim enabling WITH MY SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZATION on him.
But according to you, you'd gladly vote for JFK, the guy who orders interns to perform fellatio for his aides. Go figure.
Exactly. When you tie your religion too tightly to your patriotism you get the equivalent of a Westboro Baptist Church member. Religion and politics should be able to dissipate against each other to keep us patriotic but morally grounded. When religion heads for an extreme our laws and traditions bring it back to the center. When politics heads for an extreme our religious beliefs and traditions bring us back to the center. Conservative Christians have tied the two so tightly together their fears and superstitions have them searching for enemies everywhere. The sad thing is that at some point they will do something terrible and law enforcement will have to intervene and a judge will explain to them that they are the bad guys. Not the citizens they are trying to protect Christian America from. Remember Timothy McVeigh?
No you don't. n nWestboro is a MARXIST using a church for political cover. n nWhen you tie Christianity to your patriotism, you get George Washington, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, John Adams, Frederick Douglass – former slave and small businessman, Ronald Reagan, Tench Coxe, Judge Learned Hand, Joseph Story USSC Judge, Jedediah Morse, John Wayne, Daniel Boone, Francis Marion, Mr. McGuffey of McGuffey Readers, Solomon Short, Helen Keller…
Anybody can name drop. I'll do just one or two for the other team. Timothy McVeigh. Benedict Arnold, Joseph McCarthy. George Bush. Eric Cantor. All great patriots in their own minds. All doing God's will.
In Rick Santorum’s interview on ABC he condemned John F. Kennedy for his pledged as president to protect all citizens’ freedom of religion by abiding by the nation’s long standing separation of church and state, and though just as much a Catholic as Santorum will ever be, he also made it clear that the exercise of the duties of his office would not be subject to dictation of the Vatican. Santorum says watching John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston made him want to “throw up.” n nRick Santorum, you are not fit to clean up after JFK. n nAnother president of historic renown, Thomas Jefferson, in support of the separation of church and state proposed that Virginal disestablish the Anglican Church as its official religion. When such legislation finally came to be it went beyond protecting those of other Christian belief but also Jews, desists, skeptics and those with no religion at all. Later Jefferson viewed his contribution to the statute his greatest effort to protect individual freedom. n nRev. William Linn, a Santorum like fanatic of Jefferson’s time, proclaimed in a political pamphlet: “the election of any man avowing the principles of Mr. Jefferson would destroy religion, introduce immorality and loosen all the bonds of society.” n nA tolerant Jefferson maintained: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.” n nOne can be assured that Jefferson’s respect for the religious views of others would also make Santorum want to throw up. n
Kennedy's promise to resign if ever he had to choose between his conscience and the law was utterly hollow. On the one hand, it's pretty clear JFK had no conscience; on the other hand, it's also clear that, like all Kennedys, he had no respect for the law, either. Win-win, I'd say.
It is going to be a shock to you when you get to heaven and find all who are there. It will therefore also shock you to find all who are NOT.
Good One! Amen!
Santorum is not very bright to fail to realize that JFK governed from a far more conservatively Christian ethical standpoint than Santorum has been VOTING. Just because JFK promised to NOT allow the CATHOLIC CHURCH to rule America through him by Proxy didn't mean that JFK was denouncing Christian ethics in government. n nMeanwhile, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and Santorum's Leftist Voting Record is far outstripping his words of "Christian faith'. n nJFK's Catholic background was a major concern in our family that had many good Catholic Friends but no love at all for the Catholic hierarchy that always seemed to have a greater focus on the political rather than the Christian Integrity of the ones chosen for elevation – and weird man-made traditions at that time, like NO ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of the Bible in church services. And a strong ban on lay people reading a Bible, because "they might get confused". n nOur Founding Fathers always felt the better educated for themselves the General Population is, the more accountable the Government is going to be to them, the less the bureaucrats can get by with routine govt shenanigans. nJFK was trying to make sure that Americans knew he was not going to try to govern as many other Nations were doing in Europe in his day – where the Government was accountable to the Church in Rome and the people were accountable to the Government for their Church Membership. n nFor Santorum to take that out of context is enough to make ME vomit. Piling it on top of his voting record, and I would gladly vote for JFK today instead of any Republican OFFICIAL CANDIDATE.
Um, I think when it comes to Christian ethics in government, JFK was the last person to ever show any kind of lip service to that kind of conduct. Just ask any staffer he slept with during that time.
If you want an idea about why Kennedy’s Houston speech was bad from a Catholic perspective, read this:
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489
BTW, if Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will be branded a religious extremist, too.
It seems to me that Commentary is in the tank for Romney. Why is that?
Before the American Revolution, when the states were still colonies, there was no separation of church and state. There were witch trials in Massachusetts, as there had always been in Europe. Those on trial were either hanged or pressed to death. Since Exodus 22:18 says “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” Massachusetts was doing what typically happened in a society with an established church. Massachusetts also expelled Roger Williams for his heretical beliefs. He fled and then established the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, where there was separation of church and state–a noble innovation that set the stage for the Constitution and the First Amendment.
What is it about the Republican Party that attracts such dunces? n nSarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell — and now this. How can such a grotesque mis-reading of JFK's speech not embarrass decent Republicans? n nThat speech re-affirmed a founding principle of our nation: there shall be "no religious test" for office. JFK argued for a more robust definition of religious liberty than Mr Santorum will ever comprehend. In fact, JFK's definition was far, far closer to that of the Founders than anything our nation had heard for years. n nMany argue that, in order to preserve its independence, the church (in all its assets) should be taxed like any other corporate entity. In this way, the freedom Mr Santorum supposedly seeks would be underpinned by a policy of no-special-favors for any of them. It's hard to imagine he'd ever agree to that, of course. n nIf the Catholic Church was taxed on its properties, they would have less money to pay off countless lawsuits of the sort they face nowadays. Strange Mr Santorum did not see fit to mention that. Perhaps next time. After he is our President.
What is it about modern day secularists that they believe in embracing the 19th century rhetoric of the Know-Nothing Party when it comes to their anti-Catholic bigotry?
Obama was raised by communists – what do you expect from Communists? Who has slaughtered more Christians than the Marxist nations, whether Communists or Nazis?
Oh, Rose, grow up. Read history. Learn English and the meaning of words. ~~ Mr Obama was no more "raised by communists" than you were raised by intellectuals. n~~ FYI, Nazis were not Communists. They KILLED Communists, by the tens of thousands. Nazis were Fascists. They argued for a wholly different (and equally abhorrent) system. ~~ It is laughable and typical for you to imagine that Nazis were "Marxist". You don't understand the meaning of either term. ~~ Nor of much else, it would appear.
Your comments make no sense. They ignore fact and (alas) a good deal of recent history. It is not necessary to reach into any other century to encounter the problem. ~~ n nAs you well know, for decades the Catholic Church has harbored and promoted pedophiles. Whether priest or bishop, these people have now been found out. Their cruelty toward children is beyond contempt. It has cost the Church hundreds of $millions, the loss of properties, and the jailing of multiple dozens of priests. By some counts, almost 6000 priests around the world have been sued, charged and/or jailed for their abuse of children. ~~ n nPointing this out is no bigotry. It is a fact. Any church that systematically mistreats children has a credibility problem. It cannot impose its morality on anyone. Sorry to have to be the first to tell you about all this. It must have come as a shock. n n
Santorum and the bishops want to claim a right of conscience and liberty they’d never accord the individual citizen. Whatever rules ObamaCare creates and imposes are rules no individual has the right to reject or escape based on a claim of individual liberty. The bishops signed on to this when they supported the legislation: religious freedom of conscience for them, hard cheese for everyone else. n nA patriot, at times, must defeat one species of nitwittery before another. SCOTUS will decide the fate of OC. After that, countrymen who are not paranoid, who realize perfection is on the other side of the grave and who have affection for the Nation, as is, will defeat the disoriented and disaffected Rick Santorum should he secure the nomination. On that you can depend! n n n