Like Alana, I re-read John F. Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in light of Senator Santorum’s statement that he wanted to “throw up” in reaction to it. I concur with much of what Kennedy said, even as I’m familiar with (and somewhat sympathetic to) those who believe the speech went too far in dividing people’s private beliefs from their public duties and keeping religious convictions from shaping our public debate. Respectful disagreement with a serious speech is one thing; feeling the need to vomit all over it is quite another.
There are some important things missing from Santorum’s critique of Kennedy’s address. One is context. Those who served by Kennedy’s side have said no obstacle to the presidency handicapped Kennedy more than the widespread charge that a Catholic in the White House could not uphold America’s traditional and constitutional distance between the church and the state. The fear was that Kennedy would take his orders from the Vatican. Polls showed that well over half of Hubert Humphrey’s support was based solely on Kennedy’s religion. “People here aren’t anti-Kennedy,” said the publisher of West Virginia’s Coal Valley News. “They are simply concerned about the domination of the Catholic Church.” One article, written prior to the 1960 Wisconsin primary, mentioned the word “Catholic” 20 times in 15 paragraphs, even as it overlooked Kennedy’s positions on key public policy matters. That is what Kennedy was facing at the time.
“For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed,” JFK said in Houston, “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 led 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 apart at a time of great national peril.”
That is a warning worth heeding. And when Kennedy insisted that “I do not speak for the Catholic Church on issues of public policy,” he was simply saying what Santorum is saying today on the matter of contraception. Senator Santorum says he has his own personal views on contraception, which track with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but that he has no intention of banning contraception. (Hopefully, no faithful Catholic will develop emesis based on Santorum’s stand.)
The core argument Kennedy was making in his 1960 speech is that there should be no religious test for public office – and in making that argument, Kennedy was upholding the Constitution (specifically Article VI). To Kennedy’s credit, he said, “If the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.” Kennedy also stated he would not “disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.”
I’d simply add that President Kennedy, in his remarkable inaugural address, gave one of the most eloquent reaffirmations of the animating spirit of the Declaration of Independence. “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe,” President Kennedy said, “the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” Obviously, Kennedy was not in favor of a completely naked public square.
There are many Democrats Rick Santorum could target with wrath and contempt; John F. Kennedy should not be one of them.
This article is also a wonderful reminder that there was a time (and we need only go back as far as Reagan) when the President of the United States used the bully pulpit to say something meaningful, which was clear in their campaigns — and say it to all the people of the nation, not just his own party. We need that again.
I wonder how Kennedy squared his deep Catholicism with his procuring of the 19 year old intern Mimi Alford fellating his friend in Kennedy's presence.
If only Rick Santorum and the other candidates could be as eloquent in giving voice to American political dialogue, we could wish campaigns to last for months rather than hoping for a frontrunner to emerge and put an end to the exercise in self-destruction we are witnessing among today's Republicans.
Iin 1960, we loved our new young Methodist pastor. Then, one Sunday in October something happened. Our pastor preached a sermon on the civic duties of a Christian. At least I gathered that was the subject I didn’t listen too closely to sermons, and subtle points tended to get past me. n nBut not past my mother; when we got home she was fuming. She said the sermon had been an admonition to vote against John Kennedy in the upcoming election, couched in terms of the separation of church and state, “foreign influence”, and other dangers of a catholic in the White House. n nThe immediate upshot was that my mother would not and did not return to that church until the pastor was transferred (at that time Methodist clergy tended to bounce around quite a bit). n nAnti-Catholic bigotry was only thinly concealed in 1960, if that. As anti-Mormon bigotry is today. n nBut this memory reminds me of another. When Jeremiah Wright spewed his hate-filled racism Sunday after Sunday, his soon-to-be most famous parishoner never thought to protest, let alone walk out. My mother would have known what to do with such a sermon and such a preacher. n n
What a great anecdote! One thing I like about Methodists is that they don't try to micro-manage people's personal lives. It's more like, "Get right with G-d." But I think it's possible for a preacher or rabbi to explain, without being political, how a faithful Christian or Jew can also be a good citizen.
It is a fact that JFK's major consideration was a drastic fear in America about a Vatican-controlled Presidency or Government – such as was common in Europe and South America in those days – this I remember well first hand. In the context OF THE DAY, there was nothing wrong to Christian Conservatives of THAT DAY with what Kennedy said to them in assuring them that while Integrity learned of a Christian Faith would steer his decisions, the Vatican or Local Church Hierarchy WOULD NOT! Nobody in that day thought he meant anything different, and since my grandmother was one of many that I knew who always feared the Catholic Church because of their feelings and personal interpretations of End-Time Religion in the one-world government, they were very highly alarmed about JFK's Catholicism, since this came so closely to so many of their son's relatively recently home from WW2, and the rebirth of Israel in 1948 – many of those folks stayed on pins and needles in those days. n n IF THEY were not offended for the sake of the Constitution and the security of Christianity in the USA about what JFK said in that speech, I see LESS reason for someone like Santorum to be alarmed about that 1960 Speech TODAY. n nSince Santorum VOTES to the LEFT of what JFK governed in his day, Santorum only loses credibility with ME.
What totally baffles me is that there is a debate over this issue amongst Christians. Church-state separation was instituted by the founder of the Christian religion, when He said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto G-d that which is G-d's." He also said, "My kingdom is not of this world." n nThe meanings of these passages are not subject to parsing; their logic is obvious and inescapable: Leave spiritual matters to the church and earthly matters to the state. ABSOLUTELY! n nAre Santorum and his ilk complete idiots? Or are they just lying demagogues pandering to idiots?
Yes, Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." And thank God He said that because this world is way too messed up. This world is a mere hazy glimpse/approximation of Heaven.