Santorum says he ‘almost threw up’ after reading JFK speech on separation of church and state
Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday defended a statement he made last October in which he said that he almost threw up when he read John F. Kennedys 1960 Houston address on the role of religion in public life.
The statement by Santorum marks the GOP contenders latest defense of his long-held views on the separation of church and state, although in his Sunday appearance he doubled down on the colorful language he employed in his October speech at a New Hampshire college.
In remarks last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum had told the crowd of J.F.K.s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.. . .
. . . On Sunday, ABCs George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year, noting that Santorums rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), delivered an address on religion during the 2008 campaign that garnered comparisons to Kennedys address.
Santorum defended his remarks, telling Stephanopoulos that the first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
I dont believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, Santorum 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.. . .
. . .Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, You think you wanted to throw up?
Well, yes, absolutely, Santorum replied. 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? That makes me throw up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-says-he-almost-threw-up-after-reading-jfk-speech-on-separation-of-church-and-state/2012/02/26/gIQA91hubR_blog.html?hpid=z1
He as usual mischaracterizes JFK's speech. The Republicans have absolutely gone off the deep end. They are certifiably insane.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)But I'll sacrifice vomit for the great comic relief.
area51
(11,911 posts)66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)rfranklin
(13,200 posts)mine and yours.
NoodleyAppendage
(4,619 posts)I'm so glad that he is probably mentally tortured by the prospect that his last name will be forever associated with sodomy. Couldn't be more appropriate...
J
HarryPowell
(25 posts)That would probably kill this fool.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Patrick Henry, for one.
Many others.
Thankfully, we were created in the full-blown force of the
Enlightenment, and men like Jefferson, Franklin, Madison
and Paine cut through their bullshit.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Governors number one and two of the Commonwealth of Virginia, interestingly. We certainly have gone downhill from there, haven't we?
Thom Hartmann will probably bring this up tonight, if he hasn't already, but just to emphasize what Jefferson thought were his most important accomplishments in life, here's a picture of his tombstone:
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
....
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
....
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
....
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
....
Can you imagine any candidate saying that today?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Kinda funny how they love him now, especially since they don't seem to be able to read and understand his message.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)They love the fictional Thomas Jefferson who said lots of made-up quotes on the internet about how much he loved guns and Jesus.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Who hates poor people, charged for healing, rebelled against paying taxes and loved mammon worshiping capitalists above all else!
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Everytime I read online about the decline in political discourse, I bring out this cartoon.
I don't believe in lucky numbers or lucky totems, but I always have at least one $2 bill in my wallet. Kids love them at yard sales, and now, you never can tell when you'll run into a supporter of Ricky Santorum. Hold up the bill in front of him, and he might burst into flames.
Born, on April 13, 1743, in Shadwell, Virginia,...
It's No Laughing Matter - Analyzing Political Cartoons
The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions
James Akin's earliest-known signed cartoon, "The Prairie Dog" is an anti-Jefferson satire, relating to Jefferson's covert negotiations for the purchase of West Florida from Spain in 1804. Jefferson, as a scrawny dog, is stung by a hornet with Napoleon's head into coughing up "Two Millions" in gold coins, (the secret appropriation Jefferson sought from Congress for the purchase). On the right dances a man (possibly a French diplomat) with orders from French minister Talleyrand in his pocket and maps of East Florida and West Florida in his hand. He says, "A gull for the People."
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)After all, that's what people were concerned about with JFK.
Not that Mr. Frothy exactly agrees with the pope on everything.
Did Mr. Stephanopoulos ask him about that?
Didn't think so...
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)and one used to be relieved of their heads for doing it because it was deemed treason to appeal to an outside state/power (the pope)to intervene and frustrate the will of the king.
We have santorum who will be taking orders from the pope to intervene in and frustrate the will of the people.
lukkadairish
(122 posts)What does he not get by keeping religious doctrine and this country's business separate? We could go through the usual obvious arguments: whose faith? Which book do we follow? If the POTUS calls on God in a different way who is to say the other is more righteous or doomed to Hell for believing differently? I am not Catholic. That means, in Santorum's and the Pope's eyes, I am not worthy to receive communion because......not sure why. My path tells me there are many ways to find God, and I don't remember being told that I had to follow religious legislation in order to be favored. This guy Santorum is a dangerous nut.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)During the Bush era they'd try and convince people that the Democratic Party has drifted from the days of FDR and JFK. Now they're just downright saying that they were bad leaders. Maybe in response we could stop praising Raygun?
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)In the last 30 years, commissioned to write a whole new history of the FDR years. It's no surprise to me that now they are starting in on JFK, however short-lived his term in office was.
And this history is what they want to teach in college, rather than, well, the "actual" history of events. It's what the Koch brothers want taught, along with right-wing economics, in order to get their contributions.
Santorum is a mad-man, simply put. The guy is crazy, most of the stuff he says is Glen-Beck nonsensical. Many of the terms he uses, like "the public square" to refer to "in government" are inaccurate to say the least, misleading to say the most. Which religion does he want in government, and will he want Muslim, Zoro-Astrianism, Scientology to get similar rights to Christianity, as well as the many other religions?
As far as I can tell, religions are the ones pushing their ideologies into others, not the way they claim. Nothing can keep someone from praying, in government, in school, just do it to yourself. And if you want to run for president, stop preaching, and start making sense.
The guy is a fool, perhaps with a bit of clown too. I think ron paul is right when he called him a big fake. I can't think of anything more scary than him being in the race. If he gets the nod, I'm not sure the media will even try to make it close, as I don't think they are on his side either.
Cobalt-60
(3,078 posts)I'm procrastinator enough myself to have never started.
Indeed for decades I have aroused the wrath of the pod people around me by giving credit where credit was due.
There was no Reagan Landslide in '80.
When the pukes were done collaborating with the Iranians to prolong the hostage crisis into the election, they flooded the field with brand - X candidates formulated to split the Democratic vote.
Reagan was the biggest deficit spender in history.
He proved himself to be a genuinely evil and callous man, determined to place the bill for his military spending on the poorest backs he could find. He kited checks for the rest.
He allowed Nixon's evil counselors to flood back into the White House.
"Catsup is a vegaetable" summed up their domestic policies.
Reagan did not win the cold war.
The Soviet Union collapsed when it was unable to stop the military spending and adventures so loved by their oligarchy - The same fate the pukes have in mind for us, by the way.
Yes, it's time to push the truth about the fascists' patron saint.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Just as long as it's his brand of Christianity though.....
Smilo
(1,944 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)Sanitorium said, To say that people of faith have no role in the public square?
That's not what Kennedy said.
The idea is that you can have all the religion you want and that makes you
feel and think in certain ways and your ideals will make you vote a certain way.
You are allowed to support whatever you like as far as law and policy.
Just don't spew out some verse from the bible or Koran or Holy scripture
in order to support your views.
I don't think we should have a law that says you should bathe in the river because you are unclean.
and
what about the Jews? Do they get to pass laws that say no one can eat pork?
and the Jews don't stand there and try to pass laws based on the old testament.
Therefore: Having Sanitorium propose laws that limit insurance coverage to all
American people is moronic. You provide full insurance coverage to all people
and the one's who don't believe in abortion and birth control will not take advantage
of that part of the coverage.
I know I am preaching to the choir but I have never heard anyone support full
insurance coverage using this argument and I feel the need get it out there
so others may use it if they want to.
Eatacig
(97 posts)I bet he doesn't mean Islam or Mormons or any other religion. He is saying
the Catholic Church should rule this Country
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)and now he's their best buddy and hero.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)We had to endure the Palin VP run on the crazy side and now Ricky Boy. After George W and his "decisions" I don't think we need this person to represent the USA. Get out and VOTE DEMOCRAT
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He's "popular" and therefore thinks he's got a majority that believes just like him. It's like when ol' Jerry and Pat would be in their comfort zone on the 700 club and spew forth ideas (they would think twice about if in the general public) that horrified a majority. Ricky will say anything because he thinks he's in a safe zone. He's not.
And how telling is that??? What a immature jackass he is. We need an adult as president, not a muddled teenager who still believes in magic.
jannyk
(4,810 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)NICO9000
(970 posts)Who has had more impact on our history: JFK or the frothy fool?
'Nuff said!
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)He is indeed nuts.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)As will some 20% of misguided "souls" who can't comprehend that separation does not mean eradication or prohibition. Those with strong religious (and non-religious) beliefs have always been free to affect the political process acording to their personal value system. That doesn't mean that one's personal beliefs will be mandated as public policy. The Constitution guarantees freedom "of" religion, and also clearly guarantees freedom "from" any form of state designated religion.
Archae
(46,337 posts)He's saying all these nutsoid things to continue to divert from how corrupt he really is.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)No doubt he'd be first in line crying for separation of church/state if a sharia law bill were on the floor.
nolabear
(41,987 posts)To go from "...separation of church and state is absolute" to "...people of faith have no role in the public square" is manipulation of the first order. But I do think he means what he says. He wants a theocracy, and I think he'd fully support the government as an arm of the church. And himself as the American Ayatollah, weilding a terrible, swift sword.
The man is dangerous.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)How about that human fetus you brought home in a jar for your kids to see. I think that would make me up-chuck.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)But that fetus in a jar stunt really is beyond belief---and it's child abuse to those poor kids he made stare at it. Yikes.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)There is absolutely no difference between an abortion and inducing labor when the fetus can not survive. The intent is exactly the same. He needs to read up on the Catholic Church's stance on intention. The Papal Birth Control Commission that was established by Pope John XXIII concluded that the practice of rhythm to prevent pregnancy and the use of contraceptives had exactly the same intent, prevention of pregnancy therefore they voted to change the church's stance on contraception.
These people are just your common garden variety hypocrits. Hell, she lived with a doctor for 6 years who was 40 years her senior and performed abortions. I can't help from wondering just what is in Santorum's past that he sees immorality in the crouch of every tree. He protests to much.
Nothing worse to contend with then some old whore that just got religion.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)America's Never-Gonna-be-President Catholic!
BobTheSubgenius
(11,564 posts)I want to throw up every time Santorum opens his mouth.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)while spending their money to push their political agendas. If he thinks they should be able to buy political influence then how does he feel about them not paying taxes on the money they 'earn'. The big churches are no different that large corporations.
Santorum is a just another whore for the churches.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Ratified unanimously by Congress in 1797, signed by that bomb-throwing anarchist president John Adams.
"As the United States is not in any sense a Christian nation..."
Still valid under the Supremacy clause of the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
It would be good entertainment watching his head explode.
BigDemVoter
(4,150 posts)& send his stupid ass on his way. I prefer Santorum be really nauseous & incapable of spouting any more shi*.
DinahMoeHum
(21,794 posts)He belongs in a Sanitarium.
lastlib
(23,248 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(...you were all thinkin' it...)
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)Dear Rick Santorum: There are two words you might want to become familiar with.
The first is "theocracy." It is where you want to take America.
The second is "Sharia." It is also where you want to take America.
Why the hell Republicans are so dead-set against Sharia law, when they seem bound and determined to establish it in the United States, is one of the greatest mysteries of our time.
Response to Faygo Kid (Original post)
Post removed
Enrique
(27,461 posts)"Separation of church and state? Like, gag me with a spoon!"
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)There you go, DNC. The t-ball is on the stand, you just need to hit it.
Beartracks
(12,816 posts)That's that, 'nuff said.
==============================
sendero
(28,552 posts)...and our political system, I almost threw up.
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Persons of faith protected:
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....
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; ...
that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion...
This is probably what upset Santorum's tummy:
I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office...
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation...
I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as president on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
Santorum apparently thinks religious freedom is not a two-way street. One religion is free. The others are only free to agree with it; they have no right to be free from it.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)I was born a few months after Kennedy's inauguration. I learned about Kennedy's speech while in high school in the 1970s. At the time, the concerns of the protestant clergy whom Kennedy was addressing -- indeed, the fact that Kennedy even had to make the speech -- was seen as evidence of a widespread, and unfair, anti-Catholic bias. 51 years after Kennedy's inauguration, we have a contender for the nomination of a major party who is a Catholic and expresses open disdain for the notion of separation of church and state, one of the founding values of this country. Taken together with the recent actions by Roman Catholic bishops to assert their influence over public policy with respect to contraception, the concerns of those protestant clergy a half century ago appear to have been not entirely unfounded.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The Roman Catholic Church raised its ugly head in 1980 when it issued a Papal order forcing Fr. Drinan to resign from Congress. Kennedy's election opened the door for Drinan and the Catholic Church slammed it shut hard with its Papal order. Where does Santorum stand on this action by the Catholic Church? Can he uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when it is at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Would that not be an impeachable offense? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drinan
Stellar
(5,644 posts)party soon enough. The rest will have committed suicide, they're all nuts!
Gman
(24,780 posts)Nice jump!
He's toast. It' officially Romney now.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Cogent thought has a visceral effect on the witless gut!
Take a powder, (p)Rick.
patrice
(47,992 posts)of individual conscience, in response to the lessons of Viet Nam and the Civil Rights struggle, so this quote would be appropriate:
But 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.
So Kennedy believed in being a person of faith, and Santorum should agree with that, but Kennedy was so committed to his beliefs that if he felt there was an irreconcilable conflict, his conscience would require that he resign, rather than either force compliance upon other individual consciences or violate its own individual integrity.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)If he about threw up when he read the speech that the following passage came from: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." There is no faith expressed in that passage -- only that government serves the people and not God or anybody else. Just the people.
Would Santorum know which famous speech contained this closing statement? After all, it was delivered in his home State of Pennsylvania.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Been so long. Supposed to use sawdust, no?
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)What is the difference between you and vomit?
You both stink
47of74
(18,470 posts)...it's time to whip this out once again;
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Is he saying that JFK was not a practicing Catholic?
And you can bet that Willard will be making further similar speeches should he end up with the nom. Will that mean that he's not a practicing Mormon?
harun
(11,348 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)What a maroon!
Rhiannon12866
(205,509 posts)solarman350
(136 posts)We all know you as rick "man-on-dog" santorum. Seems like you're confusing that gagging/up-chuck reflex with its real cause; your inability to swallow your dog's load. Maybe you should take some lessons from rick perry.......
emanymton
(2,102 posts).
"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute,"
AGREE completely with Mr Santorum! Now let us have 'the Church' in USA open all their books to complete government scrutiny. Before 'the Church' appoints ministers and leaders, they must require said Ministers meet minimum government established standards and be USA citizens. The government will pre-approve all Church sermons and audit moneys given to 'the Church.' While USA is at it, make the corporations 'the Church' pay taxes, taxes, taxes.
Nope USA don't need no separation of church and state.
Ema Nymton
~@ ?
.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)But why let facts get in the way?
primavera
(5,191 posts)Yeah right - he's still at the banging the rocks together stage.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... do they really think more than 15-20% of America is as totally & completely insane as they are? Spreading this decidedly illogical and quaktastic message is going to scare more people away from the GOP - especially those who usually vote (R) but primarily for financial reasons.
I never knew watching implosions could be so much fun!
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I sure hope someone asks him that.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)With guys like THIS running? With guys like RMoney? REALLY?
Here's the cincher, and see if you can wrap your heads around this . . . they haven't yet topped themselves. They're BOUND to make revealing statements more abyssmaly stupid than this. How fucked up is that?
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Two points.....
(1) The idea that the church.......is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...
Well Ricky boy, what are those objectives? I suggest your objectives and vision of the country is to establish a theocracy with Bennie and the Jets dictating your every decision, exactly what Kennedy was speaking against..
(2) People of faith can come to the public square and make their case BUT they can't use religious beliefs as the basis for others to make a decision. Even as a Christian I don't want someone to say they support this bill or that bill because the Bible told them so. I would want them to say, for example, that a key tenet of their religious belief is the need to care for those less fortunate. As a result they would favor, for example, certain benefits. Let your faith inform the public discourse but keep your religious texts out of it.
amb123
(1,581 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)and it s all there in the sepration clause. article iv states that there shall be no religious litness test. Also the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo , states that we are not a Christian nation.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
And it is a shame that santorum is defaming a great man like jfk
klook
(12,157 posts)should be excluded from the public square. Just that we don't live in a theocracy.
But this idiot wants a theocracy. If I thought there was any chance of him getting elected president, I'd be scared santorumless.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He wants to light up the darkness of America with human torches that disagree with his cult Dominionist religion.
Pope Ricky keeps stoking the fires of intolerance and hatred in the meantime.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Whatever you do, don't brush up on that reading comprehension. You're doing fine.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)of the lot running today should he obtain that office.
I don't believe he's deliberately dense so much as corrupted by the lust for authoritarian power and control.
Thanks for the thread, Faygo Kid.
Jankyn
(253 posts)That's what the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) said to Sen. Dan Quayle, who tried to invoke JFK's memory in a positive light.
It's even more true of Sen. Rick Santorum, since he lacks the comprehension to understand what JFK's speech was about.
begin_within
(21,551 posts)benld74
(9,904 posts)On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech:
Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
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: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
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.
But 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. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test even by indirection for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself) instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as president on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But 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.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)from Rick Santorum I want to throw up. IF he BECOMES POTUS we will all be vomiting over everything that will come from his white house.
Paula Sims
(877 posts)1) He has no problems with health insurers (a secular organization) providing birth control services and the state demanding that they do
2) Health inspections before each and every bake sale
3) Fire marshal enforcement of attendance at each Christmas and Easter service
4) Live sacrifices at all Satanic meetings.
Hmm Frothy, ready to uphold those "consolidations"???
unionworks
(3,574 posts)...bullshit is nothing more than a smokescreen, a bone he throws to the drooling knuckledragging GOP base. When he was my Senator he showed what he is really about. Selling himself and his K-street cronies for as much as he could steal. I really don't think he believes his own bullshit.
Juneboarder
(1,732 posts)What's new???
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Mr. Santorum does not understand the significance of Kennedy's speech in Houston. In 1960, there were people who simply would never vote for a Roman Catholic presidential candidate (or, in some cases, a Roman Catholic candidate for dog catcher) because of the suspicion that a Roman Catholic office holder would take his his cues directly from the Pope. Of course, that was ridiculous. That kind of anti-Catholic thinking was a holdover from the Thirty Years' War. Perhaps not so ridiculous that there weren't a dozen or so American Catholics out of millions who wouldn't have done that, but we wouldn't have elected them any way, then or now.
Whatever faint hopes Mr. Santorum has of ever becoming president he owes to Jack Kennedy for taking the approach he did to the issue of the relationship of faith in general and his faith in particular to public service. He is simply incapable of understanding that or appreciating Kenndey's wisdom on the matter.
If Mr. Santorum is a Roman Catholic, that's his business. If he wants to follow the Church's teaching about abortion and homosexuality to its extreme, that's his business. If he wants to propose that Congress enact legislation in accordance with that teaching, then it's my business, too.
There are no conceivable circumstances under which I could vote for Mr. Santorum, for president or dog catcher. That is not because is a Roman Catholic, but because he is a Roman who cannot distinguish between his Church's teachings and good public policy.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Santorum is SO Catholic that in effect, he will inevitably discriminate against even fellow Christians, who happen to be Protestant. If he says he will follow the Pope to the letter? Then he is following Catholicism ... and ignoring the many Protestants in this country. And opposing their religious beliefs.
Naive Protestant Evangelicals are backing Santorum, thinking that he supports them.
But in fact? Santorum in effect, actually opposes Protestantism.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)That makes Santorum a Papist...and a potential threat to the Constitution of the United States!
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In his adamant support of Catholicism, only, Santorum is a threat to Protestants, Jews, and anyone who is not a CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The earlier, only successful Catholic candidate for present, JF Kennedy, was deeply aware of Protestant, Jewish, and other objections, to a very throroughly Catholic candidate. For that reason Kennedy, throughout his Sept. 12, 1960 speech, firmly declared his mostly secular values:
"The separation of church and state is absolute.... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish. Where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on pubic 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 indictely, upon the general populace."
No doubt Santorum would be sick; the "conservative" "Catholicism" he has followed all his life, was lways an attack on and attempted refutation, of what Kennedy said here.
But? Santorum should have known better, and looked a little more deeply into History.
By the way? Kennedy made this remark mostly to calm and court Protestant voters; noting that "no Catholic has ever been elected president" before Kennedy. No Catholic had ever been elected president ... because Protestant voters were worried that such a candidate would not listen to America, but would listen instead to the Pope.
So that? Kennedy, to get elected, and in order to be consistent with his own principle, clearly said he would not by thinking primarily of the Pop, when he governed America. Instead, he would be thinking of America itself.
By the way finally? If Santorum does not do the same? The problem that Kennedy thus evaded, might well bring Santorum down: the problem being that so long as he is adamantly Catholic, eventually Protestant and Jewish and other voters, will find that Santorum discriminates against their own religion, and does not speak for them.
And? There are many key differences between Protestantism and Catholicism.
For one, most Protestant churches allow abortion and contraception.
Finally therefore? One major new objection that should be raised to Santorum in the election: if he is all THAT loyal to Catholicism, then after all, HE IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS. Like Protestantism, and Judaism.
So that? Santorum (and the Church's) anti-contraception, or anti-abortion position, discriminates against Protestant beliefs.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)alfredo
(60,074 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)southerncrone
(5,506 posts)He is either too stupid to comprehend what RFK was communicating, or just twisting the idea to fit his warped view of religion/govt. Either way, he's a looser.
Santorum=L
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)10. John F. Kennedy was a war hero who fought in the Pacific theater after America was the victim of a war of aggression. Santorum is a chickenhawk who voted to send US soldiers into Iraq on false pretenses.
9. John F. Kennedy wanted universal health care to help the poor. Santorum wants to repeal the Health Care Reform that provides for every American to have health insurance
8. John F. Kennedy was a liberal who cared about people. Rick Santorum is a rightist radical who wants to abolish the Federal safety net for those who need it and who plays politics with race resentments.
7. John F. Kennedy was committed to protecting the environment. Rick Santorum argues for human dominion over the earth, more oil and gas use, and dismisses the threat of global climate change.
6. John F. Kennedy launched a US government project to land an American on the moon within a decade, saying We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills
Santorum, no visionary, views space exploration as a wasteful government program and wants to hang competition with the Chinese in space on the US private sector (as if there is money to be made in the black vacuum of outer space)
5. John F. Kennedy praised science and scientists, saying, , Science contributes to our culture in many ways, as a creative intellectual activity in its own right, as the light which has served to illuminate mans place in the universe, and as the source of understanding of mans own nature. Rick Santorum believes that most scientists are immoral.
4. John F. Kennedy supported peaceful revolutions. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Rick Santorum supported the dictator Hosni Mubarak and opposed the Arab Spring.
3. John F. Kennedy opposed government secrecy and censorship on national security grounds. Rick Santorum called Julian Assange of wikileaks a terrorist for publishing classified documents.
2. John F. Kennedy opposed wars of aggression, saying, The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough more than enough of war and hate and oppression. Rick Santorum wants to launch an illegal and unilateral attack on Iran
1. John F. Kennedy was a hunk.
Rick Santorum wears sweater vests.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/top-ten-differences-between-rick-santorum-and-jfk.html
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)but rather than say so directly he uses this JFK = Romney thing. He is trying to scare the GOP base by reminding them that Romney is not a protestant.