Santorum sickened by JFK's 1960 religion speech

[cbayer]

This guy gets scarier every day.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320249

By William Schmalfeldt
Feb 26, 2012 - 24 mins ago

+
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) reprised a well-worn talking point as a guest on ABC's "This Week" program Sunday morning. JFK's 1960 speech on religious freedom "makes him want to throw up."
According to a post in Politico:

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up. What kind of country do we live in where only people of non-faith can come in the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up. And that should make every American [throw up]," Santorum said on ABC's "This Week."

Sen. Santorum needs to take a Dramamine and read that speech again. Nowhere in that speech does it say that people of faith "have no role in the public square". Nowhere in that speech did then Sen. Kennedy say "only people of non-faith can come in the public square and make their case."

more at link

[Bluerthanblue]

1. wish a dramamine would help him-

but I think his problems are much bigger-

I watched him on the tube- he was an arrogant jerk.

[cbayer]

7. There is something terribly wrong with him and it becomes more apparent with each passing day.

The fact that it is not having much impact on his poll numbers is the scariest thing of all.

[Journeyman]

2. Unfortunately, Paul Simon had it right in "The Boxer": "A man hears what he wants to hear. . .

and disregards the rest."

[cbayer]

6. Ain't that the truth!

And a great companion video to the JFK speech.

[dmr]

3. That Santorum is perverted.

I don't like to swear out in public, but will for this guy:

Santorum is a sick fuck.

President Kennedy's speech, if I remember correctly, is a beautiful speech. He assured this country that he could be the president of all Americans, not only a few.

I was in third grade, but I remember that that speech was a big deal - because it was a big issue. There were Americans who were worried that the Pope would factor into the White House administration. This speech was to allay those fears.

Santorum is perverted. I take it that Santorum is ok with Sharia Law, right?

[cbayer]

5. I was six and I remember it.

Raised protestant, but living in a predominantly catholic area, I was exposed to a lot of religious prejudice. I recall seeing the speech and feeling mightily reassured that his religion was not going to have an effect on me.

Santorum is perverted. And he does apparently believe in the catholic version of sharia law.

[cleanhippie]

4. Well, we must respect his deeply held religious beliefs though, right?

His beliefs are just as valid as any other, right?

[LeftishBrit]

8. As I said on another thread...

Why does Santorum hate America for its freedoms?

On another point: why this obsession with throwing up? One of Santorum's supporters actually said that gays made God want to throw up! All this suggeststhat Santorum and his pals are not so much acting out of strong spiritual and moral convictions, as abnormally subject to physical disgust at anyone acting differently from themselves, and convincing themselves - and unfortunately sometimes others - that this demonstrates their high moral code.

[cbayer]

9. Yeah, the whole throwing up thing really seems immature.

It's the kind of phraseology that we used in junior high school.

[Yooperman]

10. Wow.. what a great speech!!

Thanks for posting it. Watching the entire speech gives me a much better understanding of exactly what he was trying to convey to the American people. If Insanetorum got his way we would be taking a monster step backward is all I can say.

I grew up in the 60s and I remember how freaked out people were about Kennedy being a Catholic. His words should never be forgotten. "I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me."

Unlike bush... who only used saying he was a "Christian" to gain the Christian vote. (For he was as far from being a Christian as you can be) I believe Insanetorum would take his personal views and really try to impose those views on the American public.

YM

[cbayer]

12. I agree. The speech was really profound at the time and continues to send an important

message.

It's hard to believe that there was that much prejudice against catholics at that time.

There is not question that Santorum has taken exactly the opposite approach to JFK.

[skepticscott]

11. Don't be silly

Fundamentalist Christians are just a tiny fringe minority, with no chance to impact this country's laws or policies in any meaningful way. "Progressive" and "liberal" "people of faith" are speaking out in a great wave of opposition to people like Santorum (who aren't "real" Christians, anyway), so we have nothing to worry about. Anyone who keeps harping on the harms done and the dangers posed by fundamentalist Christianity in this this country is just a hate monger and an anti-Real Christian bigot.

[A Simple Game]

23. The tea party is a tiny fringe minority. Do you think

they have had any impact on this Country's laws?

You need to fear what is dangerous no matter what the size.

[skepticscott]

27. Just to let you know

my post was dripping with sarcasm..

If you haven't spent a lot of time following threads in this group, you probably weren't aware of everything I was referring to.

[humblebum]

13. If Santorum is nominated, it will probably be the best thing that happens

for insuring an Obama second term.

[cbayer]

14. While I think you are right, I never thought Bush could be elected, so

I would feel more comfortable if someone a bit more moderate were the nominee.

I'm feeling pretty confident about Obama's reelection, but we just never know for sure.

[humblebum]

15. Personally, I don't think the GOP will nominate him. What is looking increasingly

possible is Jeb Bush entering the race. That I am concerned about. Ridiculous idea? We'll see.

[jeff47]

16. 2012 is too close to his brother

The public still remembers W too well to vote for Jeb. He's gonna have to hold out for 2016 at the earliest, probably 2020.

[cbayer]

17. I hope you are right, but the current crop makes Jeb look pretty good by comparison.

They have got to be looking for someone. I just can't see who they might prop up.

[humblebum]

18. His name is certainly being thrown around, and if Romney loses Michigan

it looks increasingly likely. And there is still a long time before the election.

[jeff47]

20. Main problem: He'd lose. Badly.

So you'd have to convince Jeb to fight a lost cause in 2012, and taint him so he can't effectively run in 2016 or 2020. I don't think he's willing to end his political career on a lost cause yet.

[Goblinmonger]

19. I don't think the Republicans really want to win this one.

They know the economy is going to suck. They want the next four years to be on the Dems backs. Jeb will run in 2016. Or Christie if he gets his weight under control. Could be wrong. I thought Romney would win this one easily, so that makes it a little different.

[pinto]

21. I remember the speech and the family (MA, Irish Catholic) discussion around it.

We knew very well that the religion/state issue was an issue and had to be addressed. Even though I was only 8, I'd heard the "Pope will control the White House" talk. And my family's concerns that religious perceptions would overshadow JFK's candidacy. Even in Massachusetts, there was little assumption that JFK was a "Catholic candidate", or a "Catholic advocate".

Yeah, he was one of us, undeniably, but the discussions I heard were more along the lines of a larger liberal/social agenda (which we would call moderate today). And, yes, a forward looking agenda. That included an adept use of available media to convey a campaign message.

In any event, the speech on the separation of religion and state is a classic statement, imo, of a basic fundamental structure of our take on democracy. It really helped shape my young political awareness.

After the speech, my grandmother - adamantly secular in all things political - was beaming. My grandfather - a cop who went to Mass every morning, 7 AM - was typically taciturn and to the point. "Religion is religion. Politics are politics. He hit that one out of the park."

~ pinto

[cbayer]

22. Great recollections, pinto.

I remember thinking that catholics were different, secretive and kind of scary. While they could come to my church and participate, I was forbidden from attending their church (or at least participating).

And the rituals were so foreign - the kneeling, the rosary, the fish on friday, lol!

This speech made me feel better - like he was just another man and not scary at all.

I think it did that for a lot of people.

[pinto]

24. LOL. I couldn't tell you how many baked fish sticks I've eaten over the years...

Yeah, the ritual is pretty convoluted. But so structured that it became second nature. The whole Mass is basically a ritualistic portrayal of the last supper, from a Catholic viewpoint. No idea where the sitting, kneeling, sitting, standing, kneeling, standing progression came from but we all learned it. I get it, and it's mostly minutae about the process.

As kids we knew exactly when attendance in the process was official, as soon as communion was done - then we'd often slip out for donuts and hot chocolate.

Ha, our take on "cafeteria Catholics".

Back to the JFK point of the thread, though, Yeah, he did that. And really well.

[cbayer]

25. Fish sticks is one of the reasons that I have a distaste for fish in general.

Every Friday in the cafeteria, we had some variation of fish sticks.

Ugh!

[cbayer]

26. double post

[moobu2]

28. This is from a 1984 speech by President Reagan

"We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."

Ronald Reagan October 26, 1984

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/RR10_26_84.html

[Brettongarcia]

29. Kennedy believes in an America "Where no public official ... accepts instructions ... from the Pope"

Kennedy here, throughout his speech, firmly declares his secular values.

No doubt Santorum would be sick; the "conservative" "Catholicism" he has followed all his life, was an attack on what Kennedy says here. But? Santorum should have known better, and looked a little more deeply into History.

By the way? Kennedy made this remar, in part to calm Protestant voters; noting that "no Catholic has ever been elected president," before Kennedy. No Catholic had ever been elected president ... because Protestant voters were anxious that such a candidate would not listen to America, but to the Pope.