Skip to comments.Rick Santorum: JFK’s 1960 Speech Made Me Want to Throw Up (Church is allowed to influence the state)
Posted on 02/26/2012 11:51:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedys 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.
That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you cant come to the public square and argue against it, but now were going to turn around and say were going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square, he said.
Santorum also said he does not believe in an 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. 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, said Santorum. This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Personally, I don’t think Santorum read the intent of JFK’s speech correctly.
The point in JFKs speech was that he would not lead this country based on direction from religious leaders.
The Context of JFK’s speech is that he was being attacked for being Catholic and people were concerned that he would lead based on the dictates of the Vatican.
JFKs promised that he would not do that.
As for those who will read INTO Santorum’s statement that he somehow, wants a theocracy in this country, READ THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HE SAID:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolutewhere 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 votewhere no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preferenceand 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 Jewishwhere no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical sourcewhere no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officialsand where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
But I have to say that I know a number of Liberals who revere JFK and at least some of them openly declare that people who are serious about their religious faith have absolutely no business trying to influence public policy.
My brother, for one, saw George W. Bush in the White House as a major step toward theocracy. He thought we were becoming like Iran -- because Bush was a strong Christian. To my brother, this was just wrong.
That's right. The only previous Catholic nominee for President by a major party was Alfred E. Smith, the Democratic nominee in 1928. Some Republicans claimed during that campaign that Smith was going to turn over control of the U.S. government to the Pope, and Smith lost in a landslide to Herbert Hoover.
In my opinion, even the best of churches have forgotten their part in making America. They actually believe that there’s some kind of constitutional restriction on political speech from the pulpit and can’t even consider the possibility that they themselves planted the seeds of the American revolution.
And your brother was completely wrong. We hardly moved towards becoming a theocracy during the Bush years.
Liberals tend to hyperventilate and magnify their fears. Thus, a Christian in elected office to them means we are becoming a theocracy. Of course it’s absurd, but that’s how some liberals think.
I have never understood how liberals have these free-wheeling discussions about “separation of church and state”, and then take it to mean that public officials should not have a strong faith, or any faith.
I hear all these people who also think religion has no place anywhere near government. These are the people who remove original crosses and such from seals of cities. Don’t they read the constitution? Our government was based on Gd. Do they really only want atheists in office?
This country only works if people have a basic sense of morality. I would argue that all moral authority comes from a power greater than Man. I would conclude that the Church’s reluctance to exert influence in the public square is a major reason our society is in decline.
He argued against that concept on Meet The Press from a stand-point that government should stay out of the faith business but the constitution only says that religious freedom cannot be infringed not the government's..
It's a slippery notion and can and has been abused.
That's a fact. Can you imagine the uproar, where Santorum keeps trying to force his religious Catholic zealotry and bigotry on the bulk of the population? There will be riots in the streets and impeachment mobs out to drag him from office.
But Santorum has already said enough for the MSM to eviscerate him if he wins the nomination. It will be a disaster for our hopes to salvage this nation.
While we haven’t quite reached that point, there’s a reason the Brits were burning colonial churches. They were stoking the flames of freedom.
Muhlenberg’s own brother joined the fight after the British pulled him from his home in the middle of the night and made him watch as they burned his own church.
Is this quote Kennedy’s or Santorum’s? It sounds like Kennedy.
That may have been the context but it was based on the irrational idea that some how a religious person or even a personal who holds certain principles to be true will some how exclude their personal beliefs from their governance which I believe is impossible. I believe in a separation of church and state but that I believe should be limited to the original idea that the state should not be in the business creating a church state.
I think we have seen that the fear of a theocracy from Christian, Jewish, and other religions has been misplaced while a new state religion with far left values and far left political correctness has been on the march. Now that is something we should all fear. We see a President and a party that wants to use the law to force his ‘religion’ on others. He justifies his actions based on a socialist revisionist version of Christianity. He and his flock pushes hard to indoctrinate public school students and even military recruits in the acceptance of sexual leftist sexual morals. It has been under this President that an effort to even redefine the language and words like marriage to fit the state religion have gained ground.
It is pretty clear that we have a state religion and its pope is Barack Obama and that so many Republicans/Libertarians are blind to this is an indication of how very strong the state church already is.
I’m thinking that was Kenney’s quote. Santorum says the opposite.
>> “JFKs promised that he would not do that.” <<
And he kept his promise. His hard money and low tax policies were a kick in the face to the Vatican tyrants.
On the other hand, if he wins, buy "Babies R Us" stock--there will be a new baby boom as President Santorum outlaws birth control.
When did he experience this "want to throw up" reaction? In 1960?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.