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?
>> “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.” <<
Your brother was one confused dude!
George Bush was, at best, a symbolic Christian. He didn’t even understand that Allah is not God, but a synonym for Satan.
Santorum has talked so much on this issue that he contradicts himself frequently. They are now saying on a political talk show I’m watching, that he has contradicted himself in speeches he’s given this week on his position on funding for contraception. He just can’t help himself. Political expediency, thy name is Rick Santorum.
BTW, thanks for reposting my favorite picture of Rick’s riviting church speech. It never fails to make me LOL!
This is just a devastatingly poisonous quote to be used against Rick in the general election. I know that the soft Democrats here in Pennsylvania adore JFK. JFK is why a lot of them became Democrats in the first place. Saying anything negative about JFK is poison to trying to get that moderate vote in the general election.
The Bible told man not to Murder long before the state told man not to Murder... so is that the Church ruling the state or man ruling based in ideals learned from God and in Church?
Maybe he misremembered and just had a tummy ache from a bad bottle of Gerber’s.
I wonder WHICH Church he is referring to? Also, it very clear the Founding Fathers were opposed to ANY CHURCH having a role in "the operation of the state".
This man must not receive the GOP nomination. His stance is against the Constitution and it's founding intent.
Santorum must be stopped.
ABC is laughing at him. I wish people could open their eyes in what is happening. The media again picking our nominee. So odd, no mention of Newt; such a shame.
Watch the speech (12 September 1960).
...Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedys speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960...
Wow! he was watching the speech in 1960? The baby was only 2 years old at that time. He was born on May 10, 1958.
Who knew! A political prodigy nerd at the age of 2. No wonder he is so knowledgeable about everything.
Mark Twain once wrote “When I was young, I could remember everything, whether it happened or not.” He must have been writing about Ricky baby.
Wait, wait....don’t pile on....I know he didn’t actually listen to the speech at the age of 2 but I just could not pass up this opportunity to have fun with a poorly written article.
On second thought....hummmmmmm....maybe he did since he is so intelligent.
RE: When did he experience this “want to throw up” reaction? In 1960?
I would surmise when that it happened much later.
“Santorum keeps trying to force his religious Catholic zealotry and bigotry”
Not close to true according to America.
We have made several updates to our State by State polling Map http://www.conservativestats.com/p/mapping.html #fb
The intent of JFKs speech was to defuse Baptist hatred of the Catholic Church, at least to a certain extend. That coupled with the nomination of Johnson and 80% vote given him by Catholics gave him his narrow victory. Separation of Church and State can be absolute only in that no office holder can be compelled to profess a certain faith. Hence he can swear to or merely affirm his duty to the Constitution. Jefferson in talking about the matter was speaking in Baptist terms of separation, and the wall the kind of hedge that Baptist congregations wanted to put between the individual conscience and the dogs of government. To put it another way, it actually broke down the walls that kept Baptists and Catholics and Jews from participating in national political life, as was the case in Great Britain.
“ABC is laughing at him”
Liberals ALWAYS laugh at religion.
Santorum doesn’t just jump the shark; he owns the shark.
Amen and Amen.
Exactly. The whole purpose to JFK’s speech was to reassure voters that he, a man of the Catholic faith, could and would serve properly as president.
That's a DIRECT QUOTE from Santorum. If it's proven factual it's damning.
Santorum is not talking about religious people OR candidates expressing themselves in the public square, or about equal access to the public square.
Santorum is directly and clearly advocating for "the Church" to have a role "in the operation of the state".
And if he thinks that is the original intent of the Constitution he is ignorant in addition to being dangerous to liberty and people.
Sorry, but you are wrong. JFK privatized his religion in order to get elected. No one else has to check his beliefs or religion at the door in order to get elected. Christians and Catholics have just as much much a right to enter the public square with beliefs influencing their actions and policies as do Muslims and Feminists and Dog-Lovers.
FReepers should know that “separation of church and state” is itself false. Non-Establishment of Religion combined with free expression of religion is what the Constitution says.
No one is talking about establishing Catholicism as the state religion. No one was at the time JFK ran. He had to make the speech because of bigotry—the claim that a Catholic, unlike an Episcopalian or Baptist or Hindu, would try to create an established religion. He was answering the “so, have you stopped beating your wife” question. He should not have even deigned to answer it, but, of course, bigotry pushed him to do it.
But his answer was a betrayal of his supposed Catholic faith just as a Baptist who said that his faith would not influence his public life is betraying his faith.
And now, even on FR, Santorum is getting the “have you stopped beating your wife” anti-Catholic treatment.
I am guessing it happened after 1988? or 1989?
“When I first ran for Congress I was kind of an agnostic. I was a single male and not really interested in the issue, didn’t really care. I was Catholic, but I had never really taken a public position on it.”
Rick is not being naive or mistaking the implications of what JFK said. I love this man for his straight talk. Go Rick, drive the libs crazy!
Santorum advocated directly and clearly for "the Church" to have "a role in the operation of the government".
Do you agree with Santorum's statement?
Factual? That horse has left the gate, and he's in a gallop clockwise round the track.
Totally false. Some of the founders opposed an official state religion. Some favored established religion.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. In your zeal to defeat Santorum you are mouthing the worst “separation of church and state crap” that’s come from liberal judges over the last 50 years and well nigh destroyed our body politic.
So you don’t like Santorum. Fine, to each his own. But for FReepers to be joining with our worst secularist enemies just in order to damage the primary candidate they oppose is absurd.
Santorum is absolutely right on this point. Religious people and religious views and, yes, organized religion, has a place in the public square. Chaplains in the army, prayer breakfasts on Capitol Hill, faith-based-initiatives today; back in the Founders’ day the churches had much more involvement in government at all levels, initially, as established official churches in some states, even after the 1st Amendment, as publicly religious actors in government at all levels.
You are the bigot.
And “influence” and “involvement” are perfectly constitutional.
You are shredding the free exercise clause in your zeal to damn Santorum.
Every American,of whatever creed, has just as much right as any other American to bring his religion with him as he influences and involves himself in government, beginning with voting.
He must do so within the laws, of course. But you are trying to silence religious “influence and involvement” in the public square.
You are a dangerous Constitution-shredder, just as bad as the judges who overturned the California vote on homosexual “marriage.”
What part of “free exercise” clause don’t you get?
Or, to mix metaphors, Santorum bought the shark.
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.