Posted on 02/28/2012 7:43:43 PM PST by Red Steel
-snip-
Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy’s words differently. Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy’s 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.
Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech." He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn’t obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that’s correct."
Gingrich does share Santorum’s position on President Barack Obama
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
That was what I was told by people that voted in that election. I was only 5. This angle that Santorum put out there/intrepeted is the first time I’ve ever heard that. Robby S is in disagreement.
The term had special meaning to those Baptists. It meant THEY should not have to pay tithes to the established church of Connecticut.
More than that,of course. It was like the common reference to a “hedge around the liberties” of the Church. In principle ,it goes back to magna carta, whose first Article guarantees the liberties of the Church of England.
Santorum can see how such people as Chris Matthews interpret it. I see it as a Catholic who grew up in East Texas. I was out of college by the time.
Whatever subtext Kennedy may have had in mind is irrelevant today. Only the words remain.
---------------------------------------------
10:25 PM MST Operation #EFAD bump (Fast and Furious related, check it out)
I wish Santorum would drop out of the race. He is not the right man for the job. Gingrich would be far better as president than the rest of the field. I don't care about winning if winning leads to nothing.
What is ambiguous about "...the separation of church and state is absolute." More to the point where does that appear in the Constitution of the United States?
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.
What does any of that have to do with Hugo Black’s 1947 majority opinion (5-4) in the Everson case? What part of it would you disagree with?
---------------------------------------------
10:34 PM MST Operation #EFAD bump (Fast and Furious related, check it out)
--------------------------------------------
10:37 PM MST Operation #EFAD bump (Fast and Furious related, check it out)
You agree with that statement?
I don't think any religious institution should receive taxpayer's dollars for anything and I think any religious institution who accepts them is foolish and deserves to be politician-whipped.
I agree with that statement.
Leaving aside Kennedy’s own behavior and belief system, in 1960 there was enormous anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. People were afraid if they voted for a Catholic and he was elected, he’d be calling Rome before he took action as POTUS. May sound silly now, but it’s what many, many people believed back then.
“... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
That is a one-way wall. It specifically limits government from establishing a religion, and from interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion. It did NOT, in any way, prevent churches from trying, say, to end racial discrimination.
It is like driving down the road, with a dashed yellow line on the ‘church’ side, and a solid yellow line on the ‘government’ side of the road.
Jefferson may not have agreed with that concept, but it is undoubtedly what was passed and ratified by the states.
Just don’t call it constitutionalism. BTW, Levin’s book is an easy read. His bete noir is “Statism.” Many liberal Catholics have taken Kennedy’s speech as their lodestone, which is an American first, a Christian second.
Good image.
I think it aligns with Founding principles to say that no president should be taking orders on policy from anyone. As for religious leaders telling their flocks how to vote I don’t think they should but I think they can if they want to. I don’t think Kennedy had any law against it in mind either. I think the same is true regarding funding of religious institutions. It’s not un-Constitutional (IMO) but (IMO) it’s a bad idea for both parties.
Agreed. Or affecting politics.
Well, I agree that he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. Cardinal Wolsey, who was Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor, is famous for his words, something like I should have served Christ as loyally as I did my king. No man shall try to wall away his principles from his actions. We are bound to act in obedience to our consciences.
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.