From Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave one of the most important speeches on church and state in American history. Refuting charges that his Catholic religious affiliation would interfere with his presidential duties, Kennedy outlined the proper constitutional relationship between religion and government.
A half century later, Americans are still struggling with issues of faith and politics. Some candidates trumpet their personal religous affiliations in a crass attempt to secure votes. Others attacks Islam or other minority faiths in a divisive and destructive maneuver to win elections.
The speech you just heard was given 2 months before the 1960 election day. At the time JFK spoke, no Catholic had ever been elected president. To date, he is still the only Catholic to be elected president, even though the Supreme Court is made up of three Jews and 6 Catholics. It is the first time in history that there has been no protestant on the high court.
The same abuses are going on today that Kennedy addressed, only I believe those abuses are worse. Americans are still trying to get money from the public coffers to support religious based schools. Priests and Bishops are denying politicians the sacraments because they have labeled themselves pro-choice. Houses of worship are being vandalized and at times denied permission to build because of who they are.
Some Americans continue to deny that the Founders built in some protections in our Constitution. These same folks seem to think that the establishment clause was to protect churches from government only. Some people still want to hang their own doctrine in classrooms and endoctrinate school children because they are a captive audience. The call for prayer in schools is loud and clear, even though it has been almost 50 years since Madalyn Murray O’Hair won her famous case before the Supreme Court.
There is a call for ministers to preach who the ‘good’ Christian candidates are from the pulpit and to defy IRS rulesthat forbid this type of behavior. The Air Force Academy was under the microscope for harassing cadets who weren’t evangelical and for requiring attendance at certain functions. Mikey Weinstein’s organization Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Wiccans at Fort Hood gained the right to practice their religion only to have it snatched away because of community pressure.
Some Americans were highly insulted at the reference to the ‘Guns and God’ vote by President Obama. No thought was given to what is said about him on a daily basis regarding his country of birth and his religion, of course. Many Americans very want religion to be a part of their government, just as long as it is THEIR religion and not someone else’s. Sharia Law is unacceptable but a Christian version of the same thing would be perfectly acceptable to some folks.
I am not sure Kennedy’s dream wasn’t far too illusive for the last part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.
Link to full text of speech (for those who want to read it for themselves)
I believe this speech is more important today than it was in 1960.
Islam wasn’t mentioned by Kennedy and the Catholic Church seems more than comfortable threatening to withhold the sacrements from politicians who are pro-choice or in favor of stem ell research.
A local wanna be supervisor castigated a current supervisor because he had some connection to a congressman who voted for pro choice issues.
Americans were quite happy in the 80s and 90s with the likes of Ralph Reed pushing evangelical religious ideas in the public square and belittling all those not of that religious persuasion. Would that Americans were as leery of one religion triumphing over another nowadays as we were back then.
Very true. The Constitution of the United States allows us all to practice the faith of our choosing. It is not the business of government to tell us how or what religion to practice. We must respect the Constitution.
And our public policy should not be based on anyone’s religion.
We must respect the Constitution, mustn’t we?
We must not impose our religious values on others.
Why do I think that no one at least read the text of Kennedy’s speech. He had some powerful things to say.
There are some issues we might have to discuss if we read or listened.
But, does a particular religious denomination not have the right to demand that those who claim public adherence to the theology of that denomination either act accordingly in both their private and public lives or lose the right to denominational privileges and even membership? How can we deny to a religious denomination the same rights which we give to all other private organizations, to wit, follow the rules or you are history with us?
yes and no. Let’s see, an observant orthodox jew does not eat pork. Does that mean he or she would be expected to shut down all stores that sell pork sausage, refuse permits to stores that sell sausage, shut down pork slaughter houses? Of course not.
We are getting dangerously close to the Muslim cab driver who refused to transport someone with a bottle of booze.
Pharmacists at the chain drug store do not have to right to refuse to fill birth control rx’s. If they are opposed to birth control, don’t take a job with a store that sells birth control.
I believe that denominations and sects can stick to the personal behavior of their own parishoners and that’s it.
A religion should never have influence on public policy via an elected official.
I am not speaking here of the relationship between an individual and public policy but, rather, the relationship between an individual and the religious theology and religious denomination of which he claims to be a loyal adherent. This is not a question of whether or not a religious denomination should attempt to impose its particular beliefs on public policy. It is, rather, a question of whether that same denomination has the right to ask that its self-professing congregants actually do adhere to the theology in question and, if they do not, whether that denomination has the right to ask such an individual to either change his ways or forego the religious privileges afforded to those who do adhere faithfully. In short, does a religious denomination have the right to maintain theological purity and order in its own house without interference from outside influences so long as actions taken against the individual do not violate human rights under civil law? Was that Catholic bishop in Rhode Island within his moral rights to refuse the eucharist to Patrick Kennedy? Were the Assemblies of God within their moral rights to tell Jim Bakker that he could no longer function as a pastor within their denomination?
The American experiment with religous freedom was, in my opinion, a sea change in world cultural and political history. First, we ensured that the state could not favor or support one religion or denomination over another, nor could the state sanction an unofficial or sub rosa flourishing of religious domination. With one stroke of his pen, for instance, Jefferson destroyed the Anglican monopoly in Virginia and allowed the Baptists their freedom of organization and worship. This road has not always been easy. Catholics in particular ran into real discrimination problems when the first great waves of Irish and later Italian and Eastern European immigrants landed on our shores. Mormons were castigated and mocked for their choices. Jews suffered discrimination over long periods of time. Immigrant pastors representing the Swedish Lutheran faith, a state-supported religion in which the clergy could call upon the power of the state against perceived apostates, were often set back and perplexed by the unaccustomed need to fight back on their own against other denominations trying to siphon off Swedish immigrant converts. It became nasty and parochial at times, but the system created at the very beginning managed to right the ship, sometimes unevenly but certainly eventually.
The second great change was in the religious freedom of the individual. Although most children followed in parental and communal footsteps with regard to religion, once the age of reason was reached every person was entirely free to choose his own religious affiliation without fear of retribution in violation of their constitutional rights. No one was forced to adhere to a particular faith or denomination against his will, unlike the old countries where one’s religion was often determined by the decisions of the ruling prince of the realm or where “separatists” from state churches were made to suffer. In America you became entirely free to choose your religious affiliation and entirely free to forego it if you were no longer satisfied with your choice. You became, in effect, a “volunteer” with the free will to choose whatever religious affiliation attracted you the most — or even not to choose at all.
A “volunteer” makes a choice. Or, at least, he should be wise enough to make a choice. In the case of a religious faith or denomination, he should only “volunteer” his affiliation if he is in accord with the tenets of the theology in question. Once committed to that path, I posit that he is obliged to adhere to those tenets or to leave for another religious venue. He can certainly make an honest effort to change some tenets of the theology from within; but, if that effort is thwarted by the will of the congregational majority, he can either live with it or leave for parts elsewhere. As someone who once did exactly that, I know that this can sometimes present personal problems in such things as family or even community relationships; but there are always personal prices to pay in order to claim one’s absolute freedom of choice.
Where I cannot agree is when someone claims to be a faithful adherent to a theology and then willfully violates the tenets of that theology in one’s private or public life. I do not think that this is an honest course of action. Sometimes small points of theology can be squeezed in here and there, but certainly not the major viewpoints and firm doctrine of your chosen faith or denomination. In my view, it is dishonest for a politician to claim that he is a faithful Roman Catholic, for instance, and then vote in favor of abortion, which is considered to be a mortal sin in that theology. I am not trying here to place a “yeah” or “nay” on the issue of abortion per se but only address the honesty of one’s actions in the context of one’s stated religious faith. Some would try to separate one’s personal religious persona from one’s actions as a political figure. I do not buy into that. I think that you have to choose between your particular faith and your public policy actions if the two cannot be made genuinely compatible. I do not support an attempt, to use an old adage, to have your cake and eat it too. It is the role of the body politic and eventually the high court of the land to decide whether the tenets of your faith are compatible with the rights of all Americans under the Constitution.
I am not a Catholic (just married to one), but I will admit that I see in Catholic history a prime example of a man who made such a choice. That man was Sir Thomas More. He was a brilliant intellect and a brilliant statesman. In his time, he rose to become among the most powerful individuals in England, the chief officer of the Royal Court and the chief advisor to the king. He was also a staunch believer in his Catholic faith. When Henry VIII sought More’s approbation for actions which were clearly in violation of the Catholic faith, Sir Thomas made one of those fateful decisions. He chose his faith. The price he paid was loss of power and then loss of his head. He heeded that admonition of Christ which asked what it merited a man to gain the entire world but lose his soul. You may not agree with More’s views on the issues which caused him to lose his life, but the man had the courage and honesty to make the choice.
Let me emphasize once more that I am not arguing pro or con the issue of abortion or any other public policy here. I just do not trust political figures who purport to belong to a particular faith and then, in my opinion, mock that faith by conducting their personal and public business in contravention to some of the most important doctrines of that faith. I am irked even more when, having done this, they protest that their faith or denomination has no right to complain and, if warranted, to take ecclesiastical action. That is asking for an exemption. That, to me, is dishonest. Either follow your faith or seek another faith more compatible with your secular persona. That is your American choice, something which I personally will not hold against you whichever way you go. I may not agree with the results of your choice but I will not deny that you have the absolute right to make it. Just do not shuck and jive with me about an alleged adherence to your claimed faith.