Jump to content


Spartacus

Santorum says he ‘almost threw up’ after reading JFK speech


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:23 PM

Posted at 11:54 AM ET, 02/26/2012
Santorum says he ‘almost threw up’ after reading JFK speech on separation of church and state
By Felicia Sonmez
Washington Post

http://www.washingto...1hubR_blog.html

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday defended a statement he made last October in which he said that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Houston address on the role of religion in public life.

The statement by Santorum marks the GOP contender’s latest defense of his long-held views on the separation of church and state, although in his Sunday appearance he doubled down on the colorful language he employed in his October speech at a New Hampshire college.

In remarks last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum had told the crowd of J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”

In the speech, Kennedy addressed the concerns of Protestant ministers who doubted whether he would make decisions as president independent of his Catholic faith.

“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,” Kennedy said.

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year, noting that Santorum’s rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ®, delivered an address on religion during the 2008 campaign that garnered comparisons to Kennedy’s address.

Santorum defended his remarks, telling Stephanopoulos that “the first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “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.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”
Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “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? That makes me throw up.”

#2 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:52 PM

Video of program included in article:


http://www.rawstory....es-me-throw-up/

#3 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:59 PM

Santorum is employing a classic example of the straw man, wherein he exaggerates Kennedy's position in order to weaken and/or distort its true meaning.

JFK never said that a person of faith has no place in public service. He said that a person's choice of faith (or lack of a faith) should not have a bearing on
his or her electability; and the decision making of a person of faith who holds public office should not be unduly influenced by leaders of his own church.

Santorum would be a disastrous choice for president for several reasons including his lack of comprehension of--and appreciation for--the Constitutionally
imposed separation of church and state.

“I think it’s so unfair of people to be against Jack because he is a Catholic. He’s such a poor Catholic.”

-- Jackie Kennedy (1960)

Edited by Greg Burnham, 26 February 2012 - 09:11 PM.


#4 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,195 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:58 PM

Santorum has also stated that "Satan has set his sights on the United States of America."

Has anyone considered the theory that the JFK assassination was a Satanic plot? (That may have been Lucifer himself blowing smoke on the grassy knoll, while sewer drains would be logical locations for assassins from Hell.)

#5 Mark Wengler

Mark Wengler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:missouri
  • Interests:Here is a small list to many to list in full
    History's Mysteries
    Paranormal
    Political Assassinations
    Clive Cussler
    Elvis Presley
    Enjoyed being part of the Nuclear Freeze Movement

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:09 PM

Santorum is trying to draw christian wright to his side. Showing that he is better than Rommey and the other running for President. It sounds like he would bring his religious to play if he would win the election.

#6 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:12 PM

The thought of Santorum (or Newt) becoming President makes me want to throw-up. Paul has zero chances of being the nominee, of the other three Romney is the most reasonable but he also has the best chance of beating Obama, who I will unenthusiastically vote for again.

#7 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:51 PM

http://www.juancole....um-and-jfk.html

#8 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:44 AM

Crazy talk: Rick Santorum out-denies the climate deniers and spins eco-conspiracy theories

http://grist.org/ele...iracy-theories/

Santorum's Incredible Display of Ignorance On Euthanasia In the Netherlands

http://www.huffingto..._b_1301073.html

#9 Douglas Caddy

Douglas Caddy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 04 March 2012 - 07:16 PM

What Rick Santorum doesn't understand about JFK
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Washington Post
Published: March 2
America’s only Catholic president referred to God three times in his inaugural address. He invoked the Bible’s command to care for the poor and the sick. Later in his presidency, he said, unequivocally, about civil rights: “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”

Yet, last Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who is also Catholic, told ABC News that John F. Kennedy’s classic 1960 campaign speech in Houston about religious liberty was so offensive to people of faith that it made him want to vomit.

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up,” Santorum said. “What kind of country do we live [in] that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?”

Either Santorum doesn’t know his American history or he is purposefully rewriting it. How can he seriously imagine that Kennedy, a person who got down on his knees each night to pray, who gave his time and money to win tough primaries in states with strong anti-Catholic traditions, who challenged us to live our Christianity by ending racial hatred, somehow lacked the courage of faith or tried to exclude people of faith from government and politics?

In his presidential campaign, Kennedy faced fierce anti-Catholic prejudice. He appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association because he feared that his faith was being used unfairly against him. Norman Vincent Peale, along with 150 other ministers, had issued a letter urging citizens to vote against Kennedy because, should he win, he would be controlled by the Vatican. Peale’s group called itself the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom. How ironic that the term “religious freedom” would be used as double-speak for religious hypocrisy — but it certainly was not the first or last time.

Anti-Catholic prejudice has a long history in America. Construction of the Washington Monumentwas halted partly because an anti-Catholic controversy erupted in 1854, when the pope gave us a stone from Rome for the project. (You can see a change in color partway up the monument between the initial structure and the rest, finished nearly 30 years later.) Catholic students at public schools who didn’t want to recite the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer were sometimes expelled. As late as 1928, voters rejected Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith, calling the Democratsthe party of “rum, Romanism and rebellion.”

Kennedy, my uncle, hoped to make it clear that the pope would not control him. The government would not regulate church doctrine, and no minister would determine government policy. As he put it:

“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.”

He specifically referred to birth control, too, saying he would follow his conscience in accordance with what he believed to be in the national interest and not cave in to “religious pressures or dictates.”

Santorum is more like Kennedy than he may realize — he follows his conscience. It’s true that on some issues, such as contraception, where the bishops are at odds with many other Catholics, he sides with the bishops. (I’m tempted to recall my father Robert Kennedy’s observation that priests are Republican and nuns Democratic.) But Santorum has also taken positions at odds with the Catholic hierarchy. He has opposed the church’s pro-immigrant policies. He has attacked President Obama’s “phony theology,” which he says involves caring for the Earth — no matter Pope Benedict’s pronouncements on protecting the environment.

Nor in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed did Santorum cite papal views on the financial crisis. On Feb. 15, in an address at Rome’s Major Seminary, the pope said that “the world of finance, while necessary, no longer represents an instrument that favors our well-being or the life of mankind; instead it has become an oppressive power that almost demands our adoration.” Somehow Santorum missed that.

Can he be so ignorant of what Kennedy actually said and what the pope has actually preached? Or is he using his faith for political purposes?

Santorum has since expressed regret for his choice of words about Kennedy, but his words cannot be forgotten. The challenge is not Santorum — it is the 28 percent of Americans who think the separation of church and state should be abolished.

Santorum is encouraging division and intolerance. The subtext of his remarks is that America should be a conservative religious nation — and that Kennedy was denying it. Well, he was. Here are his words to the ministers in Houston:

“I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.”

Perhaps Santorum should recall the Gospel’s teachings, which might direct us to positions different from those he advocates. Jesus told his followers that they would be judged on how they clothed the naked, fed the hungry and welcomed the stranger. His directive to love God and our neighbor leads many faithful Americans to support same-sex marriage and to see that marriage itself can be strengthened when couples make love without fear of an unplanned pregnancy. Each of these positions can be made in a secular setting, but they also have a moral argument, grounded in faith.

In 2012, people of many faiths are running for office — Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, my own godson, Joseph Kennedy — and one can disagree with their policies while respecting their religious views. Bishops, priests, nuns, ministers, rabbis and imams lobby Congress and state legislatures on various issues. They have a voice. They just don’t always win every election or argument. Welcome to democracy.

kathleen.kennedy.townsend1@gmail.com

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the author of “Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches Are Mixing God With Politics and Losing Their Way.” She is on the board of Catholic Democrats.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users