Wednesday, February 27, 2013
JFK vs. Rick Santorum: Church and State
In 1960, Democrat John F. Kennedy faced fierce opposition in his campaign for the presidency, in large part due to his Catholic faith. On September 12, 1960, Kennedy spoke to this issue directly in what has become a famous speech in the history of presidential politics. Over fifty years later, another Catholic candidate for president, Republican Rick Santorum, expressed his opinion of Kennedy's landmark speech. You can see both presented below. Which candidate are you most likely to agree with? Do you think Rick Santorum misunderstood what JFK was saying, or do the two Catholic politicians merely disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to John F. Kennedy, political officials are nameless, faceless entities who are almost void of personal identity and should only be judged based upon what they can achieve for their country. According to Kennedy, any religious belief held by a public officeholder should never affect the policies and actions taken by themselves while holding office. On the flip side, Santorum argues that the 1st amendment means that the government will not abridge or curtail the religious freedoms of citizens. I tend to agree with Santorum. I believe he is right when he says that Kennedy's stance is entirely too hard line. The second amendment was created to prevent the creation of a national religion such as the Anglican church. The second amendment was created to prevent legislation that meaninglessly takes away the freedoms of certain groups in favor of other groups. The second amendment DOES NOT prevent legislation based upon morality or religion, so long as it is applied judicially to all. The voting process itself prevents fringe lunacy from being implemented into law. I believe that our beliefs ultimately affect our actions. Kennedy's stance on a religion free government is too simplistic and ironically robs religious liberty in the name of religious liberty.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Josh. Did you mean the 1st ammendment? Anyone else agree with Josh? Anyone disagree?
ReplyDeleteYep totally meant 1st amendment!
DeleteHere is a comment submitted by Kelly Franklin:
ReplyDelete"With all respect to President Kennedy, I tend to align more with Republican Rick Santorum. I think Kennedy makes a great point in addressing that his personal religious views should not have any impact on the outcome of the election. He clearly dictates that other issues should define the election -- not his personal religious affiliation. Yet, I find it difficult to understand how he intended to not allow any religious pressure to influence him while making decisions. He brought up the issue of birth control -- so he intended to allow American public opinion decide his stance on this issue even though the Catholic church stands so firmly against it? This ideology and practice seems a bit as if he doesn't have enough confidence to stand up for what he truly believes in. Santorum, on the other hand, disagrees with Kennedy in that he believes church and state cannot be separated. He interprets Kennedy's speech as neglecting people of faith in that they will have no role in government. I do think that Santorum goes a little too far in this perception, but I tend to agree more with the point he's trying to make. I find it difficult to completely disregard religion in making decisions -- did Kennedy expect to totally ignore his moral compass on issues? It would seem, as a good Catholic, that his "conscience" would overpower his judgment."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletebelieve Rick Santorum misunderstood President Kennedy's point in his speech. President Kennedy was making that point that his religion and his religious views should not affect whether or not he should be elected as President of the United States. President Kennedy points out that there are several more important issues that should decide who ultimately became the President. Kennedy stated, "War, hunger, ignorance, and despair know no religion." This is a great example of the point he was attempting to make. The President was saying that there are greater issues that no matter your religious affiliation everyone can relate to. Santorum makes the point several times that Kennedy was advocating for the complete separation of church and state. While the President did state that, I believe that Santorum took Kennedy too literally. Kennedy seemed to be advocating for a political leader to use his/her own moral conscience to decide what is best for the country, not solely what their religious leader believes to be best. He was not saying that no one who had religious beliefs could participate in the political arena, just that their religious beliefs should not be their ultimate deciding factor. Kennedy also made the point that he is the Democratic Candidate, not the Catholic candidate and he will not speak for the church nor will the church speak for him. In the end, Kennedy says that he would resign his post if he believed he would violate his own moral compass AND what would be best for the entire country. I believe this was the view Kennedy was trying to make for any political leader, which is that they should be doing what is in the best interests of the country not solely based on what their own religious beliefs are.
DeleteIn general I think Rick Santorum is trying to take the worst interpretation of what President Kennedy said. Overall I do not understand how someone can make a decision that does not have something to do with their faith or their lack of faith. If Kennedy is a Catholic and has been his whole life then there is no way that his decisions can be completely separated from his religious beliefs. There is too much overlap. What if Kennedy is in favor of some social program that helps out the poor. Well that is what Jesus taught so is his decision to endorse something like that downgraded because of his religion? Richard John Neuhaus said , "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being 'religious' than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb." Basically I think that religion is a part of who somebody is and their personal beliefs influence their decisions. It is impossible to separate things into one side or the other. Religion will always be a part of government because the people that are governed and the people doing the governing are likely to be religious and it is impossible to just make decisions without some crossover of religious and secular belief.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that both of them are doing what they are supposed to do as politicians. They are both trying to appeal to a group of people. For Kennedy it is people that are against a catholic leader and those that support the separation of church and state. Santorum is directing his appeal to people that dislike the "secular" aspect of modern government and the seeming lack of "people of faith' in positions of power. Santorum's interpretation of Kennedy's address is skewed to fit with his platform. He takes "the absolute separation of church and state" that Kennedy spoke of as meaning no religious people should be in the government. This claim would certainly draw the attention of a large part of the country that identifies as being "religious" and is unfamiliar with the address. Kennedy obviously means that the vote people cast should not be influenced by the religion of the candidate. Judgement should be on one's performance in office, which he implies with referring to his years in the House of Reps. And the character one displays in those years as a public servant in comparison to the one they imagine themselves to have. Most modern citizens of the U.S. would agree with Kennedy because of the ideals that his message implies. In regard to judging a person, one should not even consider gender, race, religion, or any other aspects besides their character and their actions. This ideal must have appealed to African-Americans and other groups that have historically been excluded from power and often equality. I would consider Kennedy's speech as powerful and well placed to gain the most voters. Santorum's skewing of that message attempted to include people into a system they were already a part of, and by saying that religion "should" be included into government he seems to imply that non-religious people should not. The irony is that they are both pushing for equal representation. While Kennedy's approach is effective because of it's timely and broad appeal, Santorum's is the opposite. He appeals mainly to a dwindling religious group in a time where they already have that representation, his holding of office being evidence.
ReplyDelete