Given the state, it wouldn't have mattered. His successor was the up and coming Barney Frank.
Posted on 02/26/2012 11:51:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said today that watching John F. Kennedy’s 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 can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re 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 don’t 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 ...
So I guess every week there will be another quote on religion or social issues. I wouldn’t have much of a problem if he could answer his critics like Newt does. It would also help if Rick would, in the future, try to focus on what the electorate cares about now.
The problem is that most of the country doesn’t agree with you. They are seriously turned off by the idea. This (and other stances Santorum has taken) is going to alienate independant voters. Santorum’s branch of the Republica party just does not have the numbers by itself to defeat Obama. We need to get the moderates and the independants behind him to have a shot. Santorum night slam dunk the primary. But Obama is going to laugh at him in the General Election. The more convervative independants might not vote for Obama, but I’m sure a lot of them will stay home rather than vote for Santorum, unless he softens his stance on contraception and the role of religion in government. I know I personally wouldn’t vote for him. I’m not a bigot, and I wouldn’t vote for Obama. I just don’t like someone else’s faith to determine aspects of my life.
I have a very different assessment of the career of Father Drinan. Even after he wads forced to resign from Congress, he continued to give evil counsel to other Catholics in politics. He fully exemplified the meaning of the term jesuitry. He needs our prayers.
Somebody’s else’s faith has always determined your life. But it is up to you to decide who that someone will be, and what that faith is. As I see it, we are facing the dechristianization of American society with the assistance of many who call themselves Christian but also of many think that that part of Christian ethics they still support can survive the determined attack by its enemies, among who is the President of the United States.
Forced? He could have easily won another term, had he chosen to run again (he didn't resign; he simply chose to retire).
One could view his retirement as a violation of the separation of church and state, given it was at the behest of il Papa. Maybe if the libtards on the scene had been on their game, they could have got the Supreme Court to order him to run again.
He had the choice of remaining in Congress or taking off his collar. I think he should have done the latter.
I’m tired of fundamental secular humanists ramming their theology down the throats of the State.
Given the state, it wouldn't have mattered. His successor was the up and coming Barney Frank.
JFK SUCKED
I am not talking about the State, but about the Catholic Church. He should have been defrocked, but the pope was not strong enough to take on the Jebbies. As it happened I encountered now Archbishop Burke in the early ‘90s. On the Roman tribunal but still just a priest. He and the several other priests with him were very concerned about Drinan. He was pleased about Vatican plans to get on the internet and thereby give Catholics a direct connect with the Vatican.
There is a difference between having influence and having power in the state. In a free society, a church has as much right to influence policy as any other group.
That statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Santorum sounds like John Courtney Murray who, bTW, was falsely reputed to have influenced Kennedy but who DID have a great influence on the Vatican II statements about religious liberty. My guess is that The speech was Sorensen’s Unitarian understanding of what Father Murray was saying.
Did a lot of harm. Except for him we would not have been sucked into the Vietnamese War,
When the Anglicans planted Scots-Irish in “plantations” to oppose Roman Catholicism in the late 1600s, and later the poverty and religious persecution drove many to settle in the colonies, Presbyters such as John Knox preaching Calvinist sermons were well received in America.
Knox’s biographer, Jasper Ridley, wrote, “Knox is one of the most ruthless and successful revolutionary leaders in history. . . . Dictators ancient and modern have killed their opponents whenever they considered that this was expedient. Revolutionary mobs have killed oppressors out of a desire for vengeance and justice. But Knox and his Puritans are the only modern revolutionaries who proclaimed that it was sinful not to kill their enemies.” Knox thought the Catholic Church was the instrument of the devil.
All the colonies had fallen under many orders from England, which was Anglican, to worship God, explicitly as known to the Anglican Church. Those who rebelled or even spoke against such were generally labeled as criminal and subject to capital punishment.
Since so many other denominations were being encouraged to colonize the Americas from England, so also came a varied set of perspectives on Separation of Church and State.
The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 mandated toleration amongst Trinitarian Churches, but also mandated death to those who denied Christ. It had been considered a principal political action promoting the Separation of Church and State.
Americans today, fail to realize nations 300 years ago, defined themselves, their State, with their Church, and would and could face the death penalty if they didn’t remain loyal to the Church of the State. The Separation of Church and State never removed Christ nor Christianity from the State, but simply tolerated different Churches within the State.
But like I said, the people like Santorum are in the minority in the country, and he is going to have to tone down his stuff if he has any chance of getting the independent vote. Strong on national defense? Yes. Strong on protecting those that act in self defense? Someone that is going to remove regulatory roadblocks to jobs being generated in the US so companies with an ounce of self respect can come back and employ American workers? Yes. That is what we need.
Someone that is going to say that the idea of the separation of church and state makes him sick? No. We don’t need that. Sure you can use your compassion that your faith gives you to help you run the country. But not to impose a bunch of Old Testament rules on people that might not share your religion, and just want to be left alone, without having to deal with a bunch of rules that micromanage their lives. We get a bunch of that kind of crap from the Dems. We don’t need it on this side.
Last time I checked, a key element of every session of congress is PRAYER! That’s right the operation of congress starts with a paid chaplain...since 1789!
So you are a little late in worrying about religion impacting the operation of the US Government.
And as far as what Santorum said, you have selected one sentence. Here are a few more that provide the more context and details as too what he is thinking:
“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 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 can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re 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”
“I don’t 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. 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 foreign at the time of 1960,”
How Santorum dreamed up that JFK was saying "people of faith have no role in the public square" is beyond me. JFK was making the speech as a man of faith (even though we know he was a rake), and running for President. That very fact negates Santorum's criticism.
There's nothing in that speech that would make one "throw up". I can see disagreeing with Kennedy over funding for religious schools, but seeing as any true conservative detests federal funding and interference in education anyway, the point is moot.
I don’t believe you are right. Be bold in Christ! Read Acts chapter 4. Peter and John thrown in jail by the same guys that threw Jesus in jail. They vividly remember that just two months before what happened to the last guy these guys threw in jail...beat to within an inch of his life and then hung on a cross.
Yet when they were questioned, they didn’t say, “hmmm...maybe it is better to just apologize and live to see another day and maybe testify quietly over there in the corner or in a different city” No they flat out boldly said we will continue to testify to what we have seen and heard.
With that said, I think Santorum does need to focus on getting elected, and let’s face it, it is a popularity contest. So you are right in the sense that making inflammatory statements does not help. He could have accomplished the same thing without using the words “throw up” and picking on an assassinated president. Find a different person or quote to use. He would do well to learn from Newt. Check out how Newt handled the 2nd amendment. He gave a factual history lesson in front of the NRA.
Santorum could have simply focused on the fact that Obama is force state onto religion. Focus on the opponent. JFK is not the opponent. If you are going to be inflammatory focus on your opponent, if you are going to offend, make sure the ones you offend are your opponents strongest supporters...
basically stop bringing up subjects without Obama being the punchline.
I’ll vote for an atheist who supports limited Constitutional government any day over a big government “team player” like Santorum.
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.