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 ...
I have never heard that one. I like that a lot. I agree with all you said there. If I'm having trouble seeing the distinctions in meaning you are describing from JFK,s words I think that makes the point I really had in mind. Santorum really stepped in it by expecting any but a few to appreciate what he had in mind.
So it owuld be unconstitutional for Priests, Rabbis and Pastors to serve in public office? Unconstitutional toput crosses on graves in Veterans Cemetaries? Unconstitutional for faith based organizations to bid on and receive government contracts?
You should read some of my other posts here. Might help.
Maybe but you could simply say that agreeing with the statement that “the separation of church and state is absolute” is not only bs but unconstitutional as well. And that would be the truth.
I already expounded on that in #28 and #29. You might also read my defense of Judge Roy Moore on my profile page. I spent a lot of time and effort defending him when that topic was hot.
>> Gingrich does share Santorum’s position on President Barack Obama
A bone for the clueless.
Well, Santorum is a Catholic who—unlike Kennedy— sees the consequence of what Kennedy said. Gene McCarthy, a Catholic liberal, took his faith as seriously as Santorum does. He would be “amused” by what all the “Catholic” pols such as Pelosi and Biden are saying today.
True but that won’t help Santorum much with the vast majority of the electorate who don’t know any of that and don’t care.
Newt is of course right. His position is in line with the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The president, government and Congress have no say on citizens' freedom of religion and its practice. That's how the Founding Fathers worded it in the Bill of Rights and that's how it must remain. Any intervention in citizens' right to practice the religion of their choice or coerce them to do things against their personal religious beliefs (like Obama tries to do) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>> No,Kennedy was pandering.
Exactly.
In general SCS is a fallacy, a meaningless steaming pile of nothing.
Any and all matters concerning legitimate and so-called legitimate religions are set forth in the initial wording of the Bill of Rights. And there’s more in the Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from the depravity that masquerades as religion.
Yes, JFK was pandering, it was quite abrasive given the era.
I suspect Jefferson agreed entirely with that concept.
You can have your religious beliefs, and you can participate in public life influenced by those beliefs. And the result of your public participation may be that the state has certain policies and laws. But the state may not favor any religion nor require religion nor prohibit religion nor permit any religion to exert any authority over it nor ascribe any authority whatsoever to any religion's established body of laws. IOW, there must be a wall.
It's a bit paradoxical, but I think most Americans can grasp the idea, if they try. Of course, the details, the details ... I.e., the state is required to be secular, but somehow the end result nevertheless ends up looking like America without any righteous minorities feeling screwed. Or something like that.
My guess is that Santorum has another object in mind, which is to point out what a total flop liberal Catholicism has been. That was the point of his Ave Maria speech. It is also a kind of indictment of the USCCB, the liberal bishops who made common cause with the Democratic Party, but who also allowed Catholic institutions to fall into the hands of such men as Father Jenkins.
I think we need to remember that our constitution was based on certain negative principles. There would be no king, no nobility, no state Church. Likewise there would be no metropolis, like Paris and London, that could dominate the country. Congress is not, like the king in parliament, unlimited in its law-making ability. As time has worn on, many of these principles have been undermined by a concentration of wealth and power not unlike that which marked 18th Century England.
That's definitely a no-brainer, whether or not the anyone
is secular, religious, or both. And bowing to such would be an impeachable offense, if cynwoody were two thirds of the Senate!
As has already been said on the thread, JFK made his comments to dispel the idea that the Pope would dictate in a Kennedy White House.
Yep.
How much less could he have cared?
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.