Rick Santorum recently made a statement that a speech given by John F. Kennedy made him “want to throw up.” The speech he refers to was given by Kennedy on September 12, 1960, where he expressed his views on church-state separation. Santorum was sickened by this speech because he believed Kennedy supported keeping people of faith out of the public square. However, Santorum got it all very wrong. Kennedy’s brilliant and eloquent speech addressed to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was a turning point in American history, a moment in history where he had to address the topic of being a presidential candidate who was Catholic.
This article highlights Kennedy’s speech and his definition of church-state separation in the face of opposition, opposition being the “historic Protestant fear that a Catholic could not support separating church from state.” The speech was addressed to Protestant ministers, which, the article states, were some of the “most skeptical, if not hostile, voices which challenged Kennedy’s candidacy.” Kennedy referenced the chief topic as the “so-called religious issue.” At that time, 25 percent of the voters said they would not vote for a Catholic, compared to today’s voters of only 7 percent who oppose the prospect of a Catholic president.
Kennedy’s views on church-state separation are not what Santorum asserted. Kennedy never discussed or alluded to keeping people of faith out of the public square. Rather, Kennedy publically and fully embraced his faith, which “happened to be Catholic,” and declared that he would not “disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.” He promised to “resign the office” if a conflict arose between his conscience or following national interest. Additionally, he cautioned against officials using religion as an instrument to impose their religion on the nation.
In the speech, Kennedy envisioned “ . . . an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches . . . ” He further envisioned America’s religious liberty as stated in the First Amendment, where the government does not take sides on religion. . . . where the founding fathers “fought for the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom.” . . . “ . . an America where religious intolerance will someday end. . where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind. . .”
Sadly, Santorum decontextualized the speech by removing it from its historical moment and reinterpreted it to fit with the political discourse of social conservatives of 2012. More appropriately, he simply misused this speech. What does Santorum’s response and behavior towards this speech reveal? Mostly, it reveals that Santorum cannot read critically and understand a speech given in its historical environment or understand its relevance to him as a Catholic presidential candidate fifty years later. In 1960, Catholics and other religious minorities were trying to assert their religious freedom according to the First Amendment in a Protestant dominant nation. Kennedy refers to the First Amendment and to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom for constitutional and historical backing.
It also reveals a disconnect between the struggle for religious freedom and the prevalence of religious intolerance towards certain religious groups in 1960 to present day of a pluralistic society where ‘Christian’ affiliation does not appear to be a force of contention – where Santorum’s Catholicism is not an issue. The disconnect is evidenced by the political and social conservative discourse that propels [Christian] religion into the political arena, creating a dominant theme and highlighting how one displays zeal towards their faith as a necessary component for presidential candidacy.
This is precisely what Kennedy cautioned against, for government not to take sides on religion. . for no bloc voting of any kind . . . Perhaps todays voters are able to see the real issues beyond a candidate’s religion or their religious zealousness and are not merely ‘bloc voting.’ Perhaps today’s voters are more intelligent than the audience to whom Santorum believed he was speaking. I want to believe that the nation is moving forward to embrace religious liberty of the First Amendment and the freedom to believe or not to believe. The noisy political discourse today appears to be using religion as an instrument, not to question their religious [Christian] affiliation, but to measure the degree of one’s religious zealousness and how that would translate in the political arena. Surely rational arguments exist beyond Santorum’s misstep.
For a full reading on Kennedy’s September 12, 1960 speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
While I am having difficulty bracketing my opinions, I will try my best to hold my tongue. However, I think that this is a classic example of how John Fae's book "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" really comes into play. As we well know, Fea challenges his reader to think historically and also reveal in the idea of complexity. For poor Santorum, these ideas just aren't apparent. Taking the historical context of Kennedy's speech and further contorting it shows great weakness in Santorum as a politician. Also, his use of "public opinion" is quite interesting. Isn't is goal as a politician to speak to the public opinion and gain numbers?
ReplyDeleteI think this article highlights an important trend in both political rhetoric, and, more fundamentally, American thought. The video linked at the bottom of the post, depicts a growing, albeit extreme, disposition among many Americans. Santorum’s misuse of President Kennedy’s speech was strategic, and the efficacy of that strategy should raise some important alarms. Because we consider religious beliefs to be fundamental to our identity, the mind’s reaction to a different opinion is the same as if it were responding to a physical threat. While in this state, an individual will ignore any opposing viewpoint, regardless of that positions rationality. This response is the same for any perceived threat to an individual’s “sense of self,” and explains the irrational behavior of the woman featured in the video. In essence, the goal of Santorum’s speech was to create a defensive response among his audience. The use of this strategy pervades current political discussions, and its effects can be seen everywhere. Hopefully, you will have noticed the catch 22 created by this situation. American Citizens, under the impression that their beliefs are being attacked, respond defensively, making religion an increasingly important political issue. If we assume that the purpose of politics is to facilitate compromise between opposing positions, then the only outcome of this negative feedback loop is the political deadlock so beautifully displayed in the current US Congress. If the effect of this strategy is to create such hostility, then I think the real question we should be asking, not just Rick Santorum, but all our politicians, regardless of their party, is; what do you believe the purpose of politics is?
ReplyDelete