Do you remember when candidate John F. Kennedy said that his religion would not compromise his duties his duties as president? Could Kennedy be elected today? Here are some videos of Kennedy's famous speech, Rick Santorum's reaction to the speech, and an explanation of what changed by Penn Jillette.
I will be on travel next week, so videos will not be shown during the meeting. But we should still have a great meeting since Lowell Sunderland has volunteered to lead the discussion.
A few comments on each video:
ReplyDelete(1) I have no idea whether JFK truly believed what he was telling those Protestant ministers in Houston (an those in the nation at large) in that speech about believing in the absolute separation of church and state, but it served him well politically. If he had not made it or something very like it, he, seeking to be the first Catholic president, would not likely have won the election in 1960. Catholics were (and are) a minority among the electorate and many non-Catholics were seriously concerned that Kennedy might fall in line with the dictates of the Pope. He barely won as it was, but that speech may have made the difference. Personally, I do believe pretty much what Kennedy said he believed: that there should be an absolute separation of church and state or as close it as humanly possible.
(2) I have no respect for Rick Santorum, who I see as a pandering theocrat who is willing to say one thing to his religious base and another to the non-religious press. If either he, Huckabee, or Bachmann (to name a few) ever got elected as president, I'd want to look for another country.
(3) I think Penn Jillette went on too long in a rather confusing commentary, In my view, he should have stopped after pointing out that the religious right advanced their cause by branding as like-minded "Christians" the members of Catholic and most Protestant denominations and convincing the more simple-minded ones that that's what they were. Thus, they could become a united political force in pushing their theocratic views off on the country and government at large. Even Democrats have been stuck with presidential candidates (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) who (whatever their real beliefs) have felt the need to pander to the forces of Christianity to some extent.. I expect such pandering by the Republicans, but doubt that I'll see the day when it is no longer practiced by Democratic candidates for president. I, of course, am writing as someone who sees religion as primarily a negative force in society and politics.
Of the three Democrat presidents, Obama seems to do the most pandering even though he has the least religious credentials. He is at heart a pragmatist and does what he has to do.
DeleteClinton may have spoke religion the most because of the Lewinsky scandal.
Carter may be the most religious but spoke religion the least while he was president. Many of his actions as president may have be motivated by his sense of morality but he kept religion out of his public justification.
Carter scared me most of all because he appeared to be gullible with people who had similar religious views. His antagonism toward Israel, and his reasons there for, completely turned me off. He believed things naïvely, and naivety is not a good presidential characteristic.
DeleteI believed JFK because most Catholics are not absolute followers of papal decrees.
My problem with religion in government is that too much is assumed. Atheists are despised, agnostics suspected. Protestantism thinks Catholicism is "non-Christian". Minority religions are feared and often hated. If a Rabbi offers a public prayer without reference to Jesus, somehow that just doesn't feel right... we are, after all, a Christian Nation.
In fact, among the founding fathers, there were many deists and very few devout Christians. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, and a host of other religions are conveniently ignored as if they did not exist. This was not the intent of the founding fathers. You were intended to be free to practice religion as you saw it, and even to practice no creligion at all. It would have appalled the founders to see how many laws are proposed in this land that are religion based and do not consider those who do not so believe.
We have to do better job of separating religion from government and educating the people as to just what that means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That to me says Congress shall not pass a law declaring Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or ??? the law of the land and that all others and their associated practices are prohibited and illegal. But may a State make a law?
ReplyDeleteI sort of remember reading that Utah had to give up its acceptance of polygamy to join the Union. And one "religion" used illegal 'ganga' (marijuana) as a sacrament and was 'disestablished' as a religion.
Originally the Bill of Right only applied to the Federal government. Later the Supreme Court expanded the rights to state and local governments under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
DeleteSee Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Separation of church and state is also implied by Article 6 of the Constitution, which declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
ReplyDeleteThis originally applied only to the Federal government, but was later extended to the states, starting with Maryland. The part of the Maryland constitution that required office holders to believe in the existence of God was deemed inconstitutional.
Religious qualifications for public office in the United States
I met Roy Torcaso, the plaintiff who was willing to lend his name to the Supreme Court case (Torcaso v. Watkins) and take chances of, at least, character assassination, more than once. He wasn't a flame-thrower. He just wanted to be a notary without having to attest to a religion in which he disbelieved and he made it possible for all others.
ReplyDeleteThe Maryland law that was deemed unconstitutional in Torcaso v. Watkins was Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution.
ReplyDelete"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;"
First it says that there should never be a religious test for public office, but then it requires a specific religious test. The test is easy to pass since you just have to say that you believe in God, even if you don't belong to a Church. So only a person of high moral character would fail the test.
An interesting article about the life and character of Roy Torcaso. He was willing to take stands whatever the personal cost..
ReplyDeletehttps://www.au.org/church-state/june-2011-church-state/featured/more-than-a-minor-hero
Thanks for sharing that article. This excerpt summarizes the current state of religion in politic:
Delete"Although legally non-believers cannot be barred from public office, they usually face steep odds against getting elected if they are open about their views. The American public, it seems, has chosen to apply its own version of a religious test for public office."
Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona may be an exception to the rule that you must appear to be religious in order to win public office.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.policymic.com/articles/22443/kyrsten-sinema-uses-constitution-not-bible-to-take-oath-of-office
I suggesting googling "Kyrsten Sinema and religion"
You'll find that she is a very unusual member of Congress. By the way, I was a minor contributor to her campaign in which she was first elected to Congress by a recount margin and am doing so on a regular basis as she runs for reelection in a district that has a slight Democratic tilt.
My understanding is that Sinema does not admit she is an atheist. The only open atheist Congressman, Peter Stark, did not get reelected. He lost in the Democratic primary against an opponent who attacked Stark on his vote against the reaffirmation of the "in God we trust" motto. So not just Republicans use religion in their political campaigns.
DeleteI don't believe Pete Stark's views on religion were the main reason he lost his seat to fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell under the California election system, Michael. At 80, he was old and he had alienated a bunch of people by saying too many times exactly what was on his mind on a lot of different matters. He had to apologize (at least partially) some times for name-calling. I think I disagreed with him only on his support for resumption of the draft (although I understand why he did it) and would have gladly supported him for president in his prime. There's no question what he would have done about the Bush-Cheney wars and the kind of Supreme Court nominees he would have made if given a chance to do so. This Wikipedia article covers much of his history. Note that he now lives in Maryland:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark