It has been more than a week since Rick Santorum went on the Sunday talk circuit and made news by saying that John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech about his religion made him want to “throw up.” But the comment still reverberates on the campaign trail, including places like Ohio, where he and Mitt Romney have battled for the blue-collar vote, and where lots of people go to church and remember JFK.
Santorum got some bad headlines for the incident and it wasn’t long before he was backtracking on his comment. But it was his word choice, the vomit allusion, he regretted—not the substance of his remarks. And the press could have done a better job explaining that substance and its problems.
What apparently disgusted the senator was the notion that separation of church and state in America should be absolute, an assertion he attributed to Kennedy:
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.
Journalists are accustomed to having to work hard, sometimes, to translate Santorum (as my colleague Greg Marx explored recently), but there were clear problems with his JFK statements that should have taken reporters beyond headlines like “Santorum: JFK speech ‘makes me want to throw up,’” or merely asking, as George Stephanopoulos did, “You think you wanted to throw up?”
Most initial reports did not. While some stories the next day made reference to Kennedy’s speech—a few of them quoted it—in the context that it had made Santorum want to vomit, the stories did little more than that.
For example, many reports failed to mention that Santorum’s version of what Kennedy said was wrong.
Kennedy was, of course, a man of faith in the public square, a Catholic at a time when many protestants could not imagine one as president. That is why he made his speech. And he never said anything like what Santorum attributes to him, that only people of non-faith were welcome in the public square.
Santorum’s claims on Meet the Press were also open to scrutiny for how he characterized the views of the founding fathers:
The original line that you didn’t play that got—that President Kennedy said is, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” That is not the founders’ vision, that is not the America that, that made the greatest country in the history of the world.
But, as George Packer noted, a clear separation of church and state is a lot like what the nation’s founders had in mind:
Kennedy had nothing to say against believers entering public life, or believers bringing their religious conscience to bear on public policy. He spoke against any move to make religion official. The Constitution speaks against this, too—Article VI establishes an oath to the Constitution as the basis for public office, and explicitly prohibits a religious test, while the First Amendment forbids the official establishment of religion and protects its free practice.
In fact, Jefferson famously spoke of “a wall of separation between church and state.” And here’s James Madison, arguing that the division between religion and government is good for religion: “The devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”
This sort of fact-checking and analysis did come in posts at outlets like Salon and Slate, but aside from an op-ed in The Washington Post, coverage by the mainstream media was one-dimensional—the vomit comment—and missed an opportunity to contextualize and explain the debate over church and state separation.
- 1
- 2
Jon Meacham nailed Santorum's misapprehension of Kennedy's speech in this week's TIME. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2108042,00.html
#1 Posted by Justin Martin, CJR on Wed 7 Mar 2012 at 08:46 AM
From the article:
"Casey says Kennedy would have been 'booed off the stage' if he implied there was no place for religion in public life. He says Kennedy was explicit: While religious leaders should not tell politicians how to vote, they can and should instruct politicians on faith and morals."
This make no sense. If religious leaders are instructing politicians on "faith and morals," ultimately, they are telling them how to vote, given that most politicians, one would think, use "faith and morals" to inform their votes.
At least that's what the left tells us when they claim Christ would support the welfare state, a mantra we have been hearing for years.
Anyway, as alleged Catholics such as Biden and Pelosi have made clear, they don't much listen to their church's leaders on matters of "faith and morals." They "personally oppose" abortion, but ... (Or maybe Pelosi doesn't oppose it.) This formulation is a direct result of Kennedy's speech and was further developed by apostate priests who advised RFK's campaign.
By the way, note the dichotomy: Liberals may invoke Christ to press for welfare, but if conservatives invoke Him to oppose abortion, well, that's "injecting religion into politics."
#2 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 7 Mar 2012 at 01:13 PM
Of course Mr. Sancitmonious can't figure out there's a third avenue: people of religion who simply believe the state and church shouldn't mix.(the position of the Founding Bretheren).
Religious zealots like Mr. Sanctimonious can't conceive of a society that has Jews, Unitarians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. who don't jump on the Jesus bandwagon...and athesists and agnostics too. All Americans. Freedom to Assemble means those places of worship are as valuable as any fundamentalist place.
I wish the fundamentalists would actually look at the life of Jesus and ponder whether he's spiritually closer to the poor or to the rich. It's a concept that might be beyond them.
#3 Posted by Harry Hodag, CJR on Wed 7 Mar 2012 at 05:04 PM
The essence of separation of church and state is that leaders, due to their position of responsibility over a diverse society, must seperate ethics from doctrine.
Not everyone believes in the same "fundamentals" but civil society depends on fairly common ethics found in many forms of faith. So yeah, we use the ethics shaped by our faith to build a more civil society, but we don't let government use faith to discriminate against people in government, to make policy reflect a particular doctrine, or to commit to action on the basis of religious desire.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 8 Mar 2012 at 11:06 AM
@Hodag:
"Mr. Sanctimonious," as you call him, is not a "fundamentalist," who are Protestants. The idea that they cannot tolerate society of different religious sects is ridiculous. Try again.
@Thimbles:
And you're point is?
This articles argues that the "press" was "too slow" to explain JFK's speech and what Santorum meant.
Most of the people covering this campaign know nothing of JFK's speech why he gave it, or who he gave it to. Indeed, most reporters today know very little about anything.
As a group, they are most overschooled undereducated bunch of morons paid to do something important for a living. They are among the most ignorant members of any profession. Odd that we trust them to impart "news" about the world, when they know so little about it.
But that's what happens when you spend four years getting a "journalism" degree instead of concentrating on real learning.
The comments from journalists at this website prove the point.
#5 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Thu 8 Mar 2012 at 11:43 AM
"Most of the people covering this campaign know nothing of JFK's speech why he gave it, or who he gave it to. Indeed, most reporters today know very little about anything.
As a group, they are most overschooled undereducated bunch of morons paid to do something important for a living. They are among the most ignorant members of any profession. Odd that we trust them to impart "news" about the world, when they know so little about it."
And your point is?
I don't know whether you were trying to spark a serious discussion about how religious morals are supposed to affect the policy of a secular government but that was how I treated your original post. Sorry for taking you seriously.
Ps. "By the way, note the dichotomy: Liberals may invoke Christ to press for welfare, but if conservatives invoke Him to oppose abortion, well, that's "injecting religionintake politics."
The idea of care taking for the poor is a central ethic within both Judaism and Christianity (in fact the whole story of Sodom and Gommorah is a teaching about those who neglect the poor may, without knowing, turn away angels).
It is not a doctrine, it is an ethic.
Meanwhile, abortion is not dealt with in any books of faith and remains a terrible question for many to deal with, particularily in areas where birth control and sex education are also rejected under holy guise.
What ethics should we use to affect policy? Well, the preservation of life when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother should be one. The sanctity of life when it comes to the life of the baby should be another. The compromise of women's (and sometimes men's) liberty when they are compelled to carry to term and support and unwanted pregnancy should be another.
Each case of potential abortion has it's own ethical considerations requiring careful thought, (particularily the late term ones which were usually the result of medical conditions arisen in the fetus or mother). When you start using some churches dogma to substitute for careful thought, you end up making stupid laws and having stupid people kill doctors.
And when you make the sanctity of the fetus's life the only ethic worth considering, regardless of the parents' ability to care for the infant, and make state policy based on that, are you not making the state responsible for maintaining that being's continued sanctity post delivery? Which is more important to you, the sanctity and care of every fetus born to struggling parents or the reduction of government intervention in the lives of struggling parents. You cannot claim you care about a fetus if you are willing to watch it go malnourished and without essential health services post womb - because you want a tax cut.
Pick a side. Are you welfare state / sanctity of life or bare bones state / medical procedures are your and your doctor's business? Are you big government or not?
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Mar 2012 at 10:25 PM
Thimbles wrote: "The idea of care taking for the poor is a central ethic within both Judaism and Christianity"
padikiller responds: And so is hating the Gubmint.
Now Thimbles has Jesus in his pocket, just like Obama and Santorum do.
Commie Jesus v. Libertarian Jesus
Too, too funny...
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 10 Mar 2012 at 05:51 PM
"Padi responds: And so is hating the Gubmint."
Ah, no. In the Jesus community, the relationship was weirdly casual with the pagans, which is kinda' expected when you have an apocalyptic, pacificistic cult.
"Mark 12:14 They came and said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15“Shall we pay or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.” 16They brought one. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” And they said to Him, “Caesar’s.” 17And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him."
Judaism was less happy about the pagans, but had no problem with government in a Jewish theocracy sense.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 10 Mar 2012 at 08:06 PM
LOL...
To interpret that particular passage as being anything other than contemptuous of the power of secular government is just silly..
Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."
See? I can put Jesus in my pocket, too!
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 10 Mar 2012 at 08:21 PM
"To interpret that particular passage as being anything other than contemptuous of the power of secular government is just silly.."
If you want to interpret a bible passage accurately you have to get the context right first. Where was it spoken? Who was it spoken to? What were common texts and idioms that the speaker might be drawing from?
In this case, the context is a brutal roman occupation and hostile teachers are asking Jesus questions. The question "should we pay the poll tax?" is a loaded one:
A) if you answer yes you are advocating rebellion against the occupation and you will likely be killed.
B) if you answer no then you will be discredited as a Jewish leader since many jews resisted the occupation and have paid a price for it on their own crosses.
Jesus answered c) what a stupid question.
In the letters to Christian communities and the gospels people were taught to respect and obey the governments that are while waiting for the government to come.
But yeah, back on the abortion issue, the context in that world was one where unwanted children were thrown into the streets if not killed as babies (J.D. Crossan relates a letter from a roman to his wife where he asks about the weather, talks about his work, and - if should the wife give birth to a girl - to drown it). Orphans weren't always the result of parental death, they were often a result of parental disownment. These were the children that the christian community cared for.
Now, again, I not arguing for a policy based on any interpretation of Jesus's actions, I'm asking for a conservative clarification of their religiously inspired ethics. Do you believe that the state acts in accordance your religious ethics when it cares for the most vulnerable or do you believe the state should avoid questions of ethics and leave these matters in the hands of individiual believers? Because if you believe the state should not impose its ethics on individuals, then how can you support a state's imposition on a woman's (and her doctor's) decision over what to do with her fetus?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 10 Mar 2012 at 10:56 PM
Thimbles wrote:
"The idea of care taking for the poor is a central ethic within both Judaism and Christianity (in fact the whole story of Sodom and Gommorah is a teaching about those who neglect the poor may, without knowing, turn away angels).
"It is not a doctrine, it is an ethic.
"Meanwhile, abortion is not dealt with in any books of faith ..."
"What ethics should we use to affect policy? Well, the preservation of life when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother should be one. The sanctity of life when it comes to the life of the baby should be another. The compromise of women's (and sometimes men's) liberty when they are compelled to carry to term and support and unwanted pregnancy should be another.
"Each case of potential abortion has it's own ethical considerations requiring careful thought, (particularily the late term ones which were usually the result of medical conditions arisen in the fetus or mother). When you start using some churches dogma to substitute for careful thought, you end up making stupid laws and having stupid people kill doctors.
I'm afraid, Thimbles, you are wrong. Christian teaching makes clear that the obligation to care for the less fortunate is doctrine, not an "ethic."
As well, Christian teaching, the only thing we are dealing with here, has condemned abortion as an odious crime since the first Christian fathers put their thoughts in writing. You might consult the Didache.
The implicit assumption in the two grafs discussing abortion is that the "rights" of the mother and/or father conflict with the right to life of the unborn, and that one must prevail.
That a mother or father "don't want" a child, or cannot afford one, does not create a "right" to kill it. The right to life supersedes all others.
The "ethic" you seem to be espousing is the standard feminist line: Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
How about this: "Don't like slavery? Don't own one."
All the legal codes of in what used to be the Christian West, thimbles, whether you want to admit it, are rooted in Christian and biblical teaching, principally the Ten Commandments and the natural law.
No man or woman has a "right" to kill anyone, much less an unborn child. That the law has enshrined such a right only means that abortion is legal, not that it is acceptable morally.
As for this question — am I "welfare state / sanctity of life or bare bones state / medical procedures are your and your doctor's business? Are you big government or not? — I am none of the above.
I am not an ideologue.
#11 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 04:53 PM
"I'm afraid, Thimbles, you are wrong. Christian teaching makes clear that the obligation to care for the less fortunate is doctrine, not an "ethic.""
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here on what we mean by doctrine. What I meant by doctrine is stuff like "Bread and wine transform into the blood and body of Christ when blessed and consumed."
Therefore a law based on this doctrine might make it a crime to eat blessed bread and wine outside the communion ceremony. The doctrine attempts to explain a facet of the world in a way that makes sense to a community of belief and gives meaning to specific practices of belief.
An ethic sort of stands on its own ie: You feed the poor because you feed the poor. This ethic exists in a number of faiths and is not really tied to any one faith's doctrines; you can even come up with secular reasonings for feeding the poor if you needed to convince an atheist.
You can't make law based on doctrines, but you can make law based on ethics.
"As well, Christian teaching, the only thing we are dealing with here, has condemned abortion as an odious crime since the first Christian fathers put their thoughts in writing. You might consult the Didache."
Oh. Okay. We're going to discuss Christian teachings then exclusively, eh? Sodom and Gommorah is no longer canon, eh? So where's the didache in the canon? By the Book of Enoch you say?
Look include the didache if you like. What does the didache teach? "you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born"
The practice was common enough that the early church had to make a rule for its followers that it was wrong. Orphans by abandonment were rife. What does the new testament say about orphans?
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Or do you prefer apocrypha like the Apocalypse of Peter?
"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion...
And in a certain other place there were pebbles sharper than swords or any spit, red-hot, and women and men in tattered and filthy raiment rolled about on them in punishment: and these were the rich who trusted in their riches and had no pity for orphans and widows, and despised the commandment of God."
If you are against the abortion of unwanted children because of christian teaching, then you must be for the care and protection of unwanted children because of christian teaching. You cannot pick and choose the teachings you respect because they are the ones that allow you to judge most and sacrifice least. If God is against abortion and concerned for the unborn, then God is for welfare and the care of born. If you aren't going to ensure government cares for the born of both beliver and not, then why are you trying to make government ensure they are born to both believer and not?
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 11:15 PM
PS. I'm against abortion in my own life and circumstances. I refuse to judge others circumstances especially in cases where medical and/or psychological problems have arisen eg: mother has cancer, mother was raped.
And I would be against abortion in further if we had a society that protected the most vulnerable.
But if you and I aren't going to help pay for the child to be, then you and I have no business spitting on women who do what they need to do to survive.
It's bad enough that, as a society, we look away and walk to the other side of the street when we find a desperate expecting mother laying on the road to Jericho.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 11:27 PM
Christians played a vital role in ending slavery, not because they specifically believed that Christ was their Savior, but because they believed morals mattered to the policies of government---even policies which supposedly don't affect them personally.
Does their Christianity play a role in their policy difference?!? You betcha. But so what.
Ending slavery did not violate the separation of church and state.
Many Christians today believe it as heinous a crime to murder a human baby a month before it is born as it is a moneth after it is born. Does the desire for a policy prohibiting the murder of a baby a month before it is born violate the separation of church and state?
Does establishment that a human baby acquires human rights at some moment before they leave their mother's womb violate the separation of church and state.
#14 Posted by EDW, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 02:30 PM