Whether presidential candidate Rick Santorum was hoping to rally a segment of the Republican primary electorate or sincerely expressing a deeply held view is unknowable. But the former Republican senator’s repudiation of John Kennedy’s assertion, made two months before he was elected as the nation’s first Catholic president, that church and state must remain separate is troubling.
What is most troubling about Mr. Santorum’s pronouncement is that it seems to deliberately pick a fight where peace has reigned for several years. The senator also seems to confuse — deliberately? — the roles of faith principles and political principles in governing.
“’I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Mr. Santorum said. “The idea that the church should have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical of the objectives and vision of our country.” Referring to an earlier public comment he made about President Kennedy’s 1960 speech to Protestant leaders, Mr. Santorum — also a Catholic — was even more blunt: “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up,” he said.
The late president was a deeply flawed man, as seen more clearly in the recent revelation by a woman who claims to have had a sexual relationship with Mr. Kennedy while she was a White House intern. But what he actually said about the role of faith is very different than the context Mr. Santorum suggests. Mr. Kennedy raised eyebrows being a Catholic because in many parts of the country, adherents were a small minority. And there was a real fear that he would take orders from the pope, a foreign potentate of sorts.
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” candidate Kennedy said, “where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I believe in 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 or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all,” he continued.
Nowhere in the speech did Mr. Kennedy suggest that his faith would not guide him or sustain him, as faith has no doubt guided and sustained many presidents through dark and challenging times.
Understanding what turns Mr. Santorum’s stomach is important. His public remarks suggest he believes the church as an institution should have an influence in the public square. A church expressing its views on issues is not objectionable, though there is a line that churches may cross which should threaten their tax-exempt status. Individuals, relying on their faith-inspired values and principles, also are welcome to speak on candidates and issues.
But the line must be drawn to stop elected officials from creating a conduit between church dogma and public policy. It is not clear where Mr. Santorum, were he to be elected president, stands on this matter.
Mr. Kennedy’s words more than 50 years ago articulate a litmus test to which Mr. Santorum ought to submit: “I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.”
Wonderful editorial. Here as elsewhere Rick Santorum betrays the values that those of us who grew up in Pennsylvania learned about the colony’s founder, William Penn, an advocate and practitioner of religious freedom. I don’t know what the saintly Santorum learned in his schooldays in Pennsylvania, but his demonization of people who are different–not just gays but all non- Catholics–reflects a perverse reading of Penn and President Kennedy alike. Bishop Malone and his disciples would love an America in which, like Santorum, their values and policies would govern everyone else. I hope–and pray–that that day never comes. Keep up the excellent writing and analysis, BDN!
bigotry, burning catholics in ovens would satisfy your sensibilities no doubt
Of course you are being absurd.
The question is — when considering our Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion — how do we find the proper balance between the freedom to exercise our religion, and not having one religion imposed on us by the government?
Ronald Reagan once said: “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.”
How do we walk that fine line that President Reagan spoke of? President Kennedy was saying that people need not fear — he would not be dictated to by bishops when it came to policy. That was a real fear of some at the time, as we had never had a Roman Catholic president before. Technically speaking the Pope is a head of state, a foreign power if you will, something that was mentioned and repeated frequently in 1960 on the eve of the election. Kennedy said, “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish…” He was saying, in effect, “I’m my own man. I’m going to be president of the entire nation, not just the Catholics.”
Santorum says that Kennedy’s speech makes him want to throw up. He either doesn’t understand what Kennedy said, or Santorum himself has a skewed view of the Constitution, a view that neither Kennedy nor Reagan would recognize as the tradition of our Founding Fathers.
You should be outraged that Kennedy had to make such a statement concerning bishops controlling his decisions. Anti-Catholic bigotry should be handled with kid gloves? That makes me want to throw up. That we would yield the argument to people who burned crosses on Catholics’ front yards…it’s un-American.
Perhaps the press should have been paying more attention to Kennedy’s mob connections and philandering…issues that were real, and that actually had impact on his administration.
I agree, of course, that Kennedy’s Catholicism should not have been an issue in 1960. I don’t know how old you are, and perhaps you don’t remember what the country was like in 1960 (which shared the mind-set of the 1950s, not what we think of the 1960s). I remember the 1960 election (I was a Young Republican, and was for Nixon, but not because Kennedy was Catholic). Of course, even in 1960 Kennedy’s Catholicism didn’t matter to most voters, but elections are won by small margins and 1960 was particularly close — so Kennedy made his famous speech on church and state with the idea of influencing a small percentage of the electorate that might otherwise have gone against him because of his religion.
It was “common wisdom” that Democrat Al Smith had lost the presidential election in 1928 because he was Catholic.
It’s easy to be outraged today by the attitudes of fifty years ago. Remember, in 1960 most whites in the South thought Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a dangerous radical and a Communist who was pushing for too much change too fast. The Colored people should have more patience about bathrooms and schools and the like, people said. It was common practice that Jews could not join most civic organizations, and were not welcome at country culbs, many hotels, etc. And later, in the mid-1960s we were all shocked to hear rumors that popular singer Johnny Mathis was homosexual — a word that was barely ever spoken. Prejudice was the rule then, not the exception. It’s easy to judge people back then by the standards of today, just as it’s easy now to judge George Washington for being a slaveholder.
I appreciate your perspective. But I can also understand why Santorum might feel a bit sickened by Kennedy having to make such a calculated speech to get elected. I am sure we are all glad to be living in more enlightened times.
Santorum is a decent guy who is wrong on most issues, and is undisciplined as a candidate. If he is nominated he will lose bigger than Goldwater did. Just the same, I like his passion and his honesty — he is refreshing as a politician can be on the one hand, but on the other hand his candor may be his downfall.
Homosexual may not have been spoken here but it was very well known in other parts of the wold. Hitler singled out homosexuals who lived openly in German. He put a pink triangle on them and killed them along with the others.
True.
Ignorant rant. What do you know of boston irish catholic dynamics or mind set. Like you know where JFK was coming from….give me a break silly hillbilly
Of course no one can get inside JFK’s head. I’m just telling you what was going on back then — I was around, and I remember well. Are you disagreeing with President Reagan on this point?
Your insults are a sign of a weak (actually non-existent) point.
Every Democrat in the country needs to start pulling for Santorum’s insanity over Romney’s money. Both conditions can get anyone elected to high office in this country but as we’ve seen in our own State, it’s really hard for anyone that’s stupid or insane to get much more than say 38% of the vote. There just aren’t enough nutjobs out here to vote for them.
Wait a Minute !
We elected Lepage!
No we didnt. If there had been only two to vote fro he would never have gotten in.
Even putting the religious argument aside, isn’t it just a bad idea in politically to say anything against one of the most beloved presidents of all time? Santorum in power is scary, but Santorum as the Republican candidate is an instant win for Obama.
To Santorum, the Constitution doesn’t matter, separation of church and state is a joke, and imposing YOUR religious views on everybody else is A-OK.
It takes a special kind of sociopath.
How did Santorum ever pass the bar exam?
Divine intervention of course.
Best entry all day!!
How, exactly, would Santorum “impose” his religious views on everyone else?
Banning abortion, calling contraception “dangerous”, running to the Bible to see what he thinks about issues… Say he does get elected, he doesn’t need to create laws to impose his religious views, he makes a budget that cuts funding to those offices that he doesn’t agree with. ACAP loses the funding to give away condoms and the pill, clinics that perform abortions lose funding, and the like. He can dictate schools; abstinence only sex ed for example. There are a million ways he can impose his religious beliefs on the American people without ever passing a single law.
The president cannot ban abortion. It is a constitutional right. The president can propose a budget, but the budget is passed by Congress. The president cannot cut funding to abortion clinics, because abortion clinics don’t receive funding due to the Hyde Amendment forbidding taxpayer funding of abortion. The president can propose laws, but Congress still has to vote on them.
Do you have the same problem with Bill Clinton bringing Evangelist Billy Graham into the White House for spiritual counseling during his administration? Apparently, Nancy Reagan consulted the stars. People are free to seek guidance in their faith. That does not amount to imposing their faith on others, even if they do propose, or cast a vote for something their faith supports. The Catholic faith has a very strong social gospel. Most of the bishops are supportive of National Health Care. Will people object just as strongly to Santorum consulting his faith if he were to pass single payer universal healthcare? Or would it be okay for him to consult his faith, as long as the result is something supported by liberals?
Clinics that provide abortions get federal funding everyday, they just aren’t allowed to use those funds for abortions. Cut the funding to the clinic, the clinic can’t afford to stay open, one less place for women to get an abortion. He doesn’t have to change the Constitution to ban abortion, he can make it more difficult for people to have them, like making them more invasive by sticking a wand up a woman’s… Billy Graham was not there for policy, he was there as a political aid to keep the people behind Clinton. He no more affected Clinton’s policy than Buddy (I think that was the dog’s name) did. What Santorum has failed to realize, and what JFK did know, is that his faith isn’t the faith of the American people at large. He has shown no interest in separating his faith from what the American people that he would serve believe. So yes, when you follow your faith in the role of President in conflict with the needs and will of the people it is wrong. Which is why I hope he gets the nomination. He has his Holy Sole shoved so far in his mouth that he could never beat Obama.
He would not. He will however, feed you extremists just enough horse hockey to lull you. This fellow NEEDS to be the GOP nominee. He is your last stand now …or never . Good luck.
You are referringto Obama?
When has Obama used his faith as a tool in office? When has he even mentioned it? You are just hating, there is no parallel.
Communist Socialist Kenyan Muslim Facist Baptist Hawaiian Chicagoan Harvard schooled Community Activist Bin Laden Killing Finally Give A Freakin Whit Presidents don’t use
phony trashy soon to be dead on the vine ‘ faith’ crap nonsense ‘reasoning’ to guide them.
Do you have a point to make, or do you just string together nonsense words?
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Speaking of religion, somebody needs to remind Republican primary voters that Ron Paul is the only real Republican left in the race. What makes me want to throw up is the diversity salad that the GOP has become.
GOP ‘ Diversity Salad’…
Macaroni, mayo, cauliflower, mayo, rice, mayo, flour tortilla, mayo, mashed potato, mayo, and mayo.
Yuk.
I do believe that Santorum if nominated will lose big to Obama. His disdain for the principles of this country is unbelievable.
It’s just so bizarre the battles the GOP is choosing to revisit, ones that have been settled for some time — the separation of church and state, contraceptives, even child labor laws.
The GOP did not bring these issues up this time. Think back. George Stephanopolous at the NH debate asked Mitt Romney, out of the blue, whether Romney believed states had the right to ban contraception. Nobody had been talking about contraception at all up to this debate. The focus was on the economy and which GOP candidate was the most conservative (all the usual stuff). Romney answered by saying, in a tone of incredulity, that no state was even considering doing such a thing so what was the point in speculating on such an improbable occurrence? A few weeks later, the Obama administration announced that it would enforce the mandate requiring all Catholic employers to provide contraception.
The social debate going on is clearly being promoted by Obama and the Democrats. And the press is offering their non-stop coverage of every detail of this debate. The GOP candidates are talking about a lot of issues such as the economy, Iran, the health care mandate. Santorum has an op-ed, I believe in the WSJ, about his economic plan–I haven’t read it yet. So where’s the headline: Santorum addresses economic situation?? If the candidates are talking about social issues, it’s because that’s all the questions the reporters are asking.
Sorry guy, you must not have been listening. These topics, in various forms, have been the subject of debate for several months prior to the most current contraception debate. As a matter of fact, Santorum was espousing his views on birth control at least as far back as 2006. I first heard about it well before the Iowa caucus and the decision to enforce the contraception requirement didn’t happen until February.
In my opinion, it’s the Catholic Church that decided to make an issue out of it, hoping to swing voters to the right. Instead it backfired and they’ve angered women of most political persuasions by raising issues that most of us thought were settled when we were young…. at least that’s what I’m hearing from my female friends, including the moderate and conservative ones.
We all know that Santorum is Catholic, and with seven children, we can all draw the conclusion that he probably follows the church teaching on birth control. It should surprise no one that a professed, devout Catholic actually follows his church’s teachings. Instead, people are outraged over it, and act as if his private convictions will result in him forcing others to abide by his religion. Why? Clinton was a Baptist. Did we all worry that he would ban all dancing and drinking? Nobody even asked Clinton about his faith because it is a non-issue. Santorum’s Catholicism is his to freely espouse all he wants, but it is a non-issue politically.
Do you really think the Catholic leaders don’t know that most Catholics practice birth control? Why would they want to make an issue of something that would alienate most people? The people who wanted to make this an issue were the Democrats, because they are hoping to manipulate women into voting for Obama because of Santorum’s personal beliefs on things that are complete non-issues.
Rick Santorum can’t help himself. He is who he is. He says what he believes. That’s refreshing in many respects. I disagree with much of what he says, but I like the fact that he is passionate about what he believes, and that he speaks his mind. He keeps bringing up these topics because he feels passionately about them. The things he says spontaneously about his faith tell us quite a bit about what he would do if he became president, and so what he says is a legitimate topic for our political discussion.
What he says is legitimate. But to focus only on part of what he says, and to ignore the rest is a disingenuous attempt at promoting an agenda. His faith alone tells us nothing about what he will do. Perhaps the media would like to ask him what he would do? According to news reports, the Republicans are making this campaign about social issues. I disagree. Obama and the democrats are trying to make it about social issues, and the press finds it easier to report on birth control and abortion than it does on an economic plan for the country. And, apparently, you can’t really fault the press because birth control and abortion hold the general public’s interest much more than corporate tax rates, and oil pipelines to name a couple real issues.
I agree that it’s easier to get most people interested in abortion or birth control than an oil pipeline or the situation in Syria. That’s the way the electorate is. And you and I might agree that much of the reporting by the big networks is superficial, and is often about the “race horce” aspect — “Who will win the Michigan Primary? Can Romney win his home state? What will happen if he doesn’t?” But TV networks and newspapers and magazines are profit-driven. Yes, some of them manage to inform the public, but first and foremost they need to make money. That’s capitalism.
But the social issues that Santorum wants to discuss — and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to a lesser degree — are also legitimate isues for discussion. Don’t blame the press for an undisciplined candidate. If he doesn’t want to talk about those issues, there are ways to avoid the question, and there are less controversial ways of getting the point across than some of the ways Santorum chooses to frame the issue.
You make a very valid point. If I were advising Santorum, I would tell him to focus on the economy and foreign policy. He should maintain his own personal conviction on social issues and say that is how he chooses to live, and then direct the conversation into more important topics. And if he can’t do that, he doesn’t deserve to be elected.
But, I don’t give the press a free pass on this, either. They wield incredible power to define the debate by what they choose to publish, and how they choose to present it.
We agree here!
and that’s why they continue to harp on these issues, propose and pass legislation regarding them, etc.? It’s all the left’s fault? It’s the media’s fault? The right has no ability to determine their conversation and what they propose? For the party of “personal responsibility” it sure seems like there is a difficulty in accepting responsibility for this or for anything for that matter.
It’s the job of reporters to ask questions. Most politicians answer the question they wish they had been asked, not the question that was actually asked, and everyone understands how that works. What Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich or Obama say is up to them.
Right, politicians are great at deflecting questions and changing the subject. But in this instance, news outlets are digging through archives to see what Santorum said years ago about birth control or abortion and dragging that out as a current news story. And he has no real control over that. And he has no intention of being bullied and backing off his faith.
Santorum also has no real control over what papers choose to report. So, Santorum has published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal outlining his economic plan. Will the BDN and other papers cover and discuss this plan as they have his position on non-issues such as birth control?
Well sure the news organizations are looking at what the candidates have said in the past. Anyone who runs for president knows that the press will look at everything they’ve ever said or done — Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech, Jimmy Cater’s brother Billy, Ronald Reagan’s past as a Democrat and as head of the Screen Actor’s Guild, George H.W. Bush’s time at the C.I.A., whether Bill Clinton ever smoked marijuana, George W. Bush’s driving record, Barak Obama’s childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, his grandparents’ Unitarianism, his decision to join the United Church of Christ and his pastor’s sermons — the press looks at everyone who runs for president, and everything they’ve done. How is that anything new?
Balderdash.
Thank you. I never realized how much a debate moderator’s somehow uncomfortable questions to Presidential candidates had such an impact.
Gee golly whizz, let’s start screening the questions then. Oops, the GOP already does that!!
What has become clear since the Kennedy presidency is that Kennedy was wrong. The Supreme Court has said that there is no absolute separation of church and state. The constitution does not advocate a separation of church and state. What the constitution is clear on is that every person has a right to practice his or her faith without interference from the government. The supreme irony is that the left in this country would demand that their candidates not practice a religion that affects anything they hold sacred, such as abortion. Lip service to a religious faith is okay, as long as you don’t take it too seriously–think Clinton, Kennedy, Obama…
It’s disturbing to find that many are of the opinion that the voters and candidates should relinquish a fundamental constitutional right in order to participate in the American democratic process.
What’s funny and ironic is the number of politicians who are all too eager to get elected, only to serve the people who bank roll them, rather than the people who vote.
Just look at the Republicans who have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist. Amazing that anyone would vote for someone who has to check with Grover Norquist for his approval before they make decisions that effect the nation and states.
If politicians are not serving the people then the people need to elect someone who will. As long as the people vote for the rich guy with the smooth talk and schmooze, that’s who they will get.
Good response. And have you noticed that the press and progressives purposefully blur the distinction between Santorum’s personal beliefs and what his public policy would be. Actually asking Santorum questions about how he will handle that distinction would be more enlightening. Also, progressives always accuse and assume that conservatives will blur that line and that they will try to make their personal religious beliefs, etc public policy. Progressives are given a pass in this area.
So ask him.
Right. Obama was certainly given a pass about what his church was teaching. The mainstream press and pundits thought that Rev. Wright’s sermons were immaterial. The problem with the press coverage on Santorum is that there is nothing he can really do about birth control and abortion so his beliefs concerning these things are really a non-issue. The fact that Kennedy had to defend himself against accusations that he would be “taking directions” from the Pope goes to show that many in the public would like to deny political candidates the freedom to practice any religion that they don’t like. I am not a Romney fan, but those who won’t vote for him because he is a Mormon are guilty of doing a religious test as well.
And while the public is all up in arms about the non-issue of birth control and abortion, Obama’s policies on the economy and foreign relations, and the Republican candidates’ positions on these issues, are being ignored.
You say the press gave Obama a pass on his church. Not at all. Actually, there was quite a big discussion about the one sentence or two from Rev. Wright that got played hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times on the network and cable news shows — as if that sentence was the only thing Rev. Wright ever said, and as if he said it fifty times every day. The networks didn’t say that sentence was immaterial — they kept playing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and …..
I listen to NPR, so I can only base my actual knowledge on what they did. I don’t remember much coverage there.
I listen to NPR, watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News sometmes, evening CBS news sometimes, read the BDN — all of the networks were playing a sentence or two from Rev. Wright over and over ad nauseum. You know how they get on a story — like the death of Whitney Houston or Michael Jackson — and can’t let it go for weeks until we are all sick of the same old same old? That’s what they did with Rev. Wright.
You say “the press” gave a pass to Obama on religion — since you say you only listen to NPR you don’t mean “the press,” you only mean NPR. Even then, I remember analysis on NPR of Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, but it’s true that they didn’t sensationalize it like the TV networks did.
P.S. About the JFK thing — yes, there was fear among some people that Kennedy would “take instructions” from the Pope on how to govern as President (although abortion and contraception were not issues in the presidential campaign). But remember, those were the prejudices of fifty-two years ago. It was a different world then.
Do you really believe that conservatives do not try to make their personal religious beliefs public policy? What kind of religious beliefs do you think will be taught, at taxpayer expense, in the religious charter schools that LePage wants? Christian, of course, and the conservative brand of Christianity which is nowhere close to what Jesus actually professed. Get real.
Conservatives, and liberals, have the constitutional right to practice their faith, even when it touches on public policy. LePage has not suggested opening religious charter schools–he couldn’t because charter schools are taxpayer funded and cannot be affiliated with a religious denomination. He can, however, allow tax education dollars to follow a student to a religious school that he and his parents choose, as long as he does not show any preference for one religious affiliation over another.
You claim “the Constitution does not advocate a separation of church and state.” You are clearly wrong — while the Constitution does not contain the exact phrase “separation of church and state,” it does contain the principle of separation of church and state. It is found in the following ways:
1) The words “God,” “Christian” and “Jesus” were avoided in the Constitution, and are not to be found there — the Constitution is, as a total document, religiously neutral. Rather than saying that our government is ordained by God, the Constitution says that “We, the people” form the government. Although there have been many attempts by religious groups to amend the Constitution and add “God” to the document, all of those attempts have failed.
2) The only mention of religion in the main body of the Constitution (before the amendments) is a statement that there shall be no religious test for holding office under the Constitution (Article VI).
3) Article II Section 1 says that the President may either swear or affirm the presidential oath or affirmation — thus making it religiously neutral (some people have religious principles that do not allow them to swear an oath). Article VI says that Senators and Representatives, members of state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers shall either “by oath or affirmation” be bound to uphold the Constitution — again religiously neutral.
4) The very First Amendment, leading off the Bill of Rights, says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Amendment XIV says that no state “shall make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”
All of those provisions together add up to what James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” called “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical,” and Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the Declaration of Independence, called “a wall of separation between church and state.”
The principle of separation of church and state is right there in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers intended it to be there, and they said they had put it there.
President Reagan said, “We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral.”
Do you disagree with Ronald Reagan?
I think the Intent was quite clear!
Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[1]
All that you say about the Constitution is true, but it isn’t really on point. Silence on an issue cannot be construed as an affirmative argument. My contention is that the court has not ruled that there is an unscalable wall between church and state. Until the court decided that what was forbidden the Congress was also forbidden the states through the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, it was legal for a state to support a religion to certain extents. The court has also ruled that putting In God We Trust on coins is okay, that the pledge reference to god is not an infringement in itself, and that taxpayer money can be given to a religious organization as long as it is used for a secular purpose.
Santorum is being attacked because he is open about his faith, and he lives his faith. As far as I can see, he is not proposing to ban contraception if he is elected, and even if he thought it should be banned, he just couldn’t do it. There is no support for such a thing, and the court has ruled that legal birth control is a protected privacy issue. As for his stance on abortion, this is nothing new. But as president, all he could do was attempt to put a pro-life judge on the court. He cannot outlaw abortion. So why are reporters pressing this issue, which is a non-issue? Can we please have them ask questions pertaining less to Santorum’s faith, and more to his potential policy? And can news outlets cover those stories instead of dragging up statements made to a Catholic audience concerning Santorum’s faith, which we all know he holds, and to which he is entitled to hold as firmly as he wishes?
You bring up a new concept: an “unscalable” wall of separation between church and state. The idea of “unscalable” is a new one to me.
Yes, I remember when “In God We Trust’ first went on the dollar bill (1954) and, that same year, we added “under God” to the pledge to the flag. These are within my memory, so within the scope of U.S. history they are recent. I don’t feel strongly either way about these two developments, by the way. I’m just mentioning that they are so recent I can remember when they happened — they didn’t come from the Founding Fathers, they came from anti-Communist feelings during the Cold War.
Santorum brings up certain issues — he can’t help himself because he feels passionately, and that is refreshing in a politician. I like his passion, even when I disagree with his positions. So he says what he believes, and we discuss that, because if he becomes president he will make appointments, issue executive orders, support bills, etc. These are topics that are legitimate for discussion, because they relate to the future of our nation.
ComradeX: “Invoking alleged bigotry” against those Catholics–and, to be sure, others–who insist that gays have no moral right to marriage while also insisting that Catholics and non-Catholics who work for Catholic-based institutions have no moral right to birth control is hypocrisy at its worst. Re burning Catholics in ovens, is this supposed to make us forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other mass murder of non-Catholics over the centuries? Be serious. You want it both ways, or all ways: only those who follow Catholic doctrine have the moral right to impose their values on everyone else in America. Sorry, but I don’t buy that.
How about holding Muslims to the same standard that you hold Catholics. You know, never forgiving or forgetting any bad parts of their history.
Of course there is one difference between Christians and Muslims. Mainstream Christians have denounced and renounced their bloody, intolerant, and oppressive past. Muslims however….
We should hold all religious groups to the same standard.
Mainstream Muslims regularly denounce and renounce the bloody attacks committed by the radicals, including this month at the open house of the Islamic Center of Maine in Orono. However, denouncing violence isn’t newsworthy, and so it doesn’t get reported in the press, especially the Murdoch Media (which has an agenda that is not “fair and balanced”). Violence sells newspapers and TV news reports, denouncing violence doesn’t sell. So you hear about the violence, while you don’t hear about the vast majority of Muslims who regularly denounce the violence.
One local Muslim group denounces the violence of the radicals and you give the whole religion a pass. You really need to look at the world wide picture of Islam as a whole. And the high percentage of Muslims world wide who at least tacitly support the radicals. And take note of the many Islamic leaders who say one message of peace and reconciliation to the western press and have a completely different message to fellow Muslims and on web sites in their own language.
Muslims regularly denounce the violence — the so-called “radical” Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who wants to build an Islamic Community Center (like a YMCA) near ground zero in New York — which Fox News has denounced as the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” — is a moderate, actually a flag-waving American patriot who praises American freedoms and the Constitution, and who has frequently denounced the violence, but you never hear that reported on Faux News. And that’s typical. Many, many, many Muslims have denounced the violence, but Fox isn’t listening, and apparently neither are you.
Now of course there is a violence problem among many Muslims (although suicide bombing was developed by Hindu extremists in Sri Lanka, and many people are violent in the name of many various religions). At the Islamic Center on Feb. 4 the main speaker Dr. Mohammed Mir — he is a physician dedicated to saving lives at at Eastern Maine Medical Center — denounced (among other groups) Boko Haram in Nigeria. He pointed out that the name “Boko Haram” doesn’t mean “God is Great” or “Holy War,” it means “Education is Evil.” Dr. Mir said this goes against Islamic ideals, and he condemned the violence. He also pointed out that “jihad” means “struggle,” NOT “Holy War,” and that Muhammad said the greatest jihad is the struggle a person has with his own soul. But the media — especially those with an agenda like Fox — doesn’t find this sort of thing newsworthy.
Please tell us more about “The Renunciation”.
Never heard of it
I am pretty sure it was Christian radicals who bombed abortion clinics and killed people.
santorum is the best comedian whos ever run for president. Im hoping the right wing will put him up against obama the election will be over before it starts.
Santorum has been a blessing for Obama. Lets hope he keeps up the thoughtless drival….
Heading back to the Thirty Years War and the Holy Inquisition.
Yet your newspaper will happily poll how high or low this candidate or that stands in the eyes of evangelicals. Or discuss how they stand with Jews. And whether Catholics are neanderthal in the B/C argument, ad nauseum..
I love the use of the Kennedy quote …..” an act against one church is considered an act against all”……where ia the outrage against the holy war in the middle east. Has president Obama yet made a statement about the burning of the Muslim holy book ? It seems both political parties are guilty of the use of this issue for it’s own purposes !
You ask, “Has president Obama yet made a statement about the burning of the Muslim holy book?” Yes, President Obama apologized publicly several days ago for the burning of the Qurans. And several days ago Rick Santorum said the President should not have apologized. I think Obama was correct to offer an apology — it is hard to understand, after the experiences of ten years in Afghanistan, how our military could have made such a dumb mistake.
The whole story please. These Qurans were being used to pass messages between inmates. So, who defiled the holy books? Those who used them for terrorist plotting, or those who disposed of them? When terrorists fly planes into our buildings, do we get apologies?
Yes, I agree that there may be more to the story than just “we burned some Qurans.” I’ve heard on the radio that inmates were passing messages, and that the Qurans were burned in this regard. But we’ve been in Afghanistan for ten years, for goodness sake. If there was a legitimate reason to dispose of Qurans (if they were being used to smuggle messages, for instance), we certainly should be smart enough by now to not let anyone know that we were burning Qurans. None of us know all of the circumstances, but we know that the job was botched. Haven’t we learned anything at all in ten years?
You ask an incredibly stupid question: “When [non-governmental] terrorists fly planes into our buildings, do we get apologies?” Of course not — it’s a completely different situation. They were trying to stir up trouble. We are not. They were trying to get people killed. We are trying to help the situation in Afghanistan and get out without losing any more lives than necessary. So we want to calm things down. Apologizing for a mistake is the smart thing to do. If you would rather have a president who does the stupid thing, elect Santorum.
So, it’s okay, in your playbook, to burn the Quran, just don’t get caught? hmmm. I like it. It’s evil on a Republican scale ;).
I only ask the question about the terrorists and planes because let’s compare how the world expects the US to act. Not only were Americans killed on 9-11, but certain populations in the world celebrated the event. Did those governments offer official and repeated apologies for the actions of their people? I don’t remember seeing it. But the US does–and if we don’t we are evil and oppressive. And if we do, we are still evil and oppressive.
I think the servicemen in Afghanistan would appreciate a President who stands by them, instead of apologizing for them. I think a President could have expressed regret, but maintained that as long as terrorist inmates used the Quran for other than religious purposes, we would not be bound to treat it as a religious item. He should not have offered an official and complete apology as if he agreed that his troops acted irresponsibly and disrespectfully. Santorum might just understand the distinction.
If the Qurans had be destroyed for some reason — because they were being used to smuggle terrorists messages — then the military officials who destroyed them should not have let people know that was what they were doing. Yes, that’s what I said.
Personally, I don’t think we should burn anyone’s holy book. I’m just saying we should have learned something in the past ten years, that’s all.
You want me to compare our government and laws to the acts of terrorists — you say, “I only ask the question about the terrorists and planes because let’s compare how the world expects the US to act.” I think that’s an absurd comparison. We are not terrorists, and we should not act like them. I hold my government to a much higher standard, and hope you do, too. If we begin to act like terrorists, we will become terrorists.
President Obama stood by our soldiers by apologizing to the Afghan government. You would prefer that he get our soldiers killed. I think the president should do the smart thing, not the stupid thing. As Gen. Patton said, the idea of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his country.
Santorum would do the stupid thing and not apologize, and get more troops killed — just as Bush 43 did the stupid thing by starting an unnecessary war in Iraq, and then making a mess of it. You want the president to not apologize because you want the president to sound tough. We tried “tough and dumb” under Bush 43. I’d rather have a smart president like Obama who is trying to undo the stupidity of others.
You write,”Not only were Americans killed on 9-11, but certain populations in the world celebrated the event.” Also remember that in Teheran, Iran, thousands of Muslims went into the streets with candles in a vigil of solidarity with the Americans who were killed.
I like to know why the Muslim people have not appologized for the burning of the Bible? They kill Christians at random or throw them in jail – yet Obama has refused to hold them responible – a shame. And people say that religion should not interfer with governement – well it sure is with Obama – he wont take a stand and even protect the killing and inprisionment of people who are christians in Muslin nations.
“The Muslim people” don’t do anything.
Muslims, like Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, and Buddhists, are all individuals. Every religion has some extremists. There are two billion — that’s not million, or hundred million, but billion — Muslims around the world. Does every one of them burn a Bible? No. Does every Christian burn a Quran? No. Remember that what you see on TV is the most sensational thing the network could find. Just because some pastor of a 100-member church in Florida threatens to burn a Quran doesn’t mean that every Christian is burning Qurans. Just because one Christian in Georgia bombs a lesbian nightclub doesn’t mean that all Christians bomb nightclubs. Just because one Christian (or three, or five) shoots and kills a doctor who performs abortions doesn’t mean all Christians kill doctors.
The same is true for Muslims. Most get up in the morning, say a prayer, take a shower, eat breakfast, brush their teeth, and go to work. Sounds pretty much like the rest of us.
Where can I find that apology ? Will you please post your source.
Here is one link: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-23/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-burned-qurans_1_nato-troops-qurans-afghan-officials?_s=PM:ASIA
And here is another by the lunatic Santorum who criticized Obama for making the apology which to him showed “weakness”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/rick-santorum-quran-burning_n_1302219.html
I too agree with penzance. Our president was not only correct to apologize but he also acted like a real leader who knows what to do in a crisis, unlike Santorum who would only exacerbate and accelerate any crisis because of his narrow minded thinking. He is the man who is weak…not Obama!
The apology was widely reported — anyone with an internet connection can find many references. Here’s one:
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=obama+apology+to+karzai+white+house&oq=obama+apology+to+karzai+white+house&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=1704l12938l0l14813l35l31l0l18l1l0l375l2028l0.2.4.2l8l0
Here’s another:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/white-house-defends-koran-burning-apology/1
Here’s a third:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-afghanistan-korans-obama-idUSTRE81M13W20120223
If you’ve been paying attention, it’s all over the place.
“But the line must be drawn to stop elected officials from
creating a conduit between church dogma and public policy. It is not clear
where Mr. Santorum, were he to be elected president, stands on this matter.”
********************************************
Compare and contrast where possible considering that one is a candidate and the other, President:
“Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to
pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the
separation between church and state.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-plays-race-card-calls-on-churches-to-support-campaign.html
Hey folks, go to that link. It is thought provoking. Even forgetting about the race issue, what if Santorum was urging all Catholics to support him, to form groups stemming from the faith community to advocate and fund his candidacy?
So, I expect to see the outrage over this from the left……
Come on, guys, you know: Wall of Separation between church and state….Politicians should leave their faith at home and not put it in the public arena….
Crickets…..
The problem with “God in the White House” is, which God? Your God, my God, Santorum’s God, Romney’s God? They don’t seem to be the same. Santorum’s God forbids birth control, for example. Romney’s God used to believe in polygamy but changed His mind. My God thinks that gays and lesbians are part of the natural world and should be allowed to marry. The list goes on and on.
Here we expose the term “religious neutrality” as pertains to the Constitution and the contingent value, tolerance.
Romney’s leader of the Morman church – was illiterate
Just look up what Mormans belive – it may concern you.
And it shouldn’t concern you regarding Romney’s ability to be President. Nobody has even remotely suggested that if Romney became president he would try to outlaw tea and coffee. His Mormonism is a non-issue.
I think the Mormons believe a lot of nutty things — that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri; that God was once a man like us and that any Mormom man can potentially become a God with his own universe; that Jesus appeared in America to lost tribes of Israel who had wandered over here; that a scripture called “The Book of Mormon” should be read and followed along side the Bible — but a lot of other religions also believe a lot of strange things. We shouldn’t judge Mitt Romney (or Rick Santorum, or New Gingrich) based on what we think of what their church teaches. If we all agreed with Mormom teachings, we would all be Mormons. You can disagree with the candidate’s church and still vote for the candidate. That also goes for Barak Obama and the United Church of Christ, or Hillary Clinton and the United Methodist Church — or for an agnostic or atheist or any candidate.
We should listen to the candidate, look at his or her record, and vote based on the positions taken by the candidate and what we perceive about his or her character and what that person would be likely to do in office.
According to you, your faith in your god would be okay to use in determining public policy, but someone else’s faith in their god would not if their faith did not agree with your faith? Santorum is upfront about his Catholic faith. Just because he is a devout Catholic does not mean he cannot make decisions based on the constitution and laws of this country.
Eh? No. I don’t want my God in the White House. In return for that, I don’t want your God in there, either. I most particularly don’t want Santorum’s God in there, as Ricky has said he thinks states should be able to enforce religious law. Like, outlawing birth control.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!
I am my own God and I hate ALL other gods….
I can live with that . . .
Ricky is wrong. A President is not guided by any religion.
He is guided by what the Constitution says he can and can’t do.
Although past Presidents and present one included have trashed
what the office of the President really is, their religious beliefs are
just that, their own beliefs. They have nothing to do with governing
under the Constitution. Although there are many references to religion,
there is nothing giving a religion oversight in governing.
I am sorry but I disagree. Religion guides eveyone. Either you have religion or you don’t but it guides what you do.
Its like your parent bringing you up, they guide and direct you and as you are older this guidance and teaching you that your parents did when you were young, guides and direct you today.
I yet to understand just how one can seperate church and state, when religion is a part of who you are. We try to stay nuteral but one way or another we have that leaning throughout our life – based upon what we ahve been tought – through religion – just like we have that leaning towards different biasis and stereotypes we were taught by our parents – again we try to be nuteral – but can we really do that deep down inside – I don’t think so.
Many people have no religion and live good lives. Moral compass is not religion based. Many people have religion and lead horrible lives.
Religion is an opinion. Morals and good decision-making comes from within, not a higher power….. There is absolutely a need for the separation. Just as you wouldn’t want all of my opinions to dictate your life, I don’t want your opinions dictating my life.
The Constitution protects your right to your opinion just as it protects anyone else’s right to choose a religious belief.
I fully support the rights given by the Constitution. I do not support the integration of church and state.
By inference therefore should we understand that you would not want another Constitutionally protected American who believes in a personally chosen religion to be the President?
It’s not the venue….
Do I understand your answer to mean you believe the Presidency should therefore not be open to any US citizen who meets the constitutional requirements of age and citizenship?
Like most people, President Obama is guided by his principles — including principles that are based in the Constitution and laws of the U.S., and principles that are based in his religious convictions. Every human being has principles (for good or ill). We show our principles in our actions.
Obama’s grandparents took him to a Unitarian Universalist Sunday school when he was a child. As an adult he joined the United Church of Christ. He doesn’t talk about his religious faith all the time, as some politicians do, but I believe he is a religious man who is guided by religious principles — including Biblical principles that say we should take care of the poor, the widows, and the orphans, and welcome the stranger in our midst.
Obama? Guided by his principals? He is guided by an
ideology and you are right, he is showing it by his actions.
Please don’t even try to insinuate this man’s decisions are
based on the Constitution.
I guess you’re just not paying attention.
Republicans use Religion for their War on Women. It is obvious by now that Santorum is a Religious Zealot and can not be trusted. Romney Wars on the middle class closing companies for a profit and firing the employees.
In this day and age of divorce perhaps we should ask why some liberal women keep their oaths to their husbands and while we’re at it, why some conservative women keep their oaths to their husbands. Just presenting the flip side of pop-culture, out of curiosity.
Speaking of curiosity, why would you feel the need to interject a War on Women topic in this thread devoted to the topic of church and state…..except for distraction, politics, hate or all of the above?
Why limit that line of questioning to women?
My post was a contextual response to Knightscross’s post.
Santorum may have been referring to the church as a guide in people’s lives, helping them make choices and perhaps using the golden rule and not to hurt others, using faith’s teachings. Maybe this was his point. The BDN probably did not consider this possibility?
Jack Kennedy was eloquent and if alive today could be mistaken for conservativism.
The Christian church should not be a guide as the Bible is full of terrible teachings. Christianity, as it is portrayed by good Christians is loving, kind and accepting. Santurum is crazy.
I was goofing on the BDN. But thanks for the lecture.
Santorum is a Catholic, so of course he’s for involvement of the church in stately affairs. JFK, on the other hand, was by no means a practicing Catholic as he was just born into it.
Ron Paul 2012!
Santorum’s God “told him” to run for office (sound familiar?). So did Newt’s god. They are supposed to be the same God because Newt has renounced his earlier Lutheran and baptist teachings in favor of Catholicism. Why is God telling two different men to run for office? Is God playing a game with the candidates or are the candidates playing a game with us? What does this mean? Is there a message in the riddle? I think there may be a chance that these guys are not genuine. Why does God keep telling these people to run and then they don’t get elected?
Hoping and praying that Santorum is the winner. He will not even carry Pennsylvania in the general. That and his top google result make me want him in the primaries. That and I want to read the headline “Santorum all over Romney “.
The wise man sits outside the church on Sunday so he can get a good look at who will try to screw him on Monday.
It is obvious that the context is different here, but I think Santorum is challenging the present day notion that one should be scrutinized for the religion he follows. Romney was attacked for being a Mormon on MSNBC a week or two ago, and the story basically shifted into a bunch of non main stream mormons that tried to baptize jews killed in the holocaust, this has nothing to do with Romney. I think Santorum is challenging where the line is drawn, and his idea is that you need to use your faith in God when making important decisions that affect peoples lives, and if you claim that you are committed to God you can’t really do otherwise. I think a lot of people find fault in the idea of someone making decisions while in office that is influenced by faith. John Kennedy had to fight against the notion that the Catholic church would be holding its own private meetings with Kennedy behind the scenes, influencing what he did, the emphasis in his statement was upon defining where he stood on that. I’m not a betting man but if I was, I’d bet Kennedy would probably agree with Santorum in the context of which I think Santorum is speaking in.
I think your analysis is dead on right.
“’I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state
is absolute,” Mr. Santorum said. “The idea that the church should have
no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is
absolutely antithetical of the objectives and vision of our country.”
Referring to an earlier public comment he made about President Kennedy’s
1960 speech to Protestant leaders, Mr. Santorum — also a Catholic — was
even more blunt: “To say that people of faith have no role in the
public square? You bet that makes you throw up,” he said.
Mr. Santorum’s comments are suspect on their own merit, but I wonder how many conservatives have considered this from the perspective of the Islamic faith. How many of these people are opposed to Muslim Brotherhood operating in Egypt? How about in America?
Think about what Santorum is saying. It only applies to HIS faith and his own narrow interests. There is a reason for separation of church and state.