General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums55 years ago conservatives feared a candidate might not respect the separation of church & state
My how times have changed.
On September 12, 1960 John Kennedy made a speech to a group of Protestant ministers in Houston, TX. There were a good many people who questioned whether or not a Catholic could or should be president. They feared he would not be able to keep his religion out of his decisions should he be elected president and would be apt to "take orders from the pope".
I would bet that the type of people who worried about JFK are same type who now think Kim Davis is a hero. Had she been around at the time, I have no doubt Kim Davis would have been afraid of Kennedy and his religion.
BTW, this is the speech Rick Santorum said made him want to throw up -- so you know it is worth reading.
A transcript is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Or may watch the speech here:
[div class ="excerpt"]
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, 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...
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
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation
..But if the time should ever come and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)...would be outraged if a municipality continued to ban handguns in violation of D.C. v. Heller. They're the same people who scream about "sanctuary cities" flouting immigration laws. The same people who complain about Muslim cab drivers not wanting alcohol in their cabs.
PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)herding cats
(19,565 posts)status.
Basically, ICE holds aren't done in "sanctuary cities" if you've fulfilled your commitment to society otherwise within the US borders. YMMV considering there's no definitive definition. Mine is based on experience living in and working within the system in one such city in the US.
dhol82
(9,353 posts)But now remember the hysteria that surrounded the whole episode. The rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth about 'that catholic' and how the pope would have control over the United States. It was really stupid.
Nobody ever cared that Nixon was raised as a Quaker.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)until 1980 Americans United was there to keep America *Protestant*; the baiting in turn helped push the USCCB into right-wing stuff, especially on abortion and LGBT, in the 80s and 90s (while damning Reagan and capitalism, but whatever) to prevent further attacks from the Protestant right
they even debated if the 1st Amendment should apply to Popery since it was a "different sort" of religion than what they had here--heck, their 18th-century fantasy of swarming Jesuits and St Bart's Massacres was probably much more influential in getting the 1A conceived than deistic worries over establishment; ironically they wrote the 1A for strict neutrality because of all these
some conspiracy watchers say that if the Birchers had done and/or smoothed the path for Dallas 1963 it was as much because he was a Papist as well as a pinko in their eyes--and frankly every Red-baiting trope came from what they said about the Jews and the Irish back in the 20s!
reading their stuff, that wouldn't come as that big a surprise https://archive.org/stream/freethinkerspict00hest#page/n7/mode/2up
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)It was just the wrong church.
babylonsister
(171,070 posts)I often wonder why those traits are no longer necessary in politicians. I miss both.
Suich
(10,642 posts)Word was, if elected, he would be taking his orders from Rome.
...whatever that means.
840high
(17,196 posts)I remember it all.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Even though Protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism, which is a breakaway cult of Judaism, which was copied by Islam, everyone seems to think the problem is when other peoples' religion has too much influence in politics.
The co-author of the First Amendment saw things a bit more clearly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/separation-of-church-and-state-santorum-vs-madison/251546/
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)[center][/center]
http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Catholic-President-Kennedy/dp/0195374487
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)something else we can thank Nixon for.
I know I read once that Jackie said she didn't understand all the to do over religion because, as she said, "Jack isn't a very good Catholic."