Constitutional Law, Religion, Society

Santorum Feels Like Throwing Up . . . Again

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has been criticized in the past for his statement that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 comments about the role of religion in public life and the separation of church and state. This weekend he took time out to say that he would still like to throw up.


Santorum is notorious among civil libertarians for his deep-seated opposition to separation principles. It is a view that is becoming all the more common — as this column discusses.

If you recall, Kennedy used the speech to address anti-Catholic prejudice and doubts raised over his ability to be independent of Rome. Kennedy famously said “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.” For most Americans, it was a statement that made them feel proud. For Santorum, it may him feel woozy.

Last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum told the crowd of JFK’s 1960 Greater Houston Ministerial Association speech, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”

Santorum this weekend left no doubt about his rejection of separation principles: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”
He later answered that his statement was quite literal in wanting to throw up: “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.”

It is the ultimate expression of faith-based politics. Ironically, it is the type of intermingling of faith and government that many of our most implacable enemies might find appealing. Around the world, nations are reeling from the influence of religion on politics. Yet, in this island of stability of separation of church and state, Santorum appears to want to tear down the wall that has long defined our political system.

With the latest comments, we all may feel a bit woozy.

Source: Washington Post

95 thoughts on “Santorum Feels Like Throwing Up . . . Again”

  1. eniobob,

    Does Christie as a running mate make sense to you?

    The suspense of who will be chosen is the next big Republican Reality show.

  2. Political Animal
    Blog
    February 29, 2012 9:48 AM Santorum Loses Catholic Vote—But Did He Ever Have It?

    By Ed Kilgore
    Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

    As they awaited the final results from Michigan, probably the single biggest topic of conversation in the chattering classes last night was the shocking news from the exit polls that Rick Santorum had lost Michigan Catholics to Mitt Romney by a 44-37 margin. Immediately there was speculation that Rick’s visceral dissing of JFK’s church-state relations speech might have contributed significantly to this result, or had perhaps cost him Michigan altogether.

    That was my initial reaction, too, until I started wondering: why did we all assume Santorum had an advantage among Catholics in the first place? Yes, he’s an outspoken “traditionalist” Catholic, cozy with its famous Opus Dei elite, happiest in surroundings like Florida’s overtly traditionalist Ave Maria University, and very self-identified with the Bishops in their current fight with the Obama administration over its contraception coverage mandate.

    Yes, as I and others have amply documented, the idea that Catholics are more conservative than Americans generally, even on “social issues,” is pretty much a myth. But you had to figure that the kind of Catholics who choose to vote in Republican primaries are pretty significantly correlated with “traditionalists” like Rick, right?

    That’s actually not so clear at all. The last contest with exit polling by the networks was Florida. There Santorum won 13% of the overall vote, but just 10% of Catholics; Mitt Romney ran a bit better among Catholics than he did overall. Now maybe you could say Florida’s heavily Latino Catholic vote is atypical. What about South Carolina? There Santorum won 17% of the overall vote, but just 15% of Catholics. Again, Romney peformed a bit better among Catholics than among voters generally.

    If you want to write off both those states because Santorum did not campaign heavily there, and/or because fellow-Catholic Newt Gingrich was the most important non-Romney candidate, then go back to Iowa. For some reason, Edison Research’s entrance polls there did not break down voters by religious affiliation, but did ask if voters considered themselves evangelical or “born-again” Christians. Now that’s a term normally associated with Protestants, though ABC’s polling analyst Gary Langer has suggested that 14% of Catholics identify themselves as “born-again.” Even if you take that “born-again Catholic” minority into account, it doesn’t look like Rick did that well among his co-religionists, winning only 14% of non-“born-agains” as opposed to his overall statewide percentage of 25% (again, Romney romped among non-“born-agains,” which obviously includes mainline Protestants, Jews, the unchurched, etc.).

    So based on prior evidence, there’s really no particularly reason to think the “Catholic vote” was ever Santorum’s to lose. His voting base has always been conservative evangelical Protestants, who also make up a high percentage of the voters fixated on making abortion illegal, a particularly strong Santorum demographic. I’m sure the JFK slur didn’t help, but this is one “surprise” in Michigan that really shouldn’t have been that surprising.

  8. The catholic vote in Michigan is going to Romney and it is probably due to the Kennedy comment.

  9. Talking Dog,

    Re: Santo’s health insurance….thanks for doing the research. You’ve outlined the policy plan correctly. And I think I’ve gained your concession that he no longer has the coverage as he is no longer a federal employee. Sorry to nitpick, but misinformation shows up so often, usually driven by the right, and it drives me crazy. If Forbes says differently (can you provide the link?), I’d say it isn’t the first time a journalist has made an error. Lastly, my employer doesn’t provide quite as generous health coverage – but it does cover about 70% of the premium so I’m don’t find your figure of 72% coverage disturbing.

  10. Pingback: JFK Speech Makes Santorum “Throw Up.” A Lot. | One Blue Stocking

  12. I707,

    Welcome….. You know this reminds me of an issue another had on this post with someone that attacked them for who they were not what they were….then again…some are attacked for not being what some thought they should be…. In either case… Good luck to you….you seem to like the flowers that grow at you feet…. You and only you provide the fertilizer…. Be careful what you plant….. It may just consume you….I would inquire of your motivations… But today is a new day….

  13. To All,
    Since we’re talking about Santorum and his religious views and how Obama is so bad on those counts, I thought that this link might be appreciated.
    (on topic for once!).

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/27/1881538/time-for-amen.html

    No cred here I guass, just red-neckers—-which at times it is.
    But even those who try to crucify Obama by quoting his views on Islam and Christianity sometimes work counterproductively, by producing lists which we, looking with other eyes, see another person than they do.

    So take a look for “BungaloBill” not far down the “newest first” list.

    Myself, I avoid the usual comparisons, and opine that Obama is pretty clearly for separation of religion and state——from both sides of the wall.

  14. rafflaw,
    just want to apologize for unleashing a childhood defense tactic on you.
    Not for your sake, as for trying to heal myself to avoid using it again.
    But you Quixote/ ????? association does invite it. Oh there I am again.
    My quickness will be the death of me. Yes, I hear the potential cheers from the grandstand crowd. To which I reply: Don’t you like to see someone doing tryouts as scriptwriter for Jon Stewart.

  15. AY
    Are you aware that these lines imply paranoia bordering on schizophrenia???
    ===============
    Anonymously Yours1, February 27, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    ……………………

    “What I have noticed is if someone responds to my postings… Either they are attacked or I am….so please find health….. Check your motives…. If I am the cause of your distress…. I must be amazing….. Check to see if your belief is really rational…. Just because…you’ve learned that something is fine….because that’s the way we’ve always done it….does not make your beliefs rational”
    ====================

    Or do you think not?

    To end in consolatíonns and implication that I need help in my seeking can be taken as malevolence clad in sheep’s clothing.
    But I’ll take it on its face value instead. As you said, the high road, or at least implied some such. Good luck.

    As for seeking help to find my real self, well I thougt Mike S said it was a good motivation to help in the heavy lifting,. with reservation for failing memory.
    Let’s hope the day will come again when all can say they met their shrink recently. Not looking to offload my part, but do feel a sick society produces higher incidence of sickness in mental health.

    Back to the thread, dammit!

Comments are closed.