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
I take your point, id707.
Churches have always played a political role in this country. From abolition to the underground railway to the civil rights marches in the 1960’s, church members have actively, through their churches, worked to influence the passage of laws and election of politicians.
For years entire communities suffered under the Sunday Blue Laws that forbid the selling of liquor or other retail merchandise.
Christmas was sanctioned as a National holiday and remains so.
The Second Great Awakening started around 1800 and influenced the distribution of land and settlements thereof in the Ohio territories and beyond.
Right now fewer and fewer citizens are “churched”. Life style changes, account for some of it but pedophilia, ignorance, and bigotry within mainstream and fundamentalist religious organizations also must be factored in along with the long term effect of 9/11 … a heinous crime proudly committed by admitted religious zealots.
So it is that the separation principles have become a popular once again.
The pendulum constantly swings.
(I have long supported taxing churches for churches have always been active in American politics.)
The Constitution protects religionists and non-religionist (intent?).
But what protects the Constitution from both of the above? Obviously the former are the chief danger. And must agree wholeheartedly in civil rights under the Constitution are also under attack——by the same, or is it just leaders who use the group as Mike S said.
Obama following and doubling down on George confuses me.
Anybody got a poll on what the evangelists and the religionist in general say?
Mike S.,
Regarding Hitler’s Aryan Purification cause: We shouldn’t forget the kidnapping of Polish and other Eastern European children who had “Aryan” characteristics/who fit the Nazis racial criteria for Himmler’s “Lebensborn” Program.
Poles: Victims of the Nazi Era
http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php
Excerpt:
During the Zamosc expulsions the Germans seized many children from their parents to be racially screened for possible adoption by German parents in the SS Lebensborn (“Fount of Life”) program. As many as 4,454 children chosen for Germanization were given German names, forbidden to speak Polish, and reeducated in SS or other Nazi institutions, where many died of hunger or disease. Few ever saw their parents again. Many more children were rejected as unsuitable for Germanization after failing to measure up to racial scientists’ criteria for establishing “Aryan” ancestry; they were sent to children’s homes or killed, some of them at Auschwitz of phenol injections. An estimated total of 50,000 children were kidnapped in Poland, the majority taken from orphanages and foster homes in the annexed lands. Infants born to Polish women deported to Germany as farm and factory laborers were also usually taken from the mothers and subjected to Germanization. (If an examination of the father and mother suggested that a “racially valuable” child might not result from the union, abortion was compulsory.)
OS
How do we do that—-worry over, or influence that 25%?
Jon Stewart imitation: “I know, we do a drama about polititics, as seen from inside the West Wing, and….(Ring) Wha’, already done…..yeah,
Didn’t help at all? Well, I still think it’s good idea. (turning to audience) Whaddaya say folks, is it a good idea or not to influence…….. (turning and pointing to near sitter) Yeah, I know you think JC and his reincarnations are the answer.”
Religious intrusion blossoms even as our civil liberties are circumscribed. Opportunists and zealots thrive.
Writing on the wall?
When thinking about this, so many dilemmas present themselves. Christianity is not monolithic, but is represented by various movements, each representing a loose agreement on overall structure, but replete with doctrinal disagreements. Santorum, as a Catholic represents a Christian view that is only partially compatible with let’s say a Baptist. Wars have been fought over the Centuries because of these doctrinal differences. The end result of Santorum’s position would obviously lead to further strife as to which doctrine reigns supreme. This is precisely why the “Separation Doctrine” came to be. Obviously then Santorum is looking at this from an illogical viewpoint, or hasn’t thought this through and/or is engaging in demagoguery.
We’ve seen though in Bob Altemeyer’s study “The Authoritarians”,
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
that Right Wing Authoritarians (RWA’s) are immune to logic and or any data input contrary to their belief systems. We could then classify Santorum as a
RWA, given the illogical nature of his Constitutional belief system. Yet it is not easy to do so because in his studies Altemeyer has also show that the leaders of RWA’s are far more pragmatic and merely catering to the limited belief systems of their followers.
However, he also defines the most dangerous of leaders of RWA’s as people who is themselves RWA in outlook. An example might well be Adolph Hitler, who I think sincerely believed in his Aryan Purification cause. My sense of Santorum is that he is just that kind of leader and therefore a deadly dangerous man, despite his boyish demeanor. He really believes the nonsense he spews and given power would act ruthlessly to enforce it.
Two political examples come to mind where there is (or was) arguably no separation of church and state.
1) The religion is the state – like those countries where the Taliban presides.
2) The state is the religion – like the former Soviet Union.
Historically, neither one of those turned out very well for the citizenry.
Thanks, Santorum, but I’ll keep my church and state separated. Kennedy was right then, and he is still right 50 years later.
If the frothy mix is indeed the winner of the nomination, he is guaranteed about 28% of the vote. The number of hard-core wingnuts is just over one fourth of the voting population. About half the voters, are more or less reasonably sane. Of that half, about half of that cohort are reasonably well informed because they do not trust the MSM to tell the truth and get their news from multiple sources on the Internet. That leaves about one fourth of the voters who are “undecided” because 1) they have no idea what is going on because they are not very curious; 2) they don’t care and are easily swayed by television ads. and 3) they have biases and will not or cannot admit it to pollsters.
That latter group is what we have to worry about.
This statement is particularly interesting: “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’s the kind of propaganda I’ve come to expect in what passes for political discourse. The Constitution protects individual freedom of conscience. It does not forbid religious people from holding office. That is a delieberate lie used to frighten people both on the right and left. The far right wing believes that christians are under attack. The “left” wing thinks far right lunatics will take over. Both are incorrect in their fears. Far right religious lunatics are who already run this country. That’s what the Family is all about and that is why our military is filled with people on a christian crusade! Follow the military money and you will see the contractors who are getting billions upon billions are good christians.
I hate all the lying we are subjected to by these middle management lackeys posing as candidates. I wish that people would step back from the fear mongering, face the facts and act with those facts in mind.
I’m confused….. A participant in politics doesn’t have any impact if his religion isn’t recognized?
How does Santorum expect the government to operate exactly? Religious group-backed people have a greater standing than non-religious agents?
This just sounds like a lot of crazy to me. I am still amazed that this guy is even in the race at all, given that most of the things he spouts just sound completely off-balance.
And to think this is the best rising cream of the Republican legacy… Heck…. Even the dross of making sugar from cane is rum…… Now, I feel like throwing up….
Idealist,
As long as Churches don’t pay taxes they need to stay out of the political arena. Santorum lies all the time. Ask him for stats about anything…you know about kids going to college to lose their religion. Or maybe ask the Dutch about them wanting to euthanize sick old people. The only times he tells the truth is when he expresses desire to be in a position to deny people contraception, abortions, or free will.
What Gene said. This is just one more example that Santorum is the leader of the American Taliban!
“A reporter said the reason Santorum is coming off like he is,is because he’s not familiar with being in front and in the spotlight like he has been lately,that’s why there’s no discipline in his actions.”
In other words . . .
“Ricky hasn’t been taken seriously up to this point and he’s not smart enough to lie, er, use his internal censor every time the red light goes on.”
Who needs lie, damned lies or statistics when the truth is far more revealing about the man’s obvious lack of respect for or understanding of the Constitution.
I’m glad you posted this, Prof. I was going to write about it Sunday, but when I signed on, I saw you were already working the iron. 😉
A reporter said the reason Santorum is coming off like he is,is because he’s not familiar with being in front and in the spotlight like he has been lately,that’s why there’s no discipline in his actions.
Make no mistake, Ricky sees it as church or state, and you know which he thinks it should be (churate or starch). 🙂
Ol Frothy has intentionally misunderstood they entire intent and history of the separation of church and state. His reason is because the only way he can win is to misrepresent what support of the concept means. What he appears to want is to replace our secular government with a certain form of Christian oligarchy.
Nobody (except Ricky & company) is saying you can’t use your faith and beliefs to form your political desires. But he has to pretend there are people saying this or he loses the debate.
JFK said no protestant minister should tell his parishioners whom to vote for.
A debatable admonition; isn’t an exercise of free speech and political activity assured to all under freedom of expression, etc.
And it people wish to assign the right of thinking for them to their priest, rabbi, or lawyer for that matter, then that is their choice to be made.
Regrettabel choices, but is it prohibited by separation of church and state??
Yes, we see the ills around the world of the above mixing of church and state. And it’s not just confined to Muslim countries. And we see it here in domionism, calls for Christian ethics to be the basis of our nation, etc. Which I oppose wholeheartedly. But where does the expression of calling for political influence and free exercise be confined by the separation ideal?
And if prohibited by express law, you still can’t keep the religious from caballing in their church meetings, just as you can’t keep those of mixed religions meeting to plan what’s good for them economically.
Don’t know. Left to the lawyers to debate.
Going to leave and get my pacemaker checked. For once I checked in early.
The campaign theme song now is “
Hail, hailHurl, hurl thegang’s allnew High Priest in Chief is here” …If the Santo Rum does throw up I would hope that someone with a video camera takes some photos to see just what it is that this schmuck imbibes. The guy puts front and center the fact that he and wifeypoo have seven kids and that one of them is under medical care on a very regular basis. The next sentence has him deploring what he calls ObamaCare. This schmuck is splurging on the public dime himself. Congressmen and women get free medical care for life for their service, be it harsh, brutish or short. If he and wifeypoo were really good catolicks they would have eleven children by now. I will give him the advice that we gave Nixon in 1972: pull out now, like your father should have.