Rick Santorum On JFK 'Throw Up' Comments: 'I Wish I Had That Particular Line Back'

Rick Santorum said Sunday that John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on the separation of church and state made him want to "throw up." On Tuesday, he said he wished he "had that particular line back."

When conservative radio host Laura Ingraham challenged him on the apparently off-message comments that have provoked considerable controversy, the GOP presidential candidate said, "I would agree with you on that. I wish I had that particular line back."

Yet Santorum went on to defend his criticism of Kennedy's speech and launched an attack on President Barack Obama. "And if you read President Kennedy’s text, while there were certainly some very important things and good things he said in that, there were some things that triggered in my opinion the privatization of faith and I think that’s a bad thing." He continued, "I think we need to have a free exercise of religion in this country and it’s important for those First Amendment freedoms to be alive and well in America and I think they are threatened here in America as we’ve seen by President Obama, not by Rick Santorum."

Santorum's comments came on ABC's "This Week." "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told George Stephanopoulos. "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...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up." He was responding to comments made last October, where he said he "almost threw up" after reading the speech.

While running for president in 1960, Kennedy addressed Protestant ministers on his Catholicism, which many non-Catholics were leery of at the time:

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.

Santorum's comments drew criticism from his Republican rivals. Newt Gingrich, who is also a Catholic, said that he thought Kennedy gave a "remarkable speech". Mitt Romney said Monday that religion "certainly has a place in the public square" but he also respected Kennedy's speech.

Check out some of Santorum's inflammatory remarks below:

Comments

[JoeBloe1]

02:12 PM on 03/20/2012

"there were some things that triggered in my opinion the privatization of faith and I think that’s a bad thing."

He is concerned about the "privatization of faith". Simply amazing.

[jstreet]

11:55 AM on 03/05/2012

There's a lot of throw up in the room, Rick.

[Julia Caskey Marshall]

12:18 AM on 03/03/2012

And we really need a president who doesn't think before he speaks? Yea, right.

[mgmgpd]

12:45 PM on 03/02/2012

My comment to Mr. Santorum
You might recall me from your days as a representative and senator. I resent your recent criticism of Mr. Kennedy's ethical belief in the separation of church and state. My comment to you if you want to live your faith be my guest but do not ram it down my throat by trying to legislate your faith. Do it enough and perhaps American will want, to quote you, "throw up".
Richard

[Reasonable Perspective]

03:16 AM on 03/01/2012

Amanda-B: I applaud, especially, your insightful first sentence; I love posts that identify specific faults in the extremists' rhetoric.

"Straw Man" is the right term for the rhetorical device employed by Santorum in his attempt to support the claim that the President has waged a "War Against Religion." Santorum asserts, "The First Amendment has been turned on its head" as demonstrated by those claiming the First Amendment bars people of faith from participating in political discourse or holding office.

NO advocate of the First Amendment, and its prohibition against establishment of religion, has ever maintained the Amendment bars people of faith from office or the public square. But, Santorum is delighted to knock down the straw man he erected -- as Commander-in-Chief of the campaign most to be feared, the one we must call "THE WAR TO ESTABLISH RELIGION."

Santorum will not be the Republican nominee. Take no comfort; election of ANY Republican President will give Santorum the America he seeks. EVERY Republican contender has vowed (in code words), if elected, to appoint the one additional conservative Supreme Court Justice necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Throughout a long era ended by the Supreme Court in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut), state governments codified Santorum's favorite church tenet; their statutes prohibited contraceptives and enforced the prohibition by criminal prosecution. Griswold struck down those statutes. Roe depends on Griswold. If Roe falls, Griswold will fall, and government WILL be in our bedrooms.

[rufeldm]

06:36 PM on 02/29/2012

(continuation of my earlier comment)

Here is an example of public/government spirituality in very recent times.

We well remember twelve years ago the 2000 presidential campaign. The Democrat Party candidate for president was the (then) Vice President Albert Gore. As is well known, Mr. Gore is a very strong liberal Democrat. Even though he is a liberal, for the Democrat Party candidate for vice president, Mr. Gore chose someone who in some ways is a bit of a more "conservative" Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman.

During the campaign, Mr. Lieberman strongly criticized this distorted rigid Church-State Separation rule. He repeatedly expressed the very sharp line that "Freedom OF religion" has been distorted to become "Freedom FROM religion"! He often quoted Biblical verses and unabashedly declared that there SHOULD BE religion in, yes, public life! For an account of one of these speech engagements, see http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/28/latimes.lieberman/index.html.

[oklaliberal]

04:48 PM on 02/29/2012

2 points 1) Freedom of Religion as the founding fathers meant them, was for the most part Protestant religions. Most of the 13 colonies HATED the Catholics. 2) It may be that Rick Santorum, as a catholic would not even be considered as a presidential candidate if not for JFK and his speeches on religious freedom. Point, there has not been another catholic president since JFK.

[rufeldm]

05:46 PM on 02/29/2012

(Former) President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who served from 1981 (17 years AFTER JFK) until 1989 came pretty close. His father was Roman Catholic; however, his mother was a member of the Disciples of Christ and Ronald was raised in his mother's church. As adult though, he affiliated mostly with the Presbyterian church. (See http://www.adherents.com/people/pr/Ronald_Reagan.html.)

[Crandall Rivers]

02:43 PM on 02/29/2012

Well as much trouble Santorum has with his intestinal fortitude, he will NEVER have to worry about being POTUS. Something JFK and BHO can lay claim to. Plus, his ascertion that religion is disallowed in the public square, only proves his lack of realistic ideals. If anything, religion has TOO MUCH SAY in the public square.

[rufeldm]

02:42 PM on 02/29/2012

(continuation of previous comment)

Two examples of the founding fathers' piety in public government:

The "Declaration of Independence," which declares America's philosophy, begins with the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights . . . " (emphasis mine).

(By their referring to The Lord as "their Creator," we further see that the founding fathers believed in Creationism: that man -- and the whole world -- was CREATED by The Lord.)

A number of years after the Declaration, the nation's leaders had the tedious task of formulating the details of the government's constitution. At this Constitutional Convention, prayer recitation became an integral part of the proceedings. See an account of this at http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html.

[oklaliberal]

04:51 PM on 02/29/2012

You might want to check your American history on the founding fathers and the wording of their documents. Not what you think at all.

[rufeldm]

06:15 PM on 02/29/2012

You seem to imply that I had implied that the founding fathers were a group of fanatic pious devouts who were immersed in prayers around the clock. I never said or implied anything like that at all! Rather, what I pointed out is the clear fact that the founding fathers did bring some religion into their governmental endeavors.

Right here is the direct quote -- of what is really one of the most famous lines -- from the Declaration of Independence, in which the phrase "their Creator" is used. The web page that I referred to at http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/3rd_floor/god/2_convention.html, relates in detail how the Constitutional Convention adopted prayer as part of the program.

[rufeldm]

02:35 PM on 02/29/2012

A key aspect of American freedom is “Freedom of Religion,” which means the following. For many centuries, each European nation had a particular church that was the “official” religion of that nation. (In many countries, the government was actually tightly controlled by that church's leaders.) Every citizen had to be a member of that religion; those who were adherents of another religion were treated as outcasts.

In sharp contrast to this, America was established as a “free country,” where a person would be free to choose whichever religion he wanted. There would be no national church; this was stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law representing the establishment of religion, nor limiting the free exercise thereof.”

This was latter developed into what is really a different principle, called "The Separation of Church and State." This Church-State Separation axiom was further distorted into a set of extreme prohibitions that strictly forbade any religious action in the public/government realm.

These new "laws" were obviously NOT what was meant by the First Amendment, and even the founding fathers did not follow them! Yes, the founding fathers themselves DID have a good bit of outright religious expression, right in their government!

[AldoTheFox]

02:27 PM on 02/29/2012

Aaaaaand that's why you're going to lose Rick.

[mclkarim]

01:44 PM on 02/29/2012

This guy has no class whatsoever and is an embarrassment to this country.

[jnesteljr]

01:34 PM on 02/29/2012

At least he showed us the a** he really is!!

Now if Mitt would do more of the same we can see what this group of GOP really is all about!

[mclkarim]

01:25 PM on 02/29/2012

Oh, so now he is sorry for what he said and wishes he could take it back? Too late. People don't forget this kind of thing. This guy made a total mockery out of a beautiful speech made by an assinated president, which just shows he has no respect for anyone. He makes me want to throw up.

[edfkyblue]

01:14 PM on 02/29/2012

Obama and Dems. would love to run against this dumb --- called Santorum