Church and State in JFK's America
On September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of religion. At the time, many Americans questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the Catholic Church. Kennedy put those concerns to rest:
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. . . . I believe in an America . . . 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. . . . That is the kind of America in which I believe. . . . Whatever issue may come before me as president - on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject - I will make my decision in accordance with . . . what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.
It was on this basis that the United States elected our first Catholic president. Sadly, a lot has changed in the almost fifty years since Kennedy delivered that historic address. According to the Washington Post, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to abandon its social service programs if the District of Columbia Council enacts a pending same-sex marriage law.
According to the New York Times, Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, a nephew of John F. Kennedy, has been attacked by Thomas J. Tobin, the Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, for his opposition to the Stupak amendment, which would prohibit insurance plans in the new health care program from covering abortion. According to Bishop Tobin, Kennedy's support of abortion rights is "unacceptable to the Church." He insists that, in order for Kennedy to repair his "relationship with the Church," he must obey "the teachings of the Church" and oppose any law supporting abortion.
The Catholic Church also played a critical role in the campaign to defeat same-sex marriage in Maine. Bishop Richard Malone spearheaded a parish-based petition drive against same-sex marriage, plastered church bulletin boards with anti-same-sex marriage messages, insisted on special collections at church services to raise funds to oppose same-sex marriage, and required pastors to preach that their parishioners must vote against same-sex marriage.
All this is consistent with official Catholic doctrine. In 2003, the Vatican issued two documents declaring that Catholic politicians have a "grave and clear obligation" to oppose any law that violates church teaching on abortion or same-sex marriage. Indeed, the Vatican declared that Catholic lawmakers have a "moral duty" to vote against any law that supports abortion rights or recognizes same-sex marriage.
We have a serious problem in our nation. Whatever happened to the America John F. Kennedy believed in? The America in which "no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials"?
This problem, of course, is not limited to the Catholic Church. I focus on Catholics only because of the sharp irony of Kennedy's comments. But Mormons, Evangelical Christians, and other religious groups have also been quite aggressive in recent years in their determination to mix religion with politics.
At some level, of course, religion cannot be neatly separated from politics. We are who we are as individuals, and we are in no small part the product of our religious beliefs and upbringing. But in a nation committed to the separation of church and state, it is incumbent upon each of us to try to know the difference between what John Kennedy called "the national interest" and what he called "religious dictates."
Freedom of religion in our nation means, first and foremost, the right of individuals to live their lives in accord with their most cherished religious beliefs, and free of government interference. It is not for our government to tell Muslims they must drink alcohol or eat pork, it is not for our government to tell Jews they must consume shrimp or work on Saturday, and it is not for our government to tell Catholics they must have abortions or marry persons of the same-sex.
At the same time, though, the reciprocal of that freedom is an equally fundamental responsibility. This is the responsibility not to use the authority of the government to compel individuals to live their lives in accord with our "religious dictates" that they do not share. Muslims have the right not to consume pork, but they should not use the power of the government to forbid others to eat pork. Jews have the right not to work on Saturday, but they should not use the power of the government to prohibit others from working on Saturday. And Catholics have the right not to marry people of the same sex, but they should not use the power of the government to forbid others from marrying the person they love.
As John F. Kennedy understood and stated so eloquently, in America "no religious body should seek to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace."
Nancy L. Cohen: 10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go
Even if some Democrats who voted for the amendment did so because of deep convictions, the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yet another person trying to claim that "freedom of religion" means "religious people should have no right to influence the debate.
This is silly nonsense. A Catholic bishop has just as much right to pressure those in Congress to vote a certain way as an atheist. The Council of Bishops' has the same rights as NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
The church has no right to use millions gathered with a tax payer subsidy to subvert the democratic process, to lobby congress, and to fund lie and hate propaganda campaigns aimed at hurting US citizens who do pay taxes and are not believers.
The Catholics and Mormons would be able to lobby congress freely if they relinquish their tax exempt status.
As John F. Kennedy understood and stated so eloquently, in America "no religious body should seek to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace."
NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not engaged in a campaign to force their belief on other nor to they seek to take away the rights of Catholics to follow the dictates of the church.
Catholics today are free to follow their belief. What the church wants is to impose catholic beliefs on everyone against their will, believers and non-believers alike. That is anti-democratic and anti-American.
This is the basis for most of our problems as a nation. Religious dogma is about as wrong-headed as you can get, for secular laws such as uneducated unwed moms, unwanted kids who often are abused, high STD rates, no-lifers who kill Abortion MDs to "save" pre-Humans.
Then there's the Party stumping on Family Values that shows utter hypocrasy when philandering Elected Officials don't have to step down, because they've apoligized, prayed, and have "been forgiven by God".
And now they're holding hostage Health Insurance for Americans with their fanatical anti-abortion agenda - jeez, even the Catholic Bishops are getting in the saddle. Will we soon need to pass a plate for lobbying along with the plate passed for the poor?
Part III--
"One in six patients are cared for in 624 Catholic hospitals scattered throughout the U.S. in 2006, according to the Catholic Health Association. The church also operates more than 800 post-acute care, senior living and skilled nursing centers across the nation. All told, $84.6 billion was spent on Catholic church-affiliated care."
"The Denver-based Catholic Health Initiatives is now the largest of the church's hospital systems in the country with 78 hospitals and 40 long-term care facilities in 20 states and operating revenues exceeding $9.6 billion ranking it sixth among all for-profit and charity health care networks."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/13/the-bishops-huge-financial-stake-stupakpitts
Of course it is about money, power, domination, control, oppression... and no basis in scripture or the teachings of Jesus.
Part II--
"The justifiable anger at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for lobbying on the Stupak-Pitts amendment overshadows what is possibly the bigger motive for the Vatican: the billions of dollars at stake for the church's hospitals. The scale of the church's involvement in the rapidly growing $2.5 trillion dollar American health care industry is staggering."
"What the Stupak-Pitts amendment does for the Catholic health care system is omit a competitive advantage secular and other religiously-affiliated hospitals without doctrinal restrictions can use to simultaneously market their services to both the expected influx of newly insured patients and the outpatient medical professionals who will treat them."
"By restricting insurance coverage of women's reproductive health care, the competitive barriers faced by Catholic institutions will be eliminated — provided the amendment is not stripped out of the final bill that emerges from House-Senate health care reform conference committee. Which is why pro-choice advocates should expect nothing short of a full-frontal attack by the Vatican on conservative Senators."
Part 1--
“Health care reform is a good thing,” New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan told CNA on Wednesday during in interview in Phoenix, Arizona. However, if it “leads to the destruction of life, then we say it’s no longer health care at all - it’s unhealthy care and we can’t be part of that.”
While some people question the Church’s involvement in the debate surrounding health care reform, Dolan insisted that the Church should have a voice in the health care debate “because nearly one out of every five patients in the United States who is in a hospital is under the embrace of the Church in a Catholic health care network. So please listen to us because we’ve been in this business a heck of a long time,” he said recalling that members of the Catholic Church were the ones who “opened up the first clinics, hospitals and health care networks.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16778
So, is the Catholic Church supporting the Stupak Amendment in defense of its religious beliefs or is it using the amendment as a means to substantially increase it's financial footing in the health industry? Is it one or the other or a mix of both? Either way, should religion shape policy? Just curious... Perhaps "the devil is in the following details":
I work for a nonprofit. Though there are candidates for elected office who would clearly view with more favor than other candidates laws aiding the homeless and disadvanged youth we serve (our issue), we are not allowed to promote them or campaign for them because of our tax status. Yet organized religion can do that very thing and still remain tax-exempt. Change the law? Any suggesion of leveling the playing field would be considered an attack on religion instead of righting a wrong. Utter crap.
They violate the law. They are not permitted to do this.
They try to get around it by using shell organizations. Like the Catholic Church's usual money laundering organization is the Knights of Columbus. And they probably say the Council of Bishops is a private club not affiliated with the Church, etc.
What happened to JFK's vision of America? Read about Leo Strauss and his concept of the "divine lie." It may sound kinda conspiricy theoryish but the neo-cons rise after the Nixon and Carter Administrations put religious themes in government to paint a very specific picture of the Cold War.
Government is an administrative body. Most people only see the government when it dumps their garbage, and 30 minutes after they've been mugged. The right wing are correct - I hate saying it - that government should be minimal. Just look at the UK's social reform agenda under Labour. A rat's nest of housing schemes full of drugs and violence. More violent and drug-ridden than in America, but with a social worker on every street corner, paid to sympathize and plan some way for people to get jobs that just aren't there. We can't go there in this country. There has to be some sense of personal responsibility.
Right now, we have an insidious religiousness creeping into every area of our lives. Evangelical churches using hard-sell tactics to draw in people to their churches and have them vote this way or that. America will fall under their boot if they get a chance to lead again.
Churches cannot be tax exempt. That's where their power is coming from. We need to drop that shelter, and force these scheming idiots into a pulpit that more closely reflects their contribution TO our society. No more free rides for the corrupt preachers and the corrupt so-called churches.
Before you Brits, with your 'Brit' Awards, get all het up, imagine - legalize guns in the UK to the degree they are legal in the US, and there would be a bloodbath. Think about the folk in Moss Side, or Castlemilk getting guns freely.
Isn't it just common sense for free thinking men and women to beware of any individual or organization with an oppressive agenda be it cloaked in governmental rule or religious ideology?
Yes it is commonsense for free thinkers. Unfortunately, the jesus people are lemmings and far from being free thinkers.
I too have been thinking about JFK's election and how our politics and the attitudes of the Catholic Church have changed since then. JFK had to overcome the suspicion of many Americans that electing him (or any other Catholic) to high office would result in governance unduly influenced by Catholic dogma.
The overt meddling of the Catholic bishops in health care reform, as well as the hypocrisy of a church that would impose its dogma on a nation of diverse beliefs by threatening to torpedo a measure that would give substance to its own central teaching as set out in Matthew 25 and its tolerance of sexual predators among its priests while trying to impose its intolerance of gays on the whole nation have, 50 years after JFK's election, given substance to that suspicion and undone all that JFK did to end anti-Catholic bias in our politics.
The suggestion of the Bishop of Providence that Patrick Kennedy leave the Church if he's not prepared to vote for bills that the Church supports is shocking evidence of the failure of the bishops to understand and respect the separation of church and state that is established by the First Amendment. A backlash against Catholic politicians may well result.
Where do the "teachings of the church" say to meddle in secular government and force your will on non-believers?
Can't remember anything about that whatsoever in the bible. They just make stuff up.
In fact, I can think of some passages that would mean the opposite, don't meddle in secular government...
IT IS IN OUR CONSTITUTION - that the government not pass laws that directly impose those of religious doctrine on the people. It has been upheld by the supreme court of this land. It was set as an unwritten message as the separation between church and state. It was what our founding fathers told us was the fundamental rights of the people that could not be infringed upon by the government through law. THAT SAME CONSTITUTION AND THOSE SAME FOUNDING FATHERS that the right-wing fanatics praise their love to every night sought vehemently to impose restrictions on the governments right to infringe on or set laws based on religious principles. And yet, we do it continually. We elect morons like Senator Inhofe and Representative Stupak who are from rival political parties to violate the constitution for us.
Inhofe has even declared in his greatest moment of stupidity that separation of church and state was the Greatest HOAX ever played on the people!!! That is preposterous and unimaginable that it was said by a senator. I happen to feel that such a measure if quite important and should be followed.
The same founding fathers that slaughtered native americans and held slaves? Excuse me if I dont care. Let's not even talk about the terrorist attacks and democracies overthrown under JFK.
Were you making a point there? Or just saying not to invoke the founding fathers in proving any point? I was just saying that because Republicans constantly talk about defending the constitution and beck constantly talks about the founding fathers yet, even they were bitterly opposed to mixing church and state objectives. Its hypocracy at its best right there. My point was why are we voting in senators who would rather follow the bible than the constitution or so he says. Would you disagree? Your point was not clear to me.
Remove their TAX EXEMPT STATUS at once. Make politicized churches pay taxes, just like we do. I'm sick and tired of them getting a free ride on the backs of taxpayers, leaving them more resources with which to try to force us to conform to their beliefs.
Time to pay your taxes, not just damages to abused altar boys. Honestly ~ these are the same people who thought absolutely *nothing* of covering up the terrible abuse of children in their care, decade after decade. They didn't even remove these abusive priests, but moved them from one unsuspecting parish to another. And now - they are so holy & moral.
Disgusting. Remove their tax exempt status with a new law: call it The Bishop Richard Malone Act.
Yes! "Remove their TAX EXEMPT STATUS at once!"
IRS complaint process
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html
We can pass state laws too taxing the Catholic and Mormon churches that are so interested in minding everyone else's business but not their own.
It's not just Catholics and Mormons.
Of course your religion is bound to have an influence on your political beliefs, as does nearly everything you come into contact with on a regular basis: your friends and family, books and magazines you read, TV shows and films you watch. The important distinction I see with religion is that religious people generally get a free pass to use whatever they extract from their religions as a fully fleshed-out justification for their political stances, as though regular standards of logic need not apply to them. If we were living in a theocracy, that would be fine. But because we live in a democracy where, ideally, laws are created based on reason and common sense, a person saying that he's going to vote a certain way because of his religion (or, more accurately, his religious leader's interpretation of a cryptic, oft-translated, and extremely outdated text) should seem as absurd as my saying that I'm basing my political decisions on the folksy ramblings of my Aunt Tillie or subliminal messages I received while watching "Nanny and the Professor." People can hold whatever beliefs they want, but I'd love for our society to get to a point where we can at least call out religion for what it is: totally irrational and inconducive to the legislative process.
It's mind boggling that we subsidize politically active cults with tax exemptions and faith based initiatives money.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
