JFK On The Block
The pounding, much of it earned, on Rick Santorum continues in the mainstream media. We had made a decision here to not participate because while Santorum is not the candidate for our time, he is not a bad guy. We have continued to speculate that the not-Romney surges, Santorum simply being the latest, have been powered in part by anti-Mormon bias. Well this morning I ran into a piece that ties Santorum and anti-Mormon bias too tightly not to give it some attention.
It comes from our old friend Al Mohler:
Wehner is probably right, and any politician who seeks election at the national level had better avoid sweeping moral judgments. But, in the end, that same politician will have to answer pointed questions that the mainstream media have learned to ask. No amount of determination to “stay positive” will last when the media taste moral judgment in the air.
Finally, Rick Santorum attracts protests on college campuses because people believe him when he speaks. William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently that, even as Rick Santorum opposes same-sex marriage, so did Barack Obama when he ran for the White House in 2008 (and, at least in terms of official statements, even now). But Santorum gets jeered and Obama gets a pass. Why? McGurn understands: “There’s no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.”
That may be the real bottom line when it comes to the Santorum predicament. Saying such things might not be a problem, but saying them when everyone understands that you mean them . . . that is another thing altogether.
Uh-huh. No evocation of the “Mormons lie” meme there….
Mohler simply ignores the fact that a large portion of the nation disagrees with he and Santorum. Do I think the nation is in moral decay? – YES!!!! A thousand times, “yes.” But that does not mean that bludgeoning the nation from the pulpit of electoral politics or the White House is the solution to the problem. One simple question for you Dr. Mohler, “How many Mormons do you think are going to give you the time of day, let alone engage in serious discussion that might lead to their conversion, when you make it public that you assume they are all liars?” More, if we are as tyrannical about our morality as the left has been about its immorality, will their behavior change or will they simply start calling us names and revolt when the the opportunity presents itself?
So, with that introduction, let’s look at Santorum’s latest bit of overblown rhetoric:
Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Sunday defended a statement he made last October in which he said that he “almost threw up” when he read John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Houston address on the role of religion in public life.
This got quite a bit of coverage, most extensively from the NYTimes. While overstating the case significantly, Santorum’s comments are quite reflective of Roman Catholic thought.
I have a different take on JFK’s now very famous address – full text here. The problems are rhetorical, not substantive. Much like Jefferson’s letters to the Danbury Baptists, from which the phrase “separation of church and state” has been lifted, one must view the words in the context of the time and circumstances that they were spoken. Time does not permit a detailed analysis of the speech, but let me set the stage and you can read it for yourself and I think you will get my point.
The primary concern regarding a Kennedy presidency was not abortion or same sex marriage or any other particular issue – it was the a question of whether a prelate in Rome could dictate American policy to a sitting US president. One must remember this is before Roe v Wade, which is what really triggered the advent of religious conscience into the public realms. That issue of papal dictation to heads of state is not as “whacked” as it sounds. One must remember that the Protestant Reformation was born in part because the Vatican was in fact dictating the policy of nations in Europe at the time. That was a very specific issue that Kennedy had to address. Kennedy was addressing a question of institutional powers, not morality generally.
With that in mind, go read the speech. Have Kennedy’s words been stretched beyond that context and in the process warped? Did some of Kennedy’s rhetoric permit such warpage? Not unlike Jefferson’s Danbury letter, I would answer both questions in the affirmative.
And with that I will leave you with a question. If Santorum finds Kennedy’s speech that repugnant, does he in fact want the Vatican to be able to dictate national policy?
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 27 Feb 2012 at 3:37 pm #
So when did Santorum first read the Kennedy speech? He was only 2 years old in 1960, but as a Catholic American he had to have read it at a fairly young age and discussed it with orher politically aware Catholics. Did he form his opinion based on the views of a Parent or pastor or teacher, or make that negative evaluation all by himself? Did he consider the level of prejudice that faced Kennedy, and underatand how virulent the hatred of Catholic candidate Al Smith had been? Would he have thought it better for Kennedy to not be elected?
Doug King on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:01 pm #
I find Santorum likeable, but he is wrong on two counts:
1. Kennedy was a political pioneer who blazed the way for Santorum, Kerry, and other Catholic politicians. Kennedy’s speech neutralized Catholicism as a campaign issue in a historically close election. Without that speech, many Catholic politicians (certainly then and possibly now) faced a religious backlash against their candidacy. BTW, that’s the situation Romney faces today.
2. The ideas in Kennedy’s speech are consistent with the example set by the Founders who saw religion as a divisive issue and wisely separated church and state. Santorums’ words regularly and freely mix the two interests, and this makes a lot of Americans nervous. Emphasizing religion and culture may help Santorum in the Primary against Romney, but it is going to produce a massive defeat (including Congress) in the General. Santorum is bleeding attention away from critical economic issues vital to the GOP.
In contrast to JFK’s classic speeches, some of which continued to be studied in schools and colleges, Santorum consistently spouts careless rhetoric (e.g., “almost threw up”).
Voting Day – Let The Shenanigins Begin | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 28 Feb 2012 at 7:30 am #
[...] CommentsDoug King on JFK On The BlockCaissamatic on Quotes, Quips and Linkssewinglady on It May Be Legal, We May Know About It But It Is [...]
GottaZoom on 28 Feb 2012 at 11:53 pm #
One has to wonder if Santorum’s disconnect is rooted in belief that the “moral majority” would act as one to support his decisions as President to push for a vatican agenda much like Obama believes and pushes another.
There certainly seems to be a voting bloc that will agree with him . . but exit polling in Michigan was reported to say that he didn’t carry the larger portion of those who want Obama removed . . so one has to wonder what his voting bloc is thinking if that isn’t their priority right now (excluding the democrats who voted for him).