Cartoon by Terry Wise
If you missed former-Senator Rick Santorum’s interview with ABC’s George Stephanopolous this weekend or the subsequent media coverage you missed a telling and scary look into a possible future America where a President is ruled by his personal religious beliefs instead of the law of the land. Santorum bizarrely took the opportunity to twist, misquote and misrepresent a speech given by John Kennedy in 1960 as he stood as the first major Catholic presidential candidate. In short, Kennedy’s speech in Dallas was to assure Baptist ministers that he would not be taking orders from the Vatican, saying he would act “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.” Kennedy told the Texas Baptists that he believed in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. Santorum said that this kind of talk made him want to “throw up.”
Most telling was Candidate Santorum’s response to a question from a self-described Buddhist who wanted to know how he fit into Santorum’s America. Santorum disingenuously said that all views are welcome but that is a canard for it is antithetical to the whole idea of faith with which Santorum would rule his new theocracy. The fact that faith derives from belief without proof makes it exclusionary and unfit as a leadership philosophy. If Santorum’s faith is true, and by definition, it has to be true to him, that means that most likely yours is wrong.
This, of course, is how Iran is run and the Taliban governed Afghanistan. If your faith, or your personal interpretation thereof, allows it, all nonbelievers are fair game. Anyone who does not abide within that system is without rights and not welcome. The Catholic profession of faith, derived from the Nicene Council and First Council of Constantinople in the 4th Century, has been the yardstick of orthodoxy for centuries; sway from the formula and you were a heretic. Can you possibly want a country governed like this?
If you ask the Catholic Church, the answer would be a resounding, “No.” On ABC, Santorum maliciously misinterpreted Kennedy’s speech, telling viewers that Kennedy said there was no place for religion in the public square. Kennedy’s speech is widely published and if you read it you will find that nowhere does he use the term “public square.” Kennedy was no more signaling a ban on religious speech than he was flying a kite, but Santorum is gambling that you won’t read the speech and be scared into voting for him, which is an insult to your intelligence and a surprisingly desperate act for one sitting as comfortably in the polls as the candidate.
Kennedy’s views on the role of religion in public debate was much more in line with what many Catholics believe today. Last year, Paul Loverde, the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Va. wrote, “The Catholic Church is not a political party nor does She endorse political parties or candidates. She does not take sides in elections and political debates as would an interest group or civil association. However, the Church does have a place in the public square, but Her place is unique. Her role is to inform public debate about the universal truths and principles of a just society rather than to make specific policies or to promote candidates for office. ... These natural law principles can be discussed by all people of good will who are open to rational discourse and truth. Thus, the Church reminds voters and those in public life of the law written in their hearts and of that law’s necessary role in maintaining an equitable and harmonious society.”
One thing Kennedy did say in his speech that Santorum failed to mention was, “But if the time should ever come..when my office would require me to violate my conscience or violate national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.” Despite perfunctory nods to other religious views, Santorum has already clearly stated, on issues of women’s rights, education, birth control and abortion-he has argued that rape victims should be compelled to carry any resultant child to term-that his personal religious beliefs would rule his actions. Such a conviction, in the face of the Constitution, public law and the oath of office makes Santorum a dangerous and unacceptable choice for president.
Most telling was Candidate Santorum’s response to a question from a self-described Buddhist who wanted to know how he fit into Santorum’s America. Santorum disingenuously said that all views are welcome but that is a canard for it is antithetical to the whole idea of faith with which Santorum would rule his new theocracy. The fact that faith derives from belief without proof makes it exclusionary and unfit as a leadership philosophy. If Santorum’s faith is true, and by definition, it has to be true to him, that means that most likely yours is wrong.
This, of course, is how Iran is run and the Taliban governed Afghanistan. If your faith, or your personal interpretation thereof, allows it, all nonbelievers are fair game. Anyone who does not abide within that system is without rights and not welcome. The Catholic profession of faith, derived from the Nicene Council and First Council of Constantinople in the 4th Century, has been the yardstick of orthodoxy for centuries; sway from the formula and you were a heretic. Can you possibly want a country governed like this?
If you ask the Catholic Church, the answer would be a resounding, “No.” On ABC, Santorum maliciously misinterpreted Kennedy’s speech, telling viewers that Kennedy said there was no place for religion in the public square. Kennedy’s speech is widely published and if you read it you will find that nowhere does he use the term “public square.” Kennedy was no more signaling a ban on religious speech than he was flying a kite, but Santorum is gambling that you won’t read the speech and be scared into voting for him, which is an insult to your intelligence and a surprisingly desperate act for one sitting as comfortably in the polls as the candidate.
Kennedy’s views on the role of religion in public debate was much more in line with what many Catholics believe today. Last year, Paul Loverde, the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Va. wrote, “The Catholic Church is not a political party nor does She endorse political parties or candidates. She does not take sides in elections and political debates as would an interest group or civil association. However, the Church does have a place in the public square, but Her place is unique. Her role is to inform public debate about the universal truths and principles of a just society rather than to make specific policies or to promote candidates for office. ... These natural law principles can be discussed by all people of good will who are open to rational discourse and truth. Thus, the Church reminds voters and those in public life of the law written in their hearts and of that law’s necessary role in maintaining an equitable and harmonious society.”
One thing Kennedy did say in his speech that Santorum failed to mention was, “But if the time should ever come..when my office would require me to violate my conscience or violate national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.” Despite perfunctory nods to other religious views, Santorum has already clearly stated, on issues of women’s rights, education, birth control and abortion-he has argued that rape victims should be compelled to carry any resultant child to term-that his personal religious beliefs would rule his actions. Such a conviction, in the face of the Constitution, public law and the oath of office makes Santorum a dangerous and unacceptable choice for president.
