Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum is a study in theocratic hubris. He has taken his recently acquired widespread popularity and used it to attack his rivals, the president, the Constitution, and even political icons of yesteryear. He even went so far as to attack President John F. Kennedy’s speech on the separation of church and state, defending remarks (made months earlier) to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that after reading the text of the speech, he wanted to “throw up.” But a couple days later, he was backtracking on Laura Ingraham’s talk radio show.
When asked about his off-message remarks regarding Kennedy’s speech and the backlash they generated, Santorum said, “I wish I had that particular line back.”
And well he should, considering that he parsed and misconstrued Kennedy’s message to mean that people of faith should be excluded from the halls of governance (which is nigh unto an impossibility). In doing so, he dismissed the true intent of the speech, which was to give notice that no matter what his (Kennedy’s) own particular beliefs regarding religion might be, they would not interfere in the carrying out his duties as president of the United States due to conflicted allegiances. The speech exemplifies the vow taken to uphold the Constitution and to protect all religions — and those who practice them — from the assumption of one religion to power (in Kennedy’s case, Catholicism) or through the tyranny of the majority or the powerful that hold office (by extension, Christianity). The fear that Kennedy, a Catholic, would somehow be more beholden to the Pope in Vatican City than to the United States was thereby ameliorated.
Santorum’s remarks suggest that Kennedy wished to shun religion and religious individuals, to ostracize those elements from the halls of government. But that is not what Kennedy, a Catholic himself, said and/or — by most interpretations of his speech — meant. He simply stated that when it came to governing, religious doctrine should be a private concern and not one to drive the legislative or executive discourse that concerned a multi-religious citizenry.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, Santorum’s original comments were made in a speech in October. Although they caused a small stir then, Santorum’s recent comments about the bible, Christianity, and the place religion has in American politics has shoved those comments into the forefront of the dialogue concerning the 2012 election process.
He told “This Week” that he did not believe the separation of church and state was “absolute.” He continued: “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.”
Nowhere in Kennedy’s speech did he mention anything about people of faith being excluded from the public square. He noted, however, that religion itself should be left out of matters taken up in the public square. And rightly so, considering that one man’s belief is generally not that of another, and that such personal convictions often lead to contentiousness and attempts to establish a set of beliefs above (or below) that of another. This does not mean that those who govern cannot hold their own beliefs or even voice them, but rather that others and their religious views should be respected as one does one’s own. Keeping religious views out of the public square allows the governing process to be fairer for all concerned, providing avenues of discourse sans religious weight (influences that can be both pro and con), giving lawmakers a less encumbered arena for legislation and governance to be carried out for all the people (and not just for those of like belief systems).
It is just this sort of separation of church and state, where it is understood that there will be people whose consciences are dictated by their religious convictions, that many find acceptable and even preferable — as long as those that would govern do not pontificate, proselytize for, or prioritize a certain religion from the lawmaker’s seat. Some, like Santorum, do not.
Although it might be a line he wishes he had back, especially given the backlash he has received by revealing his gut feelings, Santorum told Ingraham that Kennedy’s speech “triggered in my opinion the privatization of faith and I think that’s a bad thing.”
Indeed, Santorum prefers governance via “God’s law,” which he has maintained on several occasions (including the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington), and how it supersedes Constitutional law. He argues that laws that go against “God’s law” should be repealed or replaced, that “God’s law” and civil law be one and the same.
But when a nation as diverse as the United States sets out to make a fair and just law, with so many different interpretations of what “God’s law” might be, where would one find the true definition of what would be used as a true guide? Santorum’s interpretation? Why should his personal beliefs hold more sway over the making of laws than, say, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (Eastern Orthodox) or Michigan Rep. Sander Levin’s (Judaism), both whose religions see “God’s law” as somewhat different than does Santorum?
Needless to say, Santorum’s defensive “throw up” comment and his earlier comments on Kennedy’s speech have received a flood of criticism, not only from liberal and Democratic circles, but from the GOP as well. Even Newt Gingrich, a fellow Catholic and a political rival that has yet to actually attack Santorum during the 2012 campaign, noted that he believed Kennedy’s was a “remarkable speech.”
The 1960 speech, given to assuage American voters fears that Kennedy, a professed Catholic, would not be controlled by the machinations and directives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy See in Vatican City. It is seen as a seminal speech in American history and a turning point for the acceptance of those of non-Protestant religions as presidential material. In the speech, Kennedy noted that the “separation of church and state are absolute” and that religion had no place in the “public square.” He said that he owed no fealty to the Vatican. The speech, delivered to a gathering of Protestant ministers, is seen as a major contributing factor to his presidential election victory.
It would appear that with a little political power as a driving force — to be exact, the recent election wins in several primary/caucus states and a subsequent rise in the polls — Rick Santorum has acquired the confidence to show his true self — that intolerant, slightly benighted, chauvinistic, bible-pounding, radical Muslim-chasing former Pennsylvania senator that even Pennsylvanians had had enough of by 2006. He has taken a rather popular acceptance of his challenge to rival Mitt Romney’s claims to the Republican nomination for president and taken it to mean an acceptance of himself as a person, as a viable candidate, and of his values. But where he had prudently kept those extreme values on a verbal leash — for the most part — throughout the 2011 and 2012 campaign season, he apparently now thinks he can utter his regressive form of ultra-conservativism with impudence.
Or he did until his “throw up” comments became controversial in the public square, on the Internet, on television, on the campaign trail, in various congregations of churches, and just about everywhere it could be discussed.
Now he wishes he had the line back. Of course he does. He has made most of America nauseous with his sanctimonious political positions and his visions of rule by theocratic plutocracy. Attacking Kennedy’s speech on separation of church and state was simply a final emetic.
At the same time, there is without doubt a sizable population of Americans — both of liberal and conservative stripe — who would rather that he had another line back: The line where he announced he was running for president of the United States.
