John F. Kennedy’s Speech Affirming Separation of Church and State
In the months leading up to the election, on September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of his religion. In the weeks leading up to the speech, many Protestants had questioned whether Kennedy’s religious beliefs would preclude him from being objective in the White House. Kennedy’s response that he believed in separation of church and state was an eloquent response to the questions. Fifty years later, they remain relevant. Here is a transcript of what he said:
Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
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.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; 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; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
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 these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
Paradoxical Christian? I’m a Bible-believing Christian Who Passionately Supports Church State Separation
By Steve Allred -
I have some friends who tell me that I don’t make sense when it comes to my position on separation of church and state. You see, some would call me a “fundamentalist” Christian. For example, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and try to live my life by its teachings. I believe that God created the world in seven, literal, twenty-four hour days and rested on the seventh day. I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and that He is the divine Son of God. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the biblical ideal and that any extra-martial sexual relationship is called sin in the Bible. Ultimately, I believe that the lifestyle that God describes in the Bible is the best and happiest way for me to live.
But here’s the rub: I also believe in keeping church and state separate. Some of my friends can’t understand why. To them, it’s a contradiction of my other beliefs. “If you believe that the Bible teaches that extra-marital sex is wrong, why don’t you believe that it should be outlawed in America?” they ask.
Because not every teaching of the Bible should necessarily be the law of the land. And because even though I may believe that living by God’s principles is the best way to live I shouldn’t want to force that lifestyle on others around me.
True, there was a time when laws of the Bible were the law of the land. In the Old Testament, the laws of God were enforced on the nation of Israel. But that was in a time when God ruled directly through kings and prophets in what we call a theocracy. By the time Jesus arrived, however, He made it clear that the theocracy was over: “My kingdom is not of this world.”, He said, “if it were, my servants would fight… but now my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36).
How much clearer could He be? He did make it even clearer, however, when He told us that Caesar’s (the secular government) realm and God’s (the church) realm on earth were explicitly separate: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21-22). In other words, God doesn’t need Caesar’s help to do His work.
And so, while I’m a fundamentalist, I’m also a separatist. I believe that church and state ought to be separate, because Jesus told us so, in so many words.
But why?
Way back in the Garden of Eden God gave us a clue. In a perfect world, where God ruled and where there was no sin, God gave us a choice – the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why the tree? Because God is love; love cannot exist without freedom to not love, therefore God must allow choice.
But just because God doesn’t want His religion forced on society doesn’t mean that there is no place for promoting morality and faith in the public marketplace. Far from it. In fact, the whole purpose of the church’s existence is to be the light of the world, the body of Christ, the salt of the earth. (Which is one reason I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech right along with separation of church and state. Yay for the First Amendment!). We are to be the voice calling out to individuals to experience a new way of life by accepting the principles of the kingdom of God. The church is the voice in the world upholding the Ten Commandments in our teachings and living them out in our own lives. We are the voice in society that teaches the truth boldly and unapologetically. And when the church fails in its job to promote obedience to God’s law in society, society begins to fall apart and the inevitable result is the reign of secularism and immorality (see, for example, The Great Controversy, p. 585-586). What should the church do then? We should repent for failing to do our divinely ordained job and pray for a revival within our midst so that we can be the light of the world once again.
Sadly, our response throughout history has been just the opposite. Instead of repenting and seeking God when society is experiencing moral decay, the church has turned to the secular government to enforce its dogmas and to “revive” society. But can laws legislating morality and religion really bring about revival? No. History tells us that laws never have brought about revival, and they never will. Only the power of the Holy Spirit, working through the church can truly bring revival. And one thing is clear: the Spirit doesn’t need the government’s help to make the church the light of the world! (In fact, it seems that in places where the government is persecuting God’s church the church shines brighter than ever).
Unfortunately, even though some Christians understand the church’s role, they still think that it is the government’s job to also be the moral conscience of society. Or they believe that the government should be just another “arm” of the church. But they’ve got it wrong. It’s the church’s job – and the church’s alone – to be Christ’s body on this earth. And the church should do its job without whining that it needs the government’s help or that it needs to use the government to do its job. In fact, the less help the government gives the church, the more glory is given to God when society is actually changed one person at a time. Because ultimately spiritual and moral change come from within – not from outward conformity to certain laws. Only God – not legislation – can transform the heart.
As I talk with my friends, I realize that my explanations still leave some unanswered questions: what kind of relationship should the church have with the government – any at all? When should the government step in and enforce “morals” on society – should it ever? The answers to these and other related questions are complex and anything but “hard and fast” and are for another discussion. Ultimately, though, we as Christians can thank God that He has made one thing exceedingly clear: our commission is to “preach the gospel to every creature.” One other thing He made clear is that the gospel of the kingdom is not to be preached by His servants fighting with the sword (earthly government) but rather, as the old Hymn “Lead on, O King Eternal” says, it is “with deeds of love and mercy” that the heavenly kingdom comes.
——————–
Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and law student at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. This article originally appeared at Pastor Allred’s blog and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.
Blue Laws and Sunday Legislation-why do they exist? CNN Video
A video describing some of the religious and secular rationale behind American Sunday blue laws.
Religious-freedom groups mourn Kennedy, cite church-state views (ABP)
EXCERPT:
. . .
The late senator “was a great champion of church-state separation,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a preparedstatement. “It’s not just that he consistently voted to support that principle — he really got it. He deeply understood that only a high and firm wall of separation between church and state could protect our liberties. He knew the reasons why our Founders established church-state separation and why we need to preserve it. He got how church-state separation protects the rights of both religious and non-religious people.”
Lynn cited Kennedy’s fierce opposition to a famous attempt by his former colleague, the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), to push through the Senate a constitutional amendment enabling government-sanctioned school prayer. He also noted Kennedy’s crucial opposition to failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who was opposed by many religious-freedom activists because of his support for government endorsements of religion.
. . .
“The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith,” he continued. “They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible…. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.”
The vision Kennedy held out was of an “America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion or angry division.”
Read the full article at: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4348&Itemid=53
The Politics of Obama’s Faith and the Evangelical Left – Stephen Manfield
[amazonify]1595552502[/amazonify]
Thomas Nelson Publishers has published a new book objectively presenting Barack’s faith. This video introduces the book. Many voters question Obama’s authenticity and beliefs, both religious and political, and how the two intertwine. According to Stephen Mansfield, the author of this book, Barack is “raising the banner of what he hopes will be the faith-based politics of a new generation . . . and he will carry that banner to whatever heights of power his God and the American people allow.”
A portion of the proceeds of the sales of this book from the above link will go to support ReligiousLiberty.TV.
Martin Sheen on Church / State Separation
Television president, Martin Sheen, narrates this video, produced by People For the American Way, about the history of separation of church & state and efforts by the Religious Right to undermine it. It was produced some years back.
VIDEO: VP Candidate Joe Biden on Religion, Government, and the Presidency (Fora.TV)
Recorded in May 2007, Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden discusses the role of religion in American society, and gives his thoughts on the separation between church and state.
Could Chet Edwards be Obama’s Running Mate? Edwards speaks on Religious Liberty
Today, Friday, August 22, 2008, the country is waiting to hear who Barack Obama has chosen as his running mate. One of the names that is surfacing is Rep. Chet Edwards.
Editor
————-
Rep. Chet Edwards represents President George Bush’s home district (including Crawford, Texas) in the United States House of Representatives. A moderate who considers himself a bridge-builder between left and right, and a Methodist who attends the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, Rep. Edwards is a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.
The following is text from a speech Rep. Edwards gave on November 19, 2003.
Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government (NY Times)
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.
First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.
Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.
. . .
“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”
That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.
. . .
(Read the rest at NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05beliefs.html?em&ex=1215403200&en=a09309a4e26fb70c&ei=5087%0A
PROFILE: Rep. Chet Edwards Champions Separation of Church and State in Congress
Rep. Chet Edwards represents President George Bush’s home district (including Crawford, Texas) in the United States House of Representatives. A moderate who considers himself a bridge-builder between left and right, and a Methodist who attends the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, Rep. Edwards is a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.
Toby Druin of The Baptist Standard interviewed the Representative in 2003, and asked him some important questions. A couple of these questions and answers are below:
_ What are you trying to accomplish as a member of the United States House of Representatives?
___Several things. First, I want to protect the principle of church-state separation, which is embedded in the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. Second, I want to play a role in educating members of Congress and the American people to the fact that church-state separation was designed to protect religion, not harm it. It seems that every generation in Congress makes an effort to assault the role of separation of church and state. It requires re-education that the reason our founding fathers believed in church-state separation was that they felt religion should be on a pedestal far above the reach of politicians and government. They erected the wall of separation out of reverence for religion, not animosity against it.
///
How do you account for the erosion in the commitment to church-state separation among some Baptists and other groups?
___The reason there have been so many attacks on the wall of separation is that there is a rightful sense that we need to return to core religious values and truths. That is the right end, but getting government involved in the process is absolutely wrong in achieving that end. All of human history shows that getting government involved hurts religion, not helps it.
___Some are motivated by the right reasons, but other political officials understand it strengthens their image with some groups if they push a religious cause. I don’t see where having government funding helps churches. It can only hurt religion and cause religious dissension. Those who tried to change the Bill of Rights found it politically expedient, and because of my opposition to it in my recent campaign, 10 mailings involving some 500,000 pieces of mail said I opposed children praying.
___I assume the National Republican Campaign Committee felt it helpful to misrepresent my position, but it is ironic that some people break the ninth commandment to try to accomplish their purpose. I consider it most gratifying that the people of my district had better sense than to believe it.
___I absolutely support voluntary school prayer but vehemently oppose government-sanctioned, organized school prayer. I have decided that protecting religious freedom is far more important to me than an election, however. If losing votes is the price of my protecting religious freedom, it is a small price to pay.
///
How important is religious faith in your personal life and as a congressman?
___It is a central part of my life and of my family’s values. I was born and raised in the Methodist church, but 10 years ago I married a Baptist preacher’s daughter, and though I am still a Methodist today, our family has attended Baptist churches in Virginia and Texas the last 10 years.
___One of the challenges is trying to set a good Christian example in public office without wearing religion on my sleeve. I think it is sacrilege when politicians use religion to their own political ends. That demeans religion. It is a constant struggle trying to set a good Christian example and trying to reach out to others with my faith while not showing disrespect by furthering my own political ends.
___Dr. Reynolds reminded me that St. Francis of Assisi said we should always preach the gospel and, if necessary, use words. One of the challenges of a person of faith was expressed by Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia in the early 1990s when he said he had always struggled about which sins, based on his personal faith, did he have a right to turn into crimes using the power of government.
Read the full interview at http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_6/pages/edwards.html
///
The following is text from a speech Rep. Edwards gave on November 19, 2003.
Add to Google