Rick Santorum: JFK’s 1960 Speech Made Me Want to Throw Up

Santorum is a fearsome person with no understanding of history. As a member of the Jewish faith and having relatives of my family as holocaust survivors and victims I find Santorum to be a frightening zealot. He wants full control of our lives from cradle to education to religion to morality to sexuality. What next? Perhaps his vision of a master race. Freedom is lost by little steps towards dictatorships.

George Stephanopoulos is the most biased (aka dishonest) person in the media.

Rick Santorum has radically twisted JFK’s words. The point in JFK’s speech was that he would not lead this country based on direction from religious leaders. Context is that JFK was being attacked for being Catholic and people were concerned that he would lead based on the beliefs of Catholicism. JFK’s was promising that he would not do that. I have grave concerns that Santorum wants this country to adhere to his beliefs, and his beliefs only. That’s a dangerous idea. Also, he’s ignoring the First Amendment, which is what JFK was supporting in his speech. Facts matter.

George, If you were on the ball you would have read Santorum the rest of the paragraph and ask him about that:

“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.”

Excellent interview. No wonder Santorum is viewed favorably. He’s looking better and better!

Excellent points, ZB!

But you have to understand that many of the posters here cannot even read your post (you use words with more than four letters and you also spell and punctuate correctly), much less comprehend what it means and why the things you point out are so significant. But you’re totally right and Santorum is a very scary man.

Bravo Santorum! People will only hear the sound bites they choose to hear. Raven it is interesting that your judgment of his commentary…..(had you read the entire thing)…..is precisely what he was saying! Yes on BOTH sides of the coin. I think partisanship can cause an odd sort of deafness.

Organized religion , you scary. That being said I’m semi-OK with religion in US politics
( it’s already there and has been for years ,e.g. “the Moral Majority” hello ? ) , with one significant caveat . Let’s even the playing field . First order of business : local state and federal taxation for any and all religious institutions and their paid employees and related taxable entities . What a much needed tax base that would add to the US Treasury . The US religious demographic voters want legislative representation @ the executive level no less ( Santorum / Bachmann )without due taxation , who knew ? Nice work if you can get it I suppose . Sounds pretty fiscally convenient to me .

It’s really stunning to see the lack of understanding of our founding principles on this comment board.

Raven, do you understand what Jefferson meant when he wrote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: that all men “have inalienable rights granted from the Creator… ?” Our laws are founded on the understanding that rights come from God first–that the role of government is not to “grant” the poor plebes their rights arbitrarily, but that since such rights are granted FIRST from the Creator (as life, first among them, followed by liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then the only proper role of government is to protect those rights that come from God. This was a revolutionary (literally) idea for the world. Our founders understood that in order to protect the dignity of human beings, government’s role was based on negative rights….meaning restraining itself from intruding on people’s God given rights.

Therefore, life is pre-eminent and the government’s role, according to Jefferson,”was as it’s first duty,to protect life and not see its destruction.” So, the pro-life argument has everything to do with the constitution and not some fringe religious practice, like not eating meat on Fridays.

Secondly, the First amendment was written to protect all citizens’ (including the legislators’) to practice freely according to the dictates of their conscience–religious formation was seen as foundational to every human beings’ ability to flourish and as Adams put it, “without a religious citizenry, freedom will be impossible to maintain.” Men will act as animals, pursuing their selfish ends without restraint. Government will do the same…it gladly destroys the sovereignty of individuals in pursuit of its own power and growth.

You people have sucked at the teat of secular indoctrination for too long and need to realize that our freedoms are rooted first in faith and not in the absence of faith.

PHIL: “Show me a secular socitey and I will show you a society of slaves. Seriously. The only truly secular societies that I am aware of throughout history are the modern communist nations, USSR, North Korea, Communist China, etc. Notice what they all have in common? Gulags, a police state, famine and war.”

Europe is a “truly secular society”. So is the U.S. So is modern-day Japan. You are confusing the religious beliefs a POPULATION may hold (or not) with the operations of a GOVERNMENT. Many or even most of the PEOPLE may be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or of some other religious faith, but the GOVERNMENT is a SECULAR one.

As opposed to the theocracies of the world like Iran, Afghanastan under the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia (shining beacons of civilization and freedom, right?) where the GOVERNMENT legislates based on religion.

“And, did you ever notice that the only places with freedom of religion, including the freedom to have no religion or to be gay, are all decendents of the christian european enlightenment period?..”

Not all. Not by far. But more to the point, the Founding Fathers took much of their inspiration from Locke and other thinkers who were so influential precisely BECAUSE they rejected the role of religion or the church in the government (regardless of their own personal religious beliefs…and if you think the Founding Fathers were all or even mostly Christians as you would term it, think again.)

They founded a SECULAR government to handle SECULAR matters of state and directed that RELIGION and personal beliefs were a separate realm altogether, neither the business of the government OR allowed IN the business of the government.

Well Mr. Santorum you are not a true conservative, you are a religious nut case. Here is a quote from one of the most popular Republican Presidents ever: “Well, let me speak plainly: The United States of America is and must remain a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. Our very unity has been strengthened by this pluralism. That’s how we began; this is how we must always be. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, anti-Semitism, or bigotry of any kind — none. The unique thing about America is a wall in our Constitution separating church and state. It guarantees there will never be a state religion in this land, but at the same time it makes sure that every single American is free to choose and practice his or her religious beliefs or to choose no religion at all. Their rights shall not be questioned or violated by the state.” — Remarks at the International Convention of B’nai B’rith, 6 September 1984 (President RONALD WILSON REAGAN)

The people praising Santorum for his comments are so sadly, painfully ignorant. And they claim it’s everyone ELSE who doesn’t get it.

Santorum doesn’t even understand what JFK really said…he completely misses the point. JFK was saying that he was going to be like all the Presidents before him, and be guided in his decisions primarily by the principles of the Constitution. Might his Catholic faith influence him to some degree? Sure, but his job was to serve ALL Americans, not just Catholics. And he would best serve them by making sure each American had the freedom to practice his or her own faith, or system of ethics, or philosophy, or whatever, without interference from the Government or from other people, as long as in so doing he or she did not interfere with anyone else’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If he governed America under orders from the Pope, he would be in violation of his duty to the American people.

Santorum wants to not only govern all Americans as a Christian, he wants to use the power of Government to force them all to live as he thinks Christians should live. In a religiously diverse nation such as ours, this can only lead to disintegration. Those of other faiths or none will no longer feel they are part of this country, part of the grand American experiment in liberty and diversity. That they are merely “tolerated,” if that. Why then should they continue to participate in it?

We DO NOT have a secular republic nor should we. We have a country that forbids the STATE from interfering with religion. NOT the other way around. Liberals have been attempting to pervert this from day one. The state has NO say in religion. Religion has every right to engage the state. Santorum is 100% correct.

Stephanaplos is a pimp for obama!

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! It was something that Jefferson wrote in a private letter. And the “wall” was to protect the church from state influence, not the other way around.
Obamacare is a perfect tool for government to exert control of the people. And yet it is the Republicans who want to repeal it. If Santorum wants to impose his values on you, then why is he pledging to repeal it?

Rick Santorum is right on target with his remarks about JFK’s sickening speech. JFK denied his faith in order to obtain the prize to which he felt born and entitled, the presidency. He took the perceived threat of his being led by the Vatican and ran with it, screaming denials all the way. It was a preposterous idea, to which only the most biased among us would ever give credence. I personally want a candidate who has standards of behavior for themselves and ideals with which to govern. These qualities are normally fostered in religious training and make up the total person. Mr. Santorum is proud of his religious heritage and apologizes to no one for his beliefs.

He said it made him throw up (can we say draaammaa)? He claims the first sentence of the speech is what did it. It wasn’t the first sentence, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute”. It’s the first sentence in the 4th paragraph, so he was wrong about that. He took one line and twisted it to further ignite the fires. Maybe he should have read the whole speech. It’s obvious he cannot adhere to what Kennedy stood for “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 a 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 where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a 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.” “And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die 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, 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 Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey — but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.” “But let me stress again that these are my views — for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic 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, if I should be elected — 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 in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. 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 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 other conscientious public servant would do likewise.” This is not the whole speech, but WTH, isn’t this the way it’s supposed to be done???

IA Grandma, you might ought to be more worried about the command and control of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Or, possibly radical Islamic Mosques might be more of an actual threat than Papal interference in the Politics of the US. Any way, JFK was hated by many just because he was Catholic. Maybe pukeworthy to Catholics(I’m not one)was his bending over backwards to disavow even the benefits of carrying his religious perspective into his public life and decisions as if that was “dangerous”. Absurd, no?

JFK was only trying to make the point that as a Catholic he would not be led by the Vatican. We had ever had a Catholic president before and that became an issue in the campaign. Santorum is a moron if he does not know that part of US history.

…and Iowa Grandma, Kennedy does alude to the possibility that his conscience may be violated, in which case he would ” resign”. Violation of conscience is a major issue, no? Has the federal government in interpreting the Health Care bill not utterly violated the conscience of many Catholics?
This ruling is clearly the State interfering with a Church. It is government control over Church. Explain how this is justified?

Santorum critiquing Kennedy’s speech is kind of like Lady GaGa or Dr Dre criticizing the works of Mozart or Beethoven. Little Ricky is a fascist in my opinion, and an embarrassment to good Catholics everywhere.

Also: The Gettysburg Address gives him cramps.
No, really. Get the milk of magnesia.

John F. Kennedy never said “people of faith have no role in the public square.” What he did say was that they cannot impose their religious beliefs and moral values on others, particularly not through the power of government, but also not as citizens. The government’s job is not to police the morality or religious “orthodoxy” of the citizens–it is to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of all citizens, insofar as possible, to live according to the dictates of their own consciences. Some say this is violated when employers (secular or religious) who are opposed to contraception or abortion have no say in whether their employees’ health coverage covers such things or not. In my view, the employee must come first, and the government must protect the rights of the individual employee over the rights of the employer. Otherwise, you are giving employers undue power over their employees’ personal lives. If the employee’s personal life does not interfere with his or her job performance, why is it of concern to the employer?

Rick Santorum had the nerve to announce that JFK’s words in 1950 about separation of church in state make him want to throw up. Frankly, Santorum makes me want to throw up. He will never be even a quarter of a man that JFK was, and years from now when Kennedy will still be remembered as an inspiration to the American people, no one will even know who the hell Rick Santorum was.

Rick Santorum, you are not worthy enough to clean up JFK’s puke.

Another past president, Thomas Jefferson, in support of the separation of church and state proposed that Virginal disestablish the Anglican Church as its religion. When such legislation finally came to be it went beyond protecting those of other Christian belief but also desists, skeptics and those with not religion at all. Later Jefferson viewed his contribution to the statute his greatest contribution.

By fanatical Santorum like absolutists of Jefferson’s time, William Linn proclaimed in an anti-Jefferson political pamphlet: “the election of any man avowing the principles of Mr. Jefferson would destroy religion, introduce immorality and loosen all the bonds of society.”

A tolerant Jefferson maintained: “It does me not injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.”

One can be assured that Jefferson’s respect for the religious views of others would also make Santorum want to throw up.

The separation of church and state is both ways. The United States shall not establish a religion. If religion wants to influence the politics of the U.S. then they should have to pay taxes on all of their assets and follow all of the laws of the land. If they want to keep their religious beliefs and live their lives by then, then the state should not and will not bother them.

I believe in God and the teaching of Christ, but I don’t want to force my ideals on anyone, and I don’t want anyone to force their beliefs on me. Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and Render unto God what is God’s.

If Santorum wants to live his faith and following the Catholic doctrine only, then he should move to Vatican City and he will be happy.

What are some of you people talking about? Santorum should be in the Vatican? Thomas Mc? Do you listen? Did you read what you posted? You’re a boob! He didn’t declare anything about pushing the Catholic dogma today onto everyone? What?! He expressed a secular society with those of faith and others having zero faith matter. You are not a thinker nor a listener. Lars S., your another real weiner. Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Isn’t the current administration trying to control your life and mine from cradle to faith and death right now? He’s trying to tell Catholic hospitals to provide all forms of birth control for everyone on your dime and mine? I feel like this administration has tried to take my freedom 1 day at a time and they have not and will not succeed. Not a chance! Keep trying because I will wear you out and you will never win!

jock:,
But the federal government IS imposing values in opposition of the values of a church. No need of separation here?
BTW, there is an exemption given to Muslim organizations, as they are exempt, for reasons of conscience, from the federal health care mandate. Double standard

He must be crazy. Kennedy said nothing of the kind. I just listened to the speech, and he didn’t say anything at all like that. Not one thing even resembles what Santorum said. I think he’s lost his mind.

“Raven, do you understand what Jefferson meant when he wrote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: that all men “have inalienable rights granted from the Creator… ?” ”

What’s funny is that most conservatives wouldn’t consider Thomas Jefferson a “Christian” if they did a bit of historical research. Jefferson was spiritual and interested in morality, but he by no means condoned religion in government, or even organized religion in general.

Thomas Jefferson, at times in his life, was considered a deist and an episcopalian. Some Jefferson quotes that would likely drive many fundamentalist christians crazy:

“every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot…they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.”

“it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”

The stupidity on this board is shocking and terrifying. This country was not built on faith. It was established as a secular country. The letter Jefferson wrote the the Danbury baptists promised to protect their rights from the congregationalists, not the government. It’s scary how brainwashed these religious conservatives are. They don’t even know basic American history.

The hypocrisy of some of the comments on this thread are truly frightening. The idea of the separation of church and state is to protect our right to have freedom of religion or to be free from religion. Individuals like Santorum are hypocrites in that they want religion in the government as long as it’s theirs but not the Muslims, Buddists, Taoists, Jews or anyone who isn’t part of the Christian fundamentalist base. And by the way, there are Christians out there who believe in the separation of church and state, they’re the same people that worked to free the slaves, get women the right to vote, helped pass the ADA, work now for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and dignity for the undocumented immigrants doing the work that Americans don’t want to do.

Isn’t there a scripture in the bible that talks about a dog turning to it’s own vomit? Me thinks Rick just started lapping it up!

So Santorum is upset because kids might learn that the bible is nothing but ancient mythology and NOT science or fact based in any respect? This guy is a disgrace and makes America look like a joke.

Santorum totally misquoted Kennedy. I watched and read the entire speech. Kennedy was the last REAL President in America. Santorum is a liar.

Article 6 section 3 of the Constitution – there is no religious test for any public office.
Where in the Constitution does it mention God, Jesus, christianity, bible, or any other religious reference besides “Creator”? And what is the Creator, the spaghetti monster?
Govt must not influence religion and religion must not influence govt. The USA is a secular republic and the Founding Fathers designed it that way. You are free to worship (or not worship) as you please but the govt is not to interfere with your choice. Santorum wants to change that by establishing a religious theocracy in the USA. If Santorum wants to have religion in govt then TAX THE CHURCH!

BTW, there is an exemption given to Muslim organizations, as they are exempt, for reasons of conscience, from the federal health care mandate. Double standard.
Posted by: Dick V | February 26, 2012, 9:22 pm.

As are the Amish, a Christian sect. And of course there was the big fight a couple weeks ago about Catholic-run hospitals not having to offer birth control coverage like their secular counterparts. I guess exemptions are fine if YOU are the one seeking the exemption.

Muslims(the entire religion): Individual adherants are EXEMPT from being forced to buy Health Care
Christians(with the exception of a microsect) are NON EXEMPT from being forced to buy Health Care

The Catholic organizations had a previous exemption from the government forcing them to provide contraception for their employees in violation of their inalienable right to freedom of conscience. That right was given by the creator God and can’t be taken away.

“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.” Stop and think about what you’re saying here. Everyone supporting this statement seems to think that this won’t be a problem. Those that support this statement, however, have also been the most vocal about their fears that we’ve elected a “secret Muslim” as President who would impose Sharia law, given the chance. And yet, you’ve just said that “the church” – which in our country must mean “a church”, anyone’s church, not just the Christian church – should be allowed to have influence and involvement in our government. Is that really what you want? To be like Iran? Or are you really just referring to the Christian church as “the church”, and giving lip service the the Constitutional guarantee of freedom to practice religion – meaning ANY religion. How can any religion expected to be free if they’re being governed by the influence and involvement of a state religion? Can you not see that that has led to war in every single country that has tried it? Only a secular government can guarantee the right of ANY religion, ALL religions, to freely practice their beliefs. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that everyone was free to practice their religious beliefs – by prohibiting the Federal Government from making laws based on religious beliefs.

I’m disturbed by the notion of a presidential candidate vilifying a dead president –an assassinated one, no less! As a nation we all lose when we begin tearing down our own history.

Muslims are one of the faster-growning minorities. In 30 years Mr. Santorum’s granddaughters may be relieved to find the laws of the republic protected from religious influences by that pesky First Amendment thingy….

In addition to the 1st Amendment stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the U.S. Constitution is quite clear that there shall be no religious test to hold an elected office. Santorum clearly ignored Article VI, paragraph 3 that states:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I see someone misinterpeting kennedy speech to exclude religous people that is not the purpose of the context in the speech dont be fooled. He is turning out be be be eaither an idiot or disinformation junkie. And eitherway no place for anyone in congress muchless presidency.

Totally out of context. Its not that people of faith have no place in the public square. People of faith by all means have every right and option as everyone else. It is the imposition of their faith that has no place in the public square. Bring your morals, your ideas. Leave religious bickering out of it.

School Prayer – A Legacy of First Amendment Revision
School Prayer was removed from the U.S. public education system by slowly changing the meaning of the First Amendment through a number of court cases over several decades. The following is a summary of three pivotal cases in the early 1960′s:

“The Regent’s School Prayer” (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)
The New York education system adopted a school prayer to be said before the start of each day’s classes. This prayer promoted good moral character, provided spiritual training, and helped combat juvenile delinquency. The regents wrote a school prayer that was non-sectarian or denominational. In fact, it was so bland that it became known as the “to whom it may concern prayer.” Here it is: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

Justice Hugo Black wrote the following for the majority, “It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers… the Regent’s prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and the Establishment Clause itself.” This ruling did not stop school prayer completely, only those schools that had a regent style prayer. Voluntary prayer was still permitted.

Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina said, “I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?” John Bennett, Dean of Union Theological Seminary continued, “If the Court in the name of religious liberty tries to keep a lid on religious expression and teaching both in the public schools and also in connection with experiments that involve cooperation with public schools, it will drive all religious communities to the establishment of parochial schools, much against the will of many, and to the great detriment of public schools and probably of the quality of education.” At the time there were just a handful of Protestant schools in the country. Today, they number in the thousands.

“School Prayer” (Murray v. Curlett, 1963)
School prayer was the focus of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a militant left wing atheist with close ties to the American Communist Party, when she filed a lawsuit against the school board of Baltimore. The local court judge, J. Gilbert Pendergast, dismissed the petition stating, “It is abundantly clear that petitioners’ real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system.” The case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and the court ruled, “Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government.”

The “School Prayer” case then made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Leonard Kerpelman addressed the court saying prayer in the public schools had been tolerated for so long that it had become traditional and that anything that is unconstitutional does not become constitutional through tradition. He went on to say the Constitution had erected a “wall of separation” between church and state, at which point Justice Potter Steward interrupted, asking where this wording appears. Kerpelman was stumped and an embarrassing silence followed. When he regained his composure, he stated that the text was not explicit on the point but that it had been interpreted to mean so.

Remarkably, the National Council of Churches and several Jewish organizations favored Madalyn O’Hair’s case! Not a single Christian organization filed a brief in support of school prayer. The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of abolishing school prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. Justice Tom Clark wrote, “Religious freedom, it has long been recognized that government must be neutral and, while protecting all, must prefer none and disparage none.” The federal government considers atheism to be a religion, and this Supreme Court ruling favored atheism, at the expense of the Christian majority.

“School Prayer & Bible Reading” (Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 1963)
The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without comment and any student could request to be excused. This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the Murray v. Curlett case, and the court ruled on them together. In a nutshell, the court’s ruling stated that School Prayer and Bible reading were violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In ironic fashion, the court established a secular religion for our school system, thus violating the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment.

Yep, it makes me sick too now that I understand the affect it has had! I used to respect Kennedy and liked his youth and energy. Too bad he didn’t defend the idea of One Nation under God. In bending over backwards to assure folks that the Pope wasn’t giving him marching orders, he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

This is what the Republican party has left to offer. What a great opportunity for Mitt Romney to make it to the big dance. It’s a bit astonishing that there aren’t any better suited candidates that are electable. I think the Republican party has moved way to far to the right and look what you get a religious bigot that is 100% not electable and a former Democrat trying to be a conservative.

Santorum? give me a break, this wanna-be can never, ever hold a candle to the likes of JFK, no matter what his religion,family “values” or whatever, its “LEADERSHIP” my boy, and you “ain’t got it”. You and the “mittster” should be partners, birds of a feather? both of you with a big-time disconnect with America, we are not “ALL CATHOLICS, CHRISTIANS OR MORMANS”.

Santorum is an embarrassment for the US. In no other civilized Western country would a nut job like this hold any public office, he would be laughed of stage as soon as he spills his opinions. Not that it wouldn’t be great if he would become the GOP candidate; it would make 6 months of great Comedy Central, and any intelligent conservative would be rather caught with his pants down in a public washroom then voting for holy frothboy

I am a Christian but do not wish to live in a theocracy. Santorum the Sanctimonious and many of the “righteous right” do not seem to understand that. They also don’t seem to realize that what JFK was trying to do in his speech was to reassure others that his personal faith (Catholicism) would not be the rule of law in his administration. that he would not impose Catholic standards, theology, and rules on the entire nation.

However, given the chance Santorum and the righteous right would insist on public/government policy being dictated by their personal religious beliefs. The question I would ask Santorum and the others is this: which version of theology do you intend to impose? Catholicism? Evangelical Protestantism? Lutheranism? Presbyterianism? Just exactly WHICH version of Christianity do you plan on forcing upon the American people?

I am sure our “Founding Fathers” are spinning in their graves that after over two hundred years we’re having to deal with this….

The founders of our country knew religious persecution took place and that is why they were so very clear about the separation of church and state. There would be no religious persecution in America and there would be freedom of religion. The government however has the oversight of our nation and that is why the right wing only wants to see everything in their narrow anti-President Obama way in everything that comes along. So Santorum is a religious Catholic theocrat who has spewed the most unreasonable and stupid things that clearly make him an idiot.

Every knee shall bow. Mark His word. That means yours

Once again, Santorum manipulated something to fit his own twisted agenda. Here is JFK’s text (that George Stephanopolus should have brought up):

“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.”

Finally, how are the “one God, one faith, one baptism” Catholic doctrine, and the “ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!” Nazi tagline not the same?

Rick Santorum is the reason he won’t win. With his stupid comments before he reads the speech of JFK, who most Americans still happen to love. Where are they getting these comments. The Koch Brother’s speech writer’s. Really?

These Tea Party freaks have to go. Santorum should be preaching ‘religious tolerance.’ and nothing more. “Made me want to throw up.” Santorum drop out now Plz.

Anyone who thinks religious adults weren’t indoctrinated as children, is not facing reality. Most religions believe mankind is naturally evil and that is why we need religion. I think that over the last five decades, my growning understanding of Constitutional law, and reccognizing The USA as a Republic, has resulted in my belief that religion should have no official place in governing the masses.

Religions wanting to convert and rule the masses to their way of thinking and living, through our laws in this country, are surely violating our Constitution. For far to long this was the case here in the USA. Those who fought to remove government sanctioned religious practices, in public places, were/are heros for the freedom of Amnerica. If I choose to live a religious life, or not, it is my personal choice. So long as I comply with the law, I shouldn’t have to be constantly tripping over purely religion based laws, practices, or sanctions, in my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The Constitution should be the ‘gold standard’ of our laws, which every American can depend on for equality and freedom. We should also fight to keep it that way.

Mistake?! This man who wants to constrain this entire damned country by running for Commander in Chief is a mistake….

the thought of this idiot someday being president makes me want to throw up…

Rick is pandering to the catholic and christian vote without thinking about the implication. freedom of religion means you can practice but won’t impose your religious beliefs on one who is not willing to receive. Fluke scares me equally–ideology about distribution of government funded birthcontrol is as ignorant. Let’s get people who can govern and be stewarts to the economy. Let’s avoid the fundamentalists trying to impose an ideology upon the masses. Economy and moral social code.

Rick Santorum was 2 years old when JFK offered that speech. I am sure that there were a few things that contributed to his tendency to hurl in that time in his life. Just sayin’

Honourable bye, considerate alternative other :)