How Times Have Changed(?)

[muscadine]

JFK, July 15, 1960:

The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgement. And you have, at the same time, placed your confidence in me, and in my ability to render a free, fair judgement--to Uphold the Constitution and my Oath of Office--and to reject any kind of religious pressure that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of 14 years supporting public education--supporting complete separation of church and state--and resisting pressure from any source on any issue should be clear by now to everyone.

I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise, or throw away his vote--by voting either for me or against me because of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant. I want to stress, what some other political or religious leaders may have said on this subject. It is not relevant what abuses may have existed in other countries or in other times. It is not relevant what pressures, if any, might conceivably be brought to bear on me. I am telling you now what you are entitled to know: that my decisions on any public policy will be my own--as an American, as a Democrat, and as a free man.

C-SPAN has been showing the bolded portion of this excerpt of Kennedy's acceptance speech.

I wonder if Bush could make a similar pledge with a straight face. If he could, I wonder what the radical religious right's reaction would be. I wonder what their reaction to JFK would have been back in 1960 if he had troted his religion out like Bush does today.

Meanwhile, there is a new movement by some Catholic Bishops to exert pressure on politicians about their stances on abortion, gay rights, etc (but, tellingly, not capital pushishment, war, etc). Kerry is being painted by conservative pundits as "not really Catholic" because he doesn't align his public politics with his personal religious beliefs. Now, apparently, it is preferrable that the President to be under the sway of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

For all it's talk of "tradition," the right-wing conservatism of today (especially in its religious incarnation) once again proves itself ahistorical.

Comments

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's really a change of times though - just a change of what religion the current president belongs to. It's never been to Catholic politicians' advantage to admit to being politically influenced by religion, and it still isn't. It's to most Protestant politicians' advantage though, and it was during Kennedy's time too.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

That's one reason for the question mark. Although I do think it is now in at least some conservative Catholic politicians' advantage to trot out their religion in a similar way to GWB (and it is often advantageous for liberal Catholic candidates to trot out their "cultural Catholicism"), depending on who they are running against. The main point I was trying to make, though, is that there is a double standard, and that double standard has historical roots, which conservatives handily ignore.

[countrymouse.livejournal.com]

I remember the fear that a lot of voters had back then, worrying that if Kennedy were elected, the country would be indirectly controlled by the Pope. *Seriously*. That's why Kennedy had to make as strong a statement as that about his religion and how it would not affect his decisions.

I had a girlfriend who wore her "JFK for President" button to Methodist church choir practice. Most of the other folks averted their eyes and figured she was just being rebellious, wearing the button, supporting a *gasp* Catholic. She wasn't quite old enough to vote, but she *did* work locally on his campaign.

I don't remember politicians trotting out their religions, of *any* brand, in earlier years. Not really until, say, the 80's?