What a difference half a century makes. After the Scopes Monkey Trial, politics had pretty much secularized in the mainstream, until the McCarthy era when political religion was revived in Cold War context and in response to growing culture mediums (rock music, radicals movie makers, etc.). JFK was under a particular pressure as the first (and only) Catholic President with concern over “Papicism” in terms of social democracy (Rerum Novarum specifically, which would figure prominently in the Second Vatican) more paranoid “apostate church” issues. This speech was probably designed to ease concerns that he had been elected as Pope-surrogate.
But for the most part, politics had secularized, until the emergence of the Moral Majority during the Reagan Revolution. Nobody objected to the the notion that a political figures core morality might be rooted in religion, but the concept of a religious political agenda driving electoral campaigns and policy was well out of vogue for two brief decades beginning with JFK. Does anybody remember Ford’s religion? Johnson’s? Some of us touched by anti-war politics might remember that Nixon had been a Quaker largely because of the irony of the situation, and the response from Quakers themselves. But until the 1980s, we really didn’t know our political leaders’ religious affiliations. Now even liberal pols are pretty much forced to proclaim their Christianity in personal and political terms, as the liberal pol’s bonafides on the issue are routinely challenged.
In any case, we certainly would not have seriously entertained proposals for “faith based” public funding of privatized social programs, or “vouchers” for public funding of religious education, or official prayer in schools. It was a brief renaissance in the approach to the Establishment Clause (and yes conservatives, I know that “wall of separation” only appeared in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson).
This speech would be attacked all over Fox News today, and even on the other stations.
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Anitpas
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Sounds like a separation to me.
March 18, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Observation
Nationally, the rightwing is assaulting public education with a PR campaign (thanks think tanks!) painting public education as broken (it’s not). The goals: privatize schools, destroy unions and Christianize curriculum (revise history books — Jefferson is evil don’t ya know, introduce school prayer, revise sex education to be abstinence only or provide no sex education at all, and teach Bible classes). Hey, if you don’t like it, you have “school choice.” What, there’s no non-religious schools in your town? You have the choice to start one (ha! ha!).
March 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm
tra
“What a difference half a decade makes.”
Given the JFK clip, I’m guessing that in this case you meant to say “what a difference half a century makes.”
March 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Oops
March 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm
tra
More importantly, thanks for the JFK clip.
The part about religious leaders not telling their followers how to vote is particularly at odds with the direction things have actually been heading since that speech.
March 21, 2012 at 11:57 am
Not A Native
Eric’s history is all screwed up. The facts of what actually happened were discussed by scholars on PBS’s Religion in America series and have everything to do with factions within the Christian evangelical movement and nothing to do with Catholics.
Of course, Eric’s personal knowledge is rooted indoctrinated Catholic dogma. In his narcissistic myopia he sees his own individual experience as being the basis of explanation for everything. Along with smatterings of childhood family stories that he often cites as prima facie wisdom of the ages
March 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Uh, no, I wasn’t raised Catholic. You’re confusing me with someone else NAN.
I can’t speak to what you saw on TV, but the Washington Post recollects the history in much the same way I do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/separation-of-church-and-state-not-on-the-2012-campaign-trail/2011/09/27/gIQA0vT8AL_story.html
As does CNN.
http://dagblog.com/persecution-politics/why-evangelicals-love-santorum-hated-jfk-13207
And even the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/799kciiq.asp
And that’s just from a quick Google search.
March 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Not A Native
As usual Eric, first you assume then you misquote. The WP article refers back to over 200 years of US politicians campaigning on religious principles. The CNN article is about the 2012 election and simply uses Kennedy as an example, not as being historically unique or even significant. The WS article also makes only mention of Kennedy while citing Al Smith’s 1929 campaign and the earliest American colonials.
None of the articles support your claim that recent religious focus in politics is associated with rock music and radical movie makers, That’s your prejudice because it meets your need to gain popularity by being seen as aligned some SoHum sentiments that elevatate the significance of those things.
March 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Eric Kirk
(sigh). My claim is that JFK made the speech because he was on the defensive for being Catholic, which you challenged in your prior post. Hence your reference to my “Catholic indoctrination” or whatever.
From the WP article.
Those calls have generally triggered concern over the entanglement of government and religion. When the Catholic John F. Kennedy was opposed as a “papist,” for instance, he defused the criticism with a speech on the separation of church and state.
From the CNN post:
But the Baptist ministers who witnessed Kennedy’s speech surely felt differently. In the 1960s, evangelical leaders were not concerned that Kennedy was too secular; they were concerned that he was too Catholic.
And from the Weekly Standard:
As late as 1960, John F. Kennedy was forced to assure Protestants that the pope wouldn’t be calling the shots on American foreign and domestic policy in his administration.
March 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Not A Native
You channeling Ernie now Eric, along with boxes of rocks and turnip trucks?
Your last post just verified my point. I already showed that Kennedy was mentioned in those articles as just a particular incident in a long long history of religious involvement in US politics. Not a uniquely significant one.
You just reiterated my point by pasting those texts.. Nothing is mentioned anywhere about the BS you made up about rock music, radicals, or radical movies(or sex or drugs either). It ain’t all about the 60′s-70′s that egocentric narcissistic baby boomers see as the wellspring for everything. its mostly about shifts in evangelical theology concerning what are proper concerns in this life as preparation and qualification for afterlife.
Really Eric, I think you’re getting stupider and stupider lately. As well as more and more conservative. Your writing that mentally ill people are ‘lesser’ in the Occupy Eureka thread on Hank’s blog clearly showed you’ve taken up a lot of the rightwing the kool aid. Has SoHum really shifted that far so quickly?
March 22, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Bolithio
Egocentric narcissistic indeed!
March 22, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Eric Kirk
NAN – Apparently you’re a little embarrassed, and you’re changing the subject, though I’m not clear on your new subject. Originally you said:
Eric’s history is all screwed up. The facts of what actually happened were discussed by scholars on PBS’s Religion in America series and have everything to do with factions within the Christian evangelical movement and nothing to do with Catholics.
Of course, Eric’s personal knowledge is rooted indoctrinated Catholic dogma. In his narcissistic myopia he sees his own individual experience as being the basis of explanation for everything. Along with smatterings of childhood family stories that he often cites as prima facie wisdom of the ages
I then informed you that I am not nor ever have been Catholic and dug up three articles which confirm that at least those sources agree with my view of the history, namely that Kennedy was on the defensive for his religion and made the speech in part to assure evangelicals and others that he would not be a President at the Pope’s bidding.
I mentioned the rock music and the film only in the context of the revival of political religion during the 1950s as a cultural response to rock music (to which there was vehement opposition across the country), Hollywood films (Hollywood being the primary target of McCarthy according to Victor Navasky and a slew of other historians), comic books (the creation of the “Comics Code” certification). I did not suggest that Kennedy was addressing those issues, but reacting to hysteria which was amplified by the brief revival of political religion.
The brief 50s revival of political religion is covered in great detail by historians from Sydney Allstrom to C. Vann Woodward, both in a long list. It had become dormant after its standard bearer William Jennings Bryan was destroyed (literally and figuratively) by the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Of course there is great irony in the fact that his Catholicism was being cited as a concern for foreign policy when McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Bishop Sheen, and so many other big time anti-Communists had held the spotlight, but ironies as such have never bothered the political wing of the evangelical crowd.
The point is, this is really basic history, without much dispute. In fact, the only dispute would really come from right wing revisionists who want to downplay their predecessors’ opposition to Hollywood, Elvis, etc.
And I did not write that mentally ill people are “lesser.” Go back and try to employ a fifth grade reading level to the post, and maybe you’ll comprehend it. And then look up the words “irony” and “sarcasm.” That’s I-R-O-N-Y and S-A-R-C-A-S-M. It was in response to a claim that mentally ill people cannot prevent themselves from terrifying women.
March 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Not A Native
Eric, my comments here are consistent and stand on their own. Anyone here who cares can read both of ours and reach their own opinion.
But you’re bobing and weaving, trying to justify and embellish your mixed up story. Like Pinocchio’s nose, the bigger your misdirection, the longer your posts get. Lots of words may increase billable hours and constitute a retort, but they don’t change the facts.
Fact is, the calls for comic book codes were an outgrowth of the 1930 Hollywood Production Code. And religious comingling with US politics goes back much farther, to revolutionary times. As I wrote, there is nothing privileged about recent US history vis a vis religion in politics. But of course, whatever occurs during your(and handed down family) personal history is narcissistically perceived by you as special, unique, and a watershed event.
And finally yes, when you concoct your ideas of what is significant you overweight Catholic theology e.g. reference to Papal dicta. Facts are, over the many years, Protestantism has a much larger influence in US politics.
March 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric, my comments here are consistent and stand on their own.
Indeed. So to speak.
Protestantism has a much larger influence in US politics.
Duh. That was part of my original point. The one you initially challenged before you shifted to the claim that there was no conservative opposition to rock music, Hollywood, or comic books during the 1950s.
March 24, 2012 at 10:48 am
Not A Native
No Eric, your thread’s focus is on Cathoicism. Your leading, principal, and major point was about Kennedy with even further a link to Papal decree and another JFK references in the next paragraph.
And counselor, don’t put keystrokes on my keyboard. I’ve held that religious based reaction to rock music, etc. was not a significant part of a long history of religious involvement in US politics.
Again, you’re seeking to garner credibiliy among your fellow(aging) nostalgic boomer narcissists. You seek to elevate your personal significances by claiming your experiences were a unique and defining moment in the larger US cultural history. Thats simply factually wrong.
March 24, 2012 at 11:05 am
Ernie's Place
“You channeling Ernie now Eric, along with boxes of rocks and turnip trucks?”
NAN. Thank-you for the compliment. Actually I do completely agree with Eric on this point. I was bumbling around the ’60s in my turnip truck hauling my box of rocks and experienced, very much first hand, the criticism of JFK for being Catholic. Eric is also right in that it was a protestant world. (Sorry, Eric said it first.) If NAN wasn’t so busy trying to be a cantankerous contrarian he would have understood that the country was concerned about the Catholic church, and more specifically the Pope having too large of an influence on Kennedy. Americans were right to be concerned about such things, but were wise enough to see that Kennedy would represent all Americans and not just Catholics. In was a very big deal amongst some protestants who had pretty much controlled who got elected up until that point.
In is my opinion that a politician being forced to declare their religious affiliation is a mistake. I look forward to the day when we can have a candidate for President that can declare that they don’t follow any religion, but have an open mind.
March 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Anonymous
Not a Native makes a fool of himself yet again.
March 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Joe Blow
Let me, if I can, introduce everyone to the basics or fundamental basis of a closed-minded religious belief: “I look forward to the day when we can have a candidate for President that can declare that they don’t follow any religion, but have an open mind.”
Everyone’s beliefs are religious in nature and diametrically in a complete sense influence everything they do. Live with it folks.
[Disclaimer: By the way, this is an educational comment and meant as an ugly taunt.]
March 25, 2012 at 11:49 am
Joe Blow
My sub-conscious betrayed me again. I intended to say – (REALLY): “[T]his is an educational comment and NOT meant as an ugly taunt.”
March 25, 2012 at 4:04 pm
suzy blah blah
Everyone’s beliefs are religious in nature and diametrically in a complete sense influence everything they do. Live with it folks.
-totally Joe, and that’s why suzy calls the new dominant faith = the belief in political influence, money, and work /// with science its wrathful ( wrathful, in sheep’s clothing) police force.