One of the more unhinged criticisms of Sarah Palin flirts with accusing her of anti-Catholicism. “Is Sarah Palin anti-Catholic after attacks on JFK, Nancy Pelosi’s religious beliefs?” a writer for the Irish Voice asked by way of critiquing Palin’s new book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.
Instead of grief, the former vice-presidential nominee and governor of Alaska deserves some credit for legitimately taking on a sacred cow of American civil religious history: John F. Kennedy speaking to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960.
“In the best American tradition, he nobly defended religious tolerance and condemned official governmental preference of any faith over any other,” Palin writes. “But his language was more defensive than is portrayed today, in tone and content. Instead of telling the country how his faith has enriched him, he dismissed it as a private matter meaningful only to him.” She adds, “Rather than spelling out how faith groups had provided life-changing services and education to millions of Americans, he repeatedly objected to any government assistance to religious schools.”
Palin acknowledges that JFK was under intense attack. Still, she writes, “his vaunted speech didn’t represent a successful reconciliation of faith and public office, but an articulate and unequivocal divorce of the two. It is perhaps not surprising, in light of this fact, that his brother Ted Kennedy would go on to have a long career advocating positions directly at odds with his Catholic faith (which was by all accounts sincere).” Kennedy, in other words, added to the problem of how a faithful Catholic or other religious American might approach public life, opting to privatize faith in the service of public life.
Palin’s commentary did not sit well with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and eldest child of JFK’s brother Robert. Townsend took to The Washington Post to issue a scold. “Palin’s argument,” wrote Townsend, “seems to challenge a great American tradition, enshrined in the Constitution, stipulating that there be no religious test for public office.”
Townsend’s insistence that Palin endorses a religious test suggests she didn’t read the book quite as carefully as she says she did. And in her zeal to tear down Palin and protect the mythology of a “wall of separation” between church and state, Townsend misses Palin’s point — a point that questions the religious and cultural mythology surrounding the Kennedy family.
Given that it’s a mythology that has sowed confusion about both our constitutional tradition and what exactly it means to be Catholic in America, it’s essential that the mythology face a challenge.
It’s not just the Kennedy family, of course, who might be sensitive to the criticism of the JFK approach to religion. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, Jerry Brown: The list goes on and on and crosses party lines. But if some of them didn’t keep mentioning that they’re Catholic while on the campaign trail, you might have missed their religious affiliation.
Townsend gets her Irish up about Palin calling out Pelosi by name here, leaving it at Palin simply questioning Pelosi’s faith: “Who anointed her our grand inquisitor?” Palin is much more specific than that, though. She points to the tension between a Nancy Pelosi who says her “ardent” Catholic faith is an essential part of her identity and yet opposes prohibiting partial-birth abortion, for instance.
The disconnect is a challenge lay Catholics in public life have to grapple with. As Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput put it earlier this year: As the number of Catholics in public office grows, “I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work or who even feel obligated to try. The life of our country is no more ‘Catholic’ or ‘Christian’ than it was 100 years ago. In fact, it’s arguably less so.”
The Denver archbishop is some of the good company Palin finds herself in when she criticizes the Kennedy approach to religion and public life. Speaking at Houston Baptist University in March, Archbishop Chaput said Kennedy’s speech “left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate — and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely ‘wrong.’ His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”
As she defends her uncle’s legacy, Townsend does his critics and religious freedom itself a disservice. She writes that “no American political leader should cavalierly — or out of political calculation — dismiss the hard-won ideal of religious freedom that is among our country’s greatest gifts to the world.” But it’s precisely out of concern for just that that Palin worries about the Kennedy legacy. And, again, she is not alone. On the September anniversary of the speech, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a long-shot possibility for Republican presidential nominee in 2012, took on the Kennedy speech in remarks at Houston’s St. Thomas University. Meanwhile, in America by Heart, Palin cites Mitt Romney, the Mormon former Republican governor of Massachusetts, who the chattering class advised had to “do a Kennedy” if he wanted to be president. So, in November 2007, he gave a speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library where he cited another president instead: George Washington, who, in his farewell address, talked about the “indispensable supports” of religion and morality.
While praising the wisdom of America’s founders in separating church and state as they did, Romney warned against taking it “well beyond its original meaning.” In his un-Kennedy-like speech, he warned against viewing religion as “merely a private affair with no place in public life.” Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts fought for the freedom of Catholic Charities to choose not to participate in adoptions by homosexual couples, knows a little something about threats against religious freedom in contemporary America.
John F. Kennedy remains one of our more popular presidents. He was a brave man who suffered and served. As Palin points out in her book, only God knows a man’s heart. But President Kennedy was wrong in his approach to faith and public life. He was certainly free to chart the course he did. But there’s no reason not to question its wisdom 50 years later.
In fact, there’s good reason to closely examine the Kennedy approach. Consider, for instance, that the fruits of JFK’s legacy include Nancy Pelosi thanking God for the dissenting women religious who departed from the U.S. Catholic bishops in defense of human life and conscience in the health-care legislation that passed earlier this year. That’s a problem.
So, thanks, Gov. Palin, for the nudge — and for taking some rhetorical fire in deference to a destination more powerful than even Washington, D.C.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist. She can be reached at klopez@nationalreview.com.
/images/uploads/Palin.jpg
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Nonsense.
Kennedy sold out. Period. His family can play the game all they want to, but Lieberman never forsake his Jewish faith - including his ardent and passionate devotion to protecting Israel as the land promised by God for the Jewish people. Mitt Romney never disavowed his Mormon faith. Of course, it’s common knowledge that Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in this nation. To top it all off, Kennedy’s statement on ‘separation of church and state’ demonstrated his shocking lack of knowledge of the Constitution he swore to defend and uphold as a naval officer, and senator, and president.
We could argue that it was a ‘different age’. Sure, you could. I teach history - I know all about historical relativism. I certainly know about anti-Catholic bias in America; I’ve been doing research for a book on that subject for several months now.
I have read Townshend’s editorial. It is another of a long line of poor attempts to legitimize the Kennedy flavor of heresy - because they are Kennedy. The Catholic church is not an a-la-carte affair….as much as ‘progressive’ Catholics would it to be. The pro-abortion Townshend, by her very practices to support abortion, makes her a bad role model for Catholics. Ted Kennedy was another. This family caused more damage for Catholicism in America than some of the more odious ‘reforms’ in Vatican II.
Other politicians - Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, Courtney, DeLauro, and a slew of other so-called Catholics have used the Kennedy model to justify their own behavior.
Finally, I don’t ever recall saying I was a fan of Palin. Your bias demands that anyone who dares to disagree with you must be a fan of the person you so obviously despise. I have said I defend her right to speak and that I agree with the statements made criticizing Kennedy and other politicians who act in a manner that is so clearly in opposition to their faith. You don’t have to be a ‘historical scholar’ to recognize that Kennedy sold out his Faith to win the southern Baptist democratic vote. Any idiot can tell you that the Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception and abortion is murder…therefor a sin. It’s not a major intellectual leap to then say that politicians who are pro-abortion and call themselves Catholics are serving two very distinct masters.
As to your use of the blogosphere as evidence for your campaign against Palin….best check your sources. All it takes is a gmail account to write an ‘analysis’ on your own blog site.
John,
You are too presumptuous in your commentary. Why don’t you acknowledge the dilemma of a Catholic candidate in the 1960’s in America. Why bring other Catholic politicians into this discussion like the ones mentioned in this piece and in the comments as if it applied to the moment when Kennedy spoke these words? Maybe there’s a purpose in this piece that goes beyond the words that Kennedy spoke. You should read Townsend’s editorial and you’ll realize the shallowness of the arguments of this piece as well as Palin’s misconstructions of history. It’s one thing to speak about what Kennedy was speaking about and it’s another what these other politicians are apparently espousing according to the claims in the article and comments. It’s Sarah Palin who’s being anachronistic and using a 2010 political attitude of being “informed by your faith” and applying it to a moment in history where there was unfounded fear of Papal interference in American policy. It’s so easy to say these things when you’re not sitting in the moment of history when they occurred. Why don’t you open your eyes and see Sarah Palin for how she’s chosen to conduct her affairs. In fact, did you know she had ghost writers for her two books that help her with her positions, although she’s unwilling to admit them. There’s quite an extensive collection of analysis on the web that show how she’s borrowed heavily from others and employed the services of people who have basically written these books for her. Attributing her any originality is naive on your part. Sarah Palin is not an historian. She’s a politician and she’s doing what every politician needs to do to win your vote, decorate the truth.
Analysis through the lens of bias….indeed.
If you read past your own bias, you would understand that the criticism of Kennedy was not abortion. It was his renunciation of his faith as a yardstick for his actions in public life. I gather your hatred of Mrs. Palin is so total that you have a difficult time with the content.
Palin is right. It’s really sad to see how many Catholics there are in public office who do not represent the teachings of the Catholic Church…one bit. It gets to the point where one must ask themselves why it is that there is not any discipline coming from any of the bishops of the Church. I’ve heard excuse after excuse but it just doesnt cut it anymore. The reason more and more of these politicians come out holding anthetical views to the Church is because they think it is no big deal…they can get away with it with a slap on the wrist. It has got to the point where the very idea of what a Catholic is and stands for is coming into question. I overheard some people talking the other day about some politicians and there views, and it was basically like, oh their Catholic their on our side on the big issues. These were liberals talking. You can guess what the big issues were, the big issues that the media puts out every election cycle to stir the pot, but which are nonetheless very important moral issues. Looking at the majority of Catholic politicians and their stances on these issuesit is easy to see how these people thought what they did. CATHOLIC IDENTITY is in danger people. And the time is now for people to stand up and ask the right question “Why is there no more discipline for these people than a slap on the wrist?” These politicians start to become a reflection of the Church in many people’s eyes. Something is very wrong here and must be done. The handholding has got to stop.
Patrick said: “I hardly see where Archbishop Chaput, et.al., get their reasoning.
Kennedy declared his right to be a Catholic, and the right of others to judge him on the issues, not his faith.”
_____________
What you say here is all well and good, in and of itself. The problem is, he then went on to essentially say that his faith was NOT the most important thing in his life, and that he would gladly go against it if/when his citizenship called for it. Clearly Catholics are called to put their faith (God) first in their lives. You can’t be Catholic while subordinating it to second (or third, or lower) place in your life. It has to come first, period. Kennedy made it clear that his Catholic faith was no more important that another man’s love of the Red Sox (or fill in the blank team). How can you not see how wrong that is?
Thanks Patrick! Nice to know I am not the only one standing with my back to the precipice!
NoahP - I know a lot of lapsed Catholics who are wonderful and moral people. I understand why people leave the Church - I myself had a grudge with the Church and with God. I am glad that I got over it.
I also thank you for your comments - something that no one really does talk about.
Interesting thread.
The paucity of the intelligence behind the commentary is appalling. Abortion WASN’T an issue in the 60’s when Kennedy spoke; yet all you hear is folks using this issue to explain why Kennedy spoke the way he did. The right to choose (i.e. abortion) became the law of the land by no legislative action less any executive order but by the rulings of the courts. To attribute blame towards any politician for this horrendous episode in our country is not only ignorant but outright revisionist. If anything, the politicians since Roe v. Wade have been just that - POLITICIANS. They are neither willing nor capable of advancing through any discussion the implications and consequences of this decision and the lines of misunderstanding between the sides hasn’t moved an inch since the initial decision. In other words, all the politicians have allowed is the courts to duke it out for the moment. We had President Bush and a Republican congress and nothing became of this issue. This is an issue that’s going to require much greater courage, thoughts, and prayers than what this editorial is espousing. Most politicians do not act in the interest of their faith but in their own self-interest. Gov. Palin’s critique of Kennedy is just that, an act of self-interst because she has future plans, and that’s o.k. But to make her out as if she’s all of a sudden a historical scholar that is analyzing a situation supposedly in the most moral way is plainly foolhardy and naive. She had an opportunity to serve out her duties as Alaska’s governor and she chose not to do it because money was more important. I don’t begrudge her making money but it’s apparent you guys are willing to believe anything just because someone says it. Just ask her Alaskan constituents what they think of her and maybe your naiveté may finally wear off.
I hardly see where Archbishop Chaput, et.al., get their reasoning.
Kennedy declared his right to be a Catholic, and the right of others to judge him on the issues, not his faith. And this was the heart and purpose of the address, nothing else. He went on to articulate the sacrifices made by Catholics in American history who were not first required to prove they had a suitable religious faith. He mentioned his brother and his own service to this country - not at all defensive but very revealing.
The speech is not a sacred cow because a popular president gave it. It is sacred because it embodies a classic expression on what a free democratic republic expects from their leaders, and what leaders expect from an informed and intelligent electorate. He wasn’t being defensive, he was mounting an offensive for freedom of conscience and religious affiliation - protestant, catholic, Jewish, etc. He was taking a stand for his right, and any citizens right, to be Roman Catholic, or of any other faith, and to run for the presidency ON THE ISSUES, and there only to be fairly judged. And finally he was against the danger of religious arrogance and denominationalizm from infecting the American governing process.
I respect Sarah Palin but she can do a revisit on what amounts to many people as a reckless and shallow view.
“... 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… and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all…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…” JFK September 12, 1960
Sapwolf - if you are one of the Notre Dame 88, then you are a HERO to me!
God Bless You!
Lapsed Catholic here who nevertheless retains the fundamental moral teachings of the Church. I disagree with the comments here about Sarah Palin’s supposed wicked materialism. She and Todd live in a modest home in a small Alaska town. Has anyone criticized Huckabee on similar grounds as he builds himself a 3 million dollar mansion in Florida? I am truly amazed at her willingness to endure not only the relentless attacks on her character, motives, and family but also the many hours of air travel about the country speaking out for conservative values! I do not begrudge her a nickel. And neither should you.
“His family can make all the impassioned protestations they choose. Kennedy-Townshend - ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood and supported by NARAL on more than one occasion. Ted Kennedy - 100% NARAL rating. Forgive me for using this issue - I know that ‘progressive’ so-called Catholics get heated when people like me go on the ‘one issue’ bandwagon…but it’s a big issue. It’s an non-negotiable issue. So get over it. “
It’s the biggest issue John. No need to apologize. The Catholics that get heated are the ones who fool themselves and others by proclaiming that abortion is just one of many political issues. When it should have nothing to do with politics, it is simply murder in the Eyes of God: “Thou shalt not kill”. And those supporting it in any way with votes or donations over the years are accomplises, who will be held accountable if they dont repent.
Things are pretty simple for God, it’s either right or wrong. It is the devils influence that clouds their minds - and hardens their pride, and motivates them to avoid focusing on the terrible sin - assisting in the intentional taking of the lives of unborn children. Pray for them, in hopes that their eyes may someday be opened to recognize the damage they have done and are doing. It is the exact opposite of the example that Jesus provided when teaching about trying to make it to Heaven: “Stay on the narrow path”. They are willingly lost in the woods - and it’s their “choice”.
Good article and interesting comments. Between the ignorance of many Catholics regarding their religion and the crowd hostile to religion in general, a lot of misinformation is out there. Former Gov Palin is actually pretty close to what the Founding Fathers had in mind for a candidate for office. The media has really gone after her as have others who are hostile to religion or misinformed (like the infamous catholic politicians we all know) and that has caused many to say they are not sure if she would make a good president. If one looks closely, most, if not all of those critiques are baseless. Catholics that would vote democrat these days or fall for the kind of hostility railed against Gov Palin need to look in the mirror and reeducate themselves about both their faith and our form of government. For the latter, read Dr Skousens “Five Thousand Year Leap”.
I’ve read Kennedy’s speech and I’ve read both of Palin’s books. I also caught Mitt’s speech or excerpts from somebody on TV back in I think 2008.
Kennedy’s speech DID marginalize his Faith WAY TOO MUCH and he did it simply because it was MORE important to him to be President than it was for him to be a practicing Catholic.
Mitt had it better, although I don’t like Mitt because of all his other flip-floppiness.
Palin nailed it. If Kennedy was interested in being a Catholic more than being POTUS, he would have given a different speech, maybe something sincere, authentic and honest like what you get from Palin, a woman who clearly lives her Faith, and lives it as well or better than well over half the practicing Catholics I know.
Sarah Palin is the most properly grounded Christian politician at the national level I’ve EVER encountered and examined my whole life. And I’ve been into politics for 28 years now.
My boy is named after John Paul II, and I’m one of the Notre Dame 88 who spent an entire weekend in jail peacefully and prayerfully protesting the ND decision to invite Obama to give the commencement speech in 2009 plus award him an honorary degree.
I’m also a GOP Precinct Executive and member of the local Tea Party group.
I am not a fan of Pelosi/Kennedy Catholics. They are heretics, based on the definition that God through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium have given us.
Sarah Palin is not necessarily a ‘hero’ - and I don’t think she would make a stellar president (and yeah, I am a conservative). Normally, I get annoyed when a non-Catholic sticks their nose in our business. I have to make an exception today…she is right on the money in her criticisms of Kennedy and Pelosi.
Kennedy could have demonstrated a degree of courage. Instead, he reinforced the incorrect belief that the Constitution included a ‘wall of separation.’ The First Amendment’s Establishment clause protects me as a Catholic from government interference…it does not protect the government from me.
Even more telling, he proudly claimed that his religious beliefs had no place in his political practice. Exactly how is a person going to honestly not apply the moral and religious teachings of a lifetime to everyday decisions? When they aren’t terribly religious. When Romney and Lieberman were asked this question, they didn’t sell out their faith. Kennedy’s quick renunciation of his faith was a reaction to the anti-Catholic bias that still permeates American politics.
His family can make all the impassioned protestations they choose. Kennedy-Townshend - ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood and supported by NARAL on more than one occasion. Ted Kennedy - 100% NARAL rating. Forgive me for using this issue - I know that ‘progressive’ so-called Catholics get heated when people like me go on the ‘one issue’ bandwagon…but it’s a big issue. It’s an non-negotiable issue. So get over it.
Nancy Pelosi is the poster child for what’s wrong with American Catholicism. Her ignorance is appalling, her assertions of her expertise as a theologian is ludicrous, and her politics are openly contrary to the Magisterium in several key areas. The woman has a 100% approval rating from NARAL. Please tell me how her ardent support of abortion is in any way consistent with Catholic teaching?
Go ahead, try.
Excellent article!
I cringe when I hear the likes of Pelosi say “I’m an ardent practicing Catholic,” just before she receives an award from NARAL.
I often wonder what my Protestant friends think. Do they realize that Pelosi is a counterfeit “Catholyc?” That she does NOT speak for me, and Catholics in general?
Sarah Palin realizes that the Pelosi/Biden/Kerry/Kennedy “Catholycs” are not speaking the TRUTH of the faith they claim to believe.
The fundamental problem is the modern misinterpretation of the first amendment’s Establishment clause. “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” are an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Ms Palin is quite correct. J Kennedy was wrong. Rick Santorum makes the same valid point in his quest for president. The error of Kennedy has its reflection in the courts and in Liberal Left politics ever since. ( Like the ACLU threateening to sue anyone who uses Merry Christmas in the public forum). As far as Ms Pelosi is concerned: she was consuled by her pastor about he anti-Catholic stance on abortion, her Bishop did the same, and so did the Holy Father, Pope Benicict. Yet she persists in her support of abortion on demand, as a “woman’s right”. She is by definition in heresay with the Church. She is a heritict!! She speaks for no one but lucifer!
The Hermit of Littleton
Alex Y,
Actions speak louder than words. I, and no any other human being, is privy to anybody else’s prayer before God. But this is not the point of the article nor was I claiming to know her heart. Nevertheless, Palin’s actions reflect poorly on her analysis of Kennedy since they reflect a person who’s more enamored with her political and materialistic situation than serving the public. If you can’t see the contradiction in her actions and the political expediency of offering such an analysis, then nobody will be able to help you there. However, I’ll excuse her analysis as a politician’s attempt to carve out a niche with voters concerned with politicians who supposedly believe in the same manner that they do. The problem with this is that Palin’s analysis as well as this editorial is truly a non-starter. It’s anachronistic because it doesn’t consider the pertinent issues of Kennedy’s time. It just washes over them. For example, abortion was not legal then so political posturing over this position was just not something a candidate had to really deal with. In fact, President Kennedy was most likely pro-life as he nominated pro-life Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Furthermore, it completely ignores the anti-Catholic hostility any Catholic candidate had to deal with especially in certain parts of the country. Now I’m not here defending Kennedy either since I believe the position he took was also for political expediency, otherwise his electability would have been further questioned. Palin pulls her faith out as some people have said here because it fires up her base. You can say your faith is this or that, but living it requires genuineness and transparency something that is difficult to ascertain regarding Palin because she works hard at showing us what she wants us to only see. There are better conservative candidates out there especially those who can actually do a meaningful and thoughtful analysis of Kennedy without having to resort to saying baseless statements or statements that are not considering the circumstances under which they were made. You can’t compare two different people living in two different periods of American history without committing blunders if you don’t account for the differences of each period.
In response to AnalysisThru…, it is unlikely that you are privy to Palin’s prayers to God. Also, it is not just Protestants who exclude other faiths. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in the same God and that there only the one. The mores and attitudes of society may change but God is faithful and constant.
Ms. Lopez correctly reads the situation, and those that criticize Palin’s reference to Catholics in politics are wrong. To accuse Palin of not practicing what she believes except when it is convenient is baseless. That Palin is protestant is irrelevant. I was born Protestant and came to Catholicism later in life. My path gives me perspective. I completely understand what drove Luther to criticize the Catholic church, and I also can recognize when those that came after him took it too far. However, this is more basic than that. Anyone can read and understand the teachings of a faith and then question why someone doesn’t follow all of those precepts. That is a valid logical argument, not a criticism of faith. Though I believe that one does not need a religious faith in order to be moral, it is ridiculous to say that one’s faith is irrelevant to one’s political choices. It is valid to ask why a Catholic believes that abortion is justified. How a person answers that tells you much about that person. Maybe they can make a coherent argument, maybe they will just sound ignorant like Nancy Pelosi when she makes unsubstantiated claims about Catholicism. There is no constitutional religious requirement, but we are allowed to use all data when forming an opinion about a candidate. If one chooses which of their religious precepts to follow, do they also choose which civic precepts to follow? We need a sense of that. Many politicians are pro-life until it becomes politically expedient to state differently. Yes, look it up. Sort of like Bill Clinton saying that Robert Byrd only joined the KKK so that he could get elected in his racist district. Shouldn’t that tell us something about the candidate, about whether they are honorable and forthright? And please don’t imply that criticizing a Catholic politician is somehow anti-Catholic. The anti-Catholics are the Democrats in Minnesota that sent out pamphlets implying that Catholics care more about abortion than the poor. I know full well when the Catholic faith is attacked, and Palin did not attack it.
MX said:
“The problem with Dems / Progressives / Commies / No-Lables is very simple: they are liberals 1st. It supersedes religion, America, The Constitution and all else.
The Judeo-Christian work ethic, moral code etc is what gave / gives us this great country, The Constitution, freedom of religion and so on.”
______________________
I know plenty of conservatives, and know of plenty of conservatives (Sean Hannity, anybody?) who are polical conservatives first, and anything else second.
With all due respect for the Kennedy Family, perhaps the time has come for the Kennedy Family to relight the torch and be not afraid to practice their Catholic Faith within the state in both public and private as provided for and protected in our Constitution. At the end of that day, I would not be surprised if many of their beloved would be smiling down from Heaven, for although all things are passing, Love remains eternal.
If the Kennedy’s are a good example of faithful Catholics in the public arena God help the United States. His legacy can be found in the large number of “Catholics” in public office who consistently by word and deed not only ignore the teaching of the Magisterium and the Bishops but declare their pride in doing so. To quote from the Gospel last Sunday:“And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”
There is no need to demonize Gov. Sarah Palin. Respond to her comments.
What’s with all the Palin defending these days? I have no problem with this article and what it states, but as the article makes clear, the likes of Archbishop Chaput, Mr. Romney, and others have already done fine jobs defending faith in America. What this is, quite simply, is yet another example of Palin apologetics. Why do conservatvies such as Ms. Lopez feel such a strong need to defend her? Surely there are better conservatives out there, ones that aren’t shooting animals for attention, that Ms. Lopez could write about, so why Palin, Palin, Palin. Google Ms. Lopez and Sarah Palin and you’ll get a good number of hits.
Palin is my hero. Baptized Catholic but raised as a Protestant, she is not ashamed of her Christian faith or her pro life advocacy. Moreover, she is consistent, not putting her faith in a drawer until it’s to her advantage to bring it out.
I’m sure that is also why she is so attacked by the media and phonies like Kennedy-Townsend and Pelosi, who remember that they are Catholic only when they want the Catholic vote.
I don’t understand how anyone can hold a belief in the sanctity of human life yet use the old Cuomo excuse of being “personally opposed to abortion” and not wanting to “impose” their beliefs on others. That’s like saying one is personally imposed to slavery, rape, murder, etc., but won’t oppose these evils because it might offend those who favor them.
But standing by one’s deeply held beliefs and principles is foreign to too many politicians. JFK’s desire to be president pushed him further than he needed to go. In this particular case, he was not a profile in courage—something, I believe, Sara Palin is.
Your editorial is anachronistic at best and ignores the seriousness of anti-Catholic attitudes and thoughts of the 1960s, especially for the voting public. It’s convenient for Palin to attempt to address this issue as if she lived in Kennedy’s shoes. She’s a Protestant, and hardly one who practices what she believes in except if its expedient and convenient for her political and materialistic goals. This is the problem with this type of shallow analysis that doesn’t contend with the mores and attitudes of particular periods in the history of our nation. The problem with informing ourselves in the public square is that we don’t want to do it like “some” Protestants do it, which is to the exclusion of other religious faiths and belief systems especially if it’s solely for political gain and nothing more than a power grab. This is nothing other than a prescription for intolerance.
Governor Palin is 100% correct.
The problem with Dems / Progressives / Commies / No-Lables is very simple: they are liberals 1st. It supersedes religion, America, The Constitution and all else.
The Judeo-Christian work ethic, moral code etc is what gave / gives us this great country, The Constitution, freedom of religion and so on.
dch: Not complicated at all. Just misses the point of the book and the article.
I’m surprised you didn’t quote from Richard Neuhouse’s the Public Square which describes, very cogently, this very condition.
Dear Kathryn Jean:
Your assessment of Sarah Palin’s comments are clear and well-reasoned, an approach missing from Ms. Kennedy-Townsend’s reaction. More clarity on this touchy subject an only help. Amen
John S.
Townsend is so fearful of anyone challenging the Kennedy myth that she tries to change the subject. The Kennedy family was one of the worst things to happen to Catholicism in modern America. From rum-running Joe (elder) to the disgraceful Teddy - they have never been a Catholic voice; just a rich liberal one hiding behind Catholicism when it was convenient.
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Article 6: US Constitution.
It protects the religuous and non-religous.
Not that complicated.
Thank you, Kathryn, for this wonderful article! Best I have seen in a long time, concerning politicians, faith, and the constitution. Let’s hear more : )
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.