Written by J. Brent Walker, BJC Executive Director
In a time of rampant misconceptions about our president’s faith and a plethora of religious pandering, I am reminded that concerns about a leader’s faith are nothing new. It has been 50 years since presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association addressing the widespread contention of many Protestants that Kennedy was unfit for he presidency because of his Catholicism. That landmark address was the topic of our 2010 Religious Liberty Essay Contest, and it continues to create political fodder.
Much has been written by public figures over the past several years sharply criticizing Kennedy’s speech. This year alone, we have had diatribes issued by Catholic Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin (in her new book, “America by Heart”). These and other critics variously argue that Kennedy was either opposed to expressing religious ethics in the political process or bent on secularizing the American public square.
These allegations are, in my view, historical revisionism and belied by a careful examination of Kennedy’s speech to that crowd of Texas preachers. I think the address remains a classic in political rhetoric going to the very heart of the constitutional recipe for an appropriate relationship between religion and politics.
Kennedy’s points were trenchant: (1) He believed in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish (a quaintly limited notion of American religious pluralism by today’s standards) and where one’s religion would not be an impediment to holding public office. (2)No one asked Kennedy about his religion when he fought in the South Pacific and when his brother, Joseph Kennedy, died in Europe in World War II. (3) Kennedy’s public decisions would be determined by the U.S. Constitution, not by the Pope or any other prelate, and if ever his religious conscience were violated while serving in office, he would resign. (4) Kennedy demonstrated his willingness to take public policy positions that were antithetical to the official line of the Vatican, including opposing the appointment of an ambassador to the Holy See and public aid to parochial schools.
Two main criticisms were leveled against Kennedy. First, Kennedy said in his speech that his religion “should be important only to me” and that it was his “own private affair.” These statements have been interpreted to mean that Kennedy embraced a privatized religion and opposed the expression of religion in the public square and in government service. A fair reading of these wordsin the context of the speech shows this is not the case. Rather, Kennedy was giving a full-throated affirmation of the no religious test principle in Article VI of the Constitution. He was saying that his religion is no one else’s business; he was not saying that his religion cannot inform his policy stances.
Indeed, JFK speechwriter and aide, Ted Sorensen (who had a major hand in writing the speech), agreed. In his memoirs, titled “Counselor,” Sorensen wrote:
Church-state separation does not mean — nor did JFK and I favor — totally excluding or disregarding the moral issues involved in public controversies. Our country is not so rich in intellectual and inspirational leadership, or so certain of its course in the world, that it can afford the suppression or repression of any thoughtful view or voice, and that includes the views and voices of our clergy. (pp.165-166)
So Kennedy was not shunning religion; he was embracing religious liberty and the principle that practical, de facto religious tests are not a legitimate part of American political culture.
The second criticism stems from Kennedy’s statement “the separation of church and state is absolute.” Here I would agree the word “absolute” is, shall we say, a bit too absolute. It does hint at a certain dogmatism that ignores the complexity of our constitutional arrangement and the need for, in the words of the Supreme Court, “room for play in the joints”— a balancing between the two clauses in the First Amendment ensuring religious liberty.
However, we must remember the context in which this was said. It was a different day. I can assure you that the conservative Baptist preachers that heard Kennedy deliver those words a half century ago were heartened, not put off, by it. That was how many spoke back then, including Baptists and other people of faith. In fact, Justice Hugo Black, a Southern Baptist, wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which said that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Although the Court voted 5-4 to allow taxpayer support for transportation to parochial schools, all nine justices — unanimously— embraced a rigorous separation principle! One might be able to forgive a bit of hyperbole in his rhetoric given the language of the times and the threat to his candidacy based on religious bigotry.
Kennedy concluded his speech not with the now obligatory nod to American civil religion (“God bless you and God bless America”), but rather with the constitutional oath solemnly swearing to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and … to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution — so help me God.” Politicians today could take a lesson from Kennedy and Sorensen. Separating church and state does not mean dismissing religion from public life but prevents it from becoming a political litmus test. Keeping these points in mind would markedly elevate our understanding of church and state and greatly enrich the quality of our public debate.
