CT Blue

There have been a number of comparisons between Willard Romney’s speech yesterday and John Kennedy’s speech in 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. It really boils down to this: JFK was trying to extinguish the flames of religious bigotry, Romney was trying to fan the flames while changing the direction of the wind.
 
Nothing makes this point better than these contrasting quotes, first from Kennedy:
 

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice–where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind–and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. (Emphasis added)

Now Romney:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning.  They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God.  Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life.  It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism.  They are wrong.

 
Kennedy succeeded in convincing the country, if not his audience, that he would keep his religion out of politics and would not be a tool of the Pope (what an absurd notion, given the reality of the man). Romney tried, with what success we will soon know, to convince his audience that he would interject religion into politics and that he would be their tool where it counted.
 
Congrats to the Courant, by the way, for shaking off its tabloid ways to cover this speech well. This comparative sidebar was especially good:
 

 Kennedy, 1960:
?Expressed unequivocal support for separation of church and state.?
?Addressed specific issues raised by his Catholicism, such as aid to parochial schools.?
?Answered tough questions from his audience after the speech.?

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s 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.”

Romney, 2007:
?Said religion should play a role in public life.?
?Made only passing references to issues raised by his Mormon faith.?
?Did not answer questions after his speech.?

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

I will not get into this abuse of the founders, the flower, some might argue, of the anti-religious Enlightenment. One could write a book about Romney’s mischaracterization of their religious views. But I supposed that’s to be expected from a guy whose religion claims some of those same founders as brother Mormons. (see my next post, coming soon).