"The Religion Question"

In honor of Mitt Romney, The Washington Post gone into the archives to excavate some of the then-contemporary coverage of John F. Kennedy's religion speech. As always, peering back in time is fascinating. At the end of the day, though, it seems to keep circling back to the very different context of Kennedy's times:

And the Post editorial board, even as it praised Nixon, seemed ready to embrace a Catholic president:

"Mr. Kennedy has stated plainly and unequivocally that he is not governed by the Church in political and other secular affairs. There is no more reason to believe that his course as a public official would be dictated by the tenets of the Church hierarchy on, say, birth control or censorship than there is to impute to a man who worships with the Society of Friends the tenets of that faith on, say disarmament and defense....

"In a country which has said as a part of its fundamental law that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust,' would it not be a good idea to judge candidates for the Presidency exclusively on their past political performance, their political programs and their capacities for leadership?"

These days, it's considered de rigeur for politicians to loudly proclaim that their views are driven by faith. A candidate who runs for office by promising to treat his religious heritage as a meaningless quirk of ancestry would have a very hard time. But that means it can be very difficult to dispel worries about a "weird" religion. Indeed, since the Post brought it up, it's worth wondering whether a Quaker like Richard Nixon could be elected today. I can't imagine the voters going for an avowed pacifist, but it also seems that you'd have a lot of trouble portraying youself as someone who doesn't really care about "faith." Indeed, we even saw a lot of the Catholic hierarchy basically trying to sabotage John Kerry's presidential campaign in a way that suggests that even Catholics may have more difficulties today than they did in 1960.

Comments

On this topic, what Andrew Sullivan said:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-romney-spee.html

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 11:58 AM

A lot of the RC hierarchy supported Nixon - Spellman disliked Kennedy and he had big problems with other Bishops too. People forget.

Interesting too - There was an attempt to swift boat kennedy. But Kennedy's father headed that off at the pass and confronted, in a hard and heavy way, the various vets who were conducting a loud whipering campaign suggesting Kennedy should have been Court Martialed for a variety reasons instead of honored.

Posted by Comment | December 6, 2007 11:59 AM

The Kennedy question in 1960 wasn't so much about about Kennedy's "faith". That's a more contemporary way of looking at the religion question as it pertains to Catholics.

The traditional American protestant hostility toward and suspicion of Catholics was centered around the idea that Catholics are "papists" - in effect, the subjects of something seen as very much like a dictatorial foreign state, a state with a sort of emperor and strict hierarchy which issues commands or directives to its subjects, commands which Catholics are bound by their allegiance to the Church to obey. That's why the Post editorial makes reference to being "governed by the Church" and having actions "dictated by the tenets of the Church hierarchy." It was really a sort of dual loyalty worry, similar to the contemporary suspicion sometimes cast on American Jews with dual citizenship in the US and Israel.

I think the Romney question for conservative Christians is somewhat different. In his case, it's really more about beliefs and doctrine, not loyalties.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 6, 2007 12:00 PM

Following up on what Dan Kervick said, IMHO, the Anglo-American Protestant fear of Papists very much echoes the old European Judeophobia.

One could argue, c.f. Sartre on Jews and anti-Semites, that certain people need an "enemy with an agenda". Since England kicked out her Jews, she didn't have Jews to kick around anymore ... so once England went Protestant, Catholics provided a substitute.

I would say actually that in our society today gays are the new Catholics/Jews. Interestingly, I would argue that many who would in 1960 have feared the "Papists" have reached a Homer Simpson style detante with Catholicism ... i.e. just as Homer Simpson "like[s his] beer cold, [his] TV loud and [his] gays FLAMING!", someone who in 1960 would have feared JFK's Catholicism would support a "right wing Catholic" simply because they are comfortable with the stereotype (c.f. the support of very stereotypical looking Rabbis at pro-life rallies, etc) but not with the individuals and like their "beer cold, TV loud and Catholics PAPISTS".

This is why, in part, JFK had to run as "not a Papist" while any Catholic who would run that way today (e.g. Kerry) would have problems ...

Posted by DAS | December 6, 2007 12:13 PM

If candidates want to brag about how their faith will inform their decisions, then it's not only reasonable but necessary for the press and the public to inquire about the content of that faith.

Posted by Ron | December 6, 2007 12:44 PM

Nixon's Quakerism was not an issue because he had served in the Navy, thus already having convincingly demonstrated that his sense of patriotic duty was greater than his commitment to pacifism. That's why, in 1960, though he was also a member of denomination that many were suspicious of, he did not have to give a speech like Kennedy did.

Also, it helps that the Society of Friends is a diffuse, egalitarian faith that emphasizes acts of personal conscience, while the Roman Catholic church is a hierarchical, centralized church that demands strict adherence to its tenets.

Posted by Philly | December 6, 2007 12:58 PM

In Mad Men, there was a great scene with the characters discussing the forthcoming 1960 presidential race. Don Draper notes that while Kennedy was handed everything by his father, Nixon came from nothing and yet within 6 years of getting out the Navy, was elected Vice President of the United States.

That is pretty impressive if you think about it.

Posted by beowulf | December 6, 2007 1:19 PM

If candidates want to brag about how their faith will inform their decisions, then it's not only reasonable but necessary for the press and the public to inquire about the content of that faith.

Not only that. The media should also demand that candidates who appeal to their religious faith explain exactly how that faith will affect ("inform") their actions as an elected official. Weasel words like "inform" are intended to obscure rather than clarify the nature of the relationship between religion and politics.

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 1:20 PM

"Faith" is the best weasel word of all: a convenient label for all those who would prefer not to actually live by what they profess.

Posted by Bill | December 6, 2007 1:43 PM

There was an attempt to swift boat kennedy. But Kennedy's father headed that off at the pass and confronted, in a hard and heavy way, the various vets who were conducting a loud whipering campaign suggesting Kennedy should have been Court Martialed for a variety reasons instead of honored.

Hmmm. I had never heard that before -- interesting. That brings up a thought -- that's not really either here nor there, but, in today's media and technological environment, a Joe Kennedy probably wouldn't be able to keep the allegations at the "whisper" stage. In those days you somehow had to get the whispers onto the pages of major newspapers. Nowadays you just need to get them circulating on the internets. Eventually the rumors enter a sort of "law suit free zone." Sooner or later, a major news vehicle will feel free to report on the controversy, not on the substance of the rumors itself. Makes it a lot harder to sue. Pretty soon it's a big, legitimate news story, and the First Amendment kicks in.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 1:43 PM

I'm beginning to think that the entire purpose of Mitt Romney's speech was to have everyone spend a couple of days comparing him to JFK. It's a pretty neat trick.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | December 6, 2007 1:58 PM

Your country is broken. Sorry.

Posted by Ray | December 6, 2007 2:06 PM

What I find interesting about this is that no one has asked Romney directly what he would do if, say, the president of the LDS Church called him up and informed him that God had revealed to him (the LDS president) that abortion and homosexuality were deadly sins and that, as President of God's Chosen Nation, Romney needed to get a Constitutional amendment passed outlawing both.

By their faith all LDS are bound to obey their church elders, no?

I honestly don't that that 1960 was as much about know-nothingism or "hatred of Catholics" as the issue of allegiance. I think the issue that Kennedy put to rest was the suspicion that he would obey the Pope rather than the American people. I wonder if that's not one of the big objections to Romney's Mormonism - do enough people know how heirarchical the LDS is?

Posted by FDChief | December 6, 2007 2:32 PM

In the beginning of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's video for "Two Tribes," there is video of Nixon in campaign mode bragging about how he can "keep the peace" and that he "knows" Mr. Khrushchev.

Imagine running today on a platform of being able to "keep the peace."

Posted by mkultra | December 6, 2007 2:32 PM

>The Roman Catholic church is a hierarchical, centralized church that demands strict adherence to its tenets.

The hell it does. Besides the odd high-profile threat of withholding communion, there is practically no mechanism to enforce any of its behavioral tenets.

Posted by Matt B | December 6, 2007 2:44 PM

The headline should be: Romney Directly Contradicts JFK's Church-State Message, Gets Compared to JFK.

What a fraud.

Posted by owenz | December 6, 2007 3:32 PM

it's worth wondering whether a Quaker like Richard Nixon could be elected today. I can't imagine the voters going for an avowed pacifist

If there's one thing Dick Nixon did, it was to forever discredit the notion that Quakers must be pacifists...

Posted by McKingford | December 6, 2007 3:40 PM

while Kennedy was handed everything by his father, Nixon came from nothing and yet within 6 years of getting out the Navy, was elected Vice President of the United States.

Nixon made a pile of money as a supply officer in WW II--ostensibly from high-stakes poker. He used the money to bankroll campiagns for Congress and then the Senate, notably dirty, red-baiting campaigns . . .

The Kennedys, on the other hand, were indeed pampered children of privilege--but note that in those days, that didn't keep you out of the front lines of the war . . .

Posted by rea | December 6, 2007 3:44 PM

I especially liked the line castigating those who seek to "found a new religion in America." Who knew Mormons had a sense of irony?

Posted by CJColucci | December 6, 2007 4:46 PM

For a great exercise in obscurantism on this issue, check out Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech. He repeatedly insinuates that religion has a legitimate role to play in politics, but never gets around to clearly describing what that role is. And at one point, using the issue of abortion as an example, he states that in order to justify a civil law, he must appeal to "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." So what is the point, exactly, of bringing up religion at all?

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 6:07 PM

Eventually the rumors enter a sort of "law suit free zone."
But if a candidate sues for libel, then the rumors end up on CourtTv. Lose-lose.

Posted by guineapigfury | December 6, 2007 8:44 PM