Booman is Right: Dual-Loyalty is a Piss Poor Excuse
Booman links to a speech by JFK addressing his catholicism.
I will excerpt:
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, 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.
yet 49 years later, people like Brad Ellsworth and Bart Stupak exemplify what Kennedy was unjustly accused of:
The abortion compromise was turning into a contest of wills, with the U.S. Conference of Bishops on one side and Pelosi, a devout Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights, on the other.
Ellsworth said at least three Democratic abortion-rights opponents have agreed to support his language, but many others won’t because the bishops don’t support it.
“Other members felt like they needed the … blessing of the Catholic bishops,” Ellsworth said.
And the bishops, whose representatives he met with Thursday morning, are insisting on an amendment authored weeks ago by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), which would block any subsidies from paying for abortion. Abortion-rights supporters said that could mean that insurers might have to end abortion coverage in order to get access to the customers in the exchanges.
Since when does the Catholic Church, a religious institution, dictate to the US Government, a secular institution, what language may or may not go into a bill? And since when does a public servant of the United States put the “blessing of the catholic bishops” before the millions of Americans that don’t have health care?
Disgusting. Someone should ask Brad Ellsworth whether he has dual loyalties, or whether he’s ever read the first amendment.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I thought the Baptists wanted to be in charge of legislation. It’s just like the Pope to want to nose his way to the top. Who does he think he is anyway? Gee, if the Christian right wants to install a theocracy, the Protestants better brush-up on their Catholic Catechism, ’cause I think I know who’s gonna win. Maybe the Talaban will want to partake in the feast. What the heck?!!
I hope mankind survives long enough to completely evolve.