Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Santorum cannot honestly take the oath of office as president

Rick Santorum cannot take the oath of office as President of the United States, even if he managed a modest majority as Republican Party candidate for the office. He has stated, openly and honestly, that he has no intention of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

Santorum has said in public that John F. Kennedy's speech in Houston, Texas in 1960, makes him want to throw up. That was the speech when Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, promised an audience of Protestant clergy "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; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general poulace or the public acts of its officials."

So, that makes Santorum want to throw up. It would therefore be more than fair to infer that Santorum believed in an America has an official religion, which he would undoubtedly prefer to be his own, Catholic, faith.

Santorum believes in an America where public officials routinely request and accept instructions on public policy from ecclesiastical sources. In Santorum's case, once again, that would be the Pope, and the subordinate Princes of the Roman Catholic Church.

Santorum believes in an America where religious bodies, as a matter of course, seek to impose their will directly or indirectly upon the general populace and the public acts of officials.

Of course Santorum, being a wily politician, does not put it in quite those words. Santorum said that Kennedy had said "only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case." That is the way Santorum characterizes what John F. Kennedy says in Houston. But it was Kennedy's speech that Santorum said makes him want to throw up.

Kennedy, of course, said nothing of the kind. Kennedy did not say that the National Council of Churches, or the Roman Catholic Church, should shut up on questions of public policy. He said that no public official should seek or accept INSTRUCTIONS from ecclesiastical bodies.

In the long history of Roman Catholic presence in our constitutional republic, there have always been those adherents of that church who considered it an infringement upon their "freedom of religion" that the various levels of government DO NOT seek or accept instruction from ecclesiastical authorities. After all, the bishops of Rome have always claimed such authority. To deny their claim has even been framed as the essence of "anti-Catholic bigotry."

Santorum is apparently one of those who cannot accept that the Roman Catholic Church and its adherents have EQUAL rights in the public square to voice their opinions. It makes him want to throw up that his church should not have a dominant place at the head of the table. He has a First Amendment right to believe and to say that. He can say that our constitutional system of government is morally flawed and should be replaced. But he can't take the oath of office if he believes what he says he believes.

If Rick Santorum should ever (may God forbid) have the opportunity to take the oath of office as President of the United States, if he should place his hand on a Bible and raise his right hand, promising to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America," he will be lying.

As John F. Kennedy said, on his own behalf, that day in Houston, to place his hand on the Bible, and take that oath, then break his promise, would be a sin against God.

1 comment:

Paul Emmons said...

Those old objections to electing Kennedy, on the grounds that the Vatican would call the shots in his decision-making, which he tried so hard to bury, have lately been revived by bishops themselves, in twisting our elected representatives' arms with threats of excommunication for speaking or voting in an unapproved manner. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Christian reconstructionists should be equally suspect for having to take an oath of office with fingers crossed. Their goal is to reimpose the Old Testament law in full rigor (probably bypassing the attempts of Talmud to make it practical) and concentrate power of all kinds into hands that they consider Christian. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theoriest, but no one knows how many of them there are, and gee whiz-- weren't people with agendas like that once shot for treason?