The corner of politics and faith

Fort Worth Star-Telegram | Alan Cochrum:

“For the past 45 years or so, everybody has known that a political candidate's religion is irrelevant, and that people who think otherwise are philistines. So -- courtesy of Mitt Romney and his interest in the White House -- what will we know tomorrow? When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, ... he confronted the issue in a speech to a Houston ministerial association. 'I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.' ”

Ed Cognoski responds:

What we learned 45 years ago was that a Catholic could make decisions based on the national interest, without regard to outside religious pressure. This is not the same thing as saying that a candidate's religion is irrelevant.

Any candidate for public office who cannot say what John Kennedy told the Houston ministers should be examined very carefully, whether that candidate is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, or atheist, for that matter.

Perhaps we learned the wrong lesson from Kennedy's election and subsequent administration. Instead of religion becoming a non-issue, our country might be better served if every candidate is challenged to repeat John Kennedy's assurance that he places the national interest above any religious pressure or dictates. Candidates should be asked to provide examples where they think the national interest differs from their own personal religious beliefs. John Kennedy did. Why wasn't George W Bush asked to? Why shouldn't Mitt Romney?