'I Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is Absolute'

It's hard to believe that this oration (below) was delivered by John F. Kennedy, almost 50 years ago and today we are still fighting for the separation of church and state... It will never end as long as religion (or should I say RELIGIOUS FANATICS) can make people ABANDON THEIR SANITY AND GO NUTS! HOW SO VERY DISMAL AND DEPRESSING. thinkingblue

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'I Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is
Absolute' (CLICK
HERE TO HEAR THIS SPEECH)

September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial
Association
John F. Kennedy

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

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 populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

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.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation orimposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it.If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was
no religious test at the Alamo.

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.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--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 the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.

Reprinted with permission from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROD PARSLEY:
THE RAGING PROPHET
“BREAKING THROUGH” HIS UNORTHODOX DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE

by G. Richard Fisher

It is hard to describe a “worship service” led by pastor and television evangelist Rod Parsley. Whether viewing at home by way of his popular daily television broadcast, Breakthrough, or as part of his 12,000-member congregation, his services could, perhaps, be described as a hybrid of pep rally, boxing match and professional wrestling with smatterings of Bible verses and hyped-up claims that take people over the edge of hysteria. It is primal scream set to spiritual aerobics. Parsley is the ultimate cheerleader and professional boxer combined. He deftly and quickly moves people into altered states of unreality. There is no question that he can be a compelling and convincing speaker. Neither does he have difficulty or qualms about hosting the worst of Word-Faith teachers and promoting their agendas.

Rodney Lee Parsley charges back and forth across the stage of his World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, sweating profusely, railing against the devil in a demonstration of heart-pounding Christian calisthenics and his crowds love it. They follow his lead, bouncing, swaying and screaming. It is raw pandemonium. They repeat whatever mantras he gives them to say, waiting to be smacked, pushed or pommeled to the floor by the “Raging Prophet.” Though Parsley has difficulty, at times, pronouncing biblical names, his stride and jarring verbal onslaughts are unabated.

He is definitely emerging as a key player and force to be reckoned with in the world of charismania. Parsley further demonstrates he has arrived among the rich and famous of the Charismatic world when he found himself featured in the cover story of Charisma magazine in March 1998. Parsley’s meetings are so out of control that he sometimes makes even faith healer Benny Hinn or Brownsville Revival evangelist Stephen Hill appear tame.

His preaching style and intonations are well likened to R.W. Schambach but revved-up considerably. His preaching raps are reminiscent of pseudo-evangelist Marjoe Gortner and, at times, he chops his way across the stage with a grimace reminding one of the old professional tag team, the Bushwhackers. No doubt about it, he is a showman par excellance and he has the moves to prove it.

Parsley melds the antics and craziness of the Toronto revival, the Pensacola (Brownsville) outpouring and the laughing revival of Rodney Howard-Browne. He shakes in some Word-Faith teaching and then uses Jesus as a prop to try to legitimize the whole thing. His followers seem to reason that the wilder the time, the more evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Even his Charismatic colleagues acknowledge his showman traits. Charisma, in its cover story, called him the “electric evangelist” and described him this way:

“Part warrior, part cheerleader ... Parsley’s growing congregation and nationwide audience have come to expect both sass and savvy from this entertaining preacher. ... And he’s not afraid of shock-value
preaching. ... Parsley appears to be a good showman.

In actual fact, Parsley’s preaching does not have the shock value that his antics have.

THE GENESIS OF A SHOWMAN

In Parsley’s book, The Backside of Calvary one can find within just two adjacent pages biographical information which is contradictory. However, while this segment of the book is not meant to be a detailed biography, tellingly absent is any reference to a conversion story. Moreover, it appears that Parsley has little, if any, formal ministerial training. He dropped out of school in his second year at Circleville Bible College. The initial biographical information found in this volume states:“Rod Parsley began his ministry as an energetic 21-year-old in the backyard of his parent’s Ohio home. The fresh, ‘old-time gospel’approach of Parsley’s delivery immediately attracted a hungry, God-seeking audience.”

Yet, on the very next page, we read:

“Rod Parsley began his ministry as an energetic 19-year-old, in the backyard of his parent’s Ohio home.

His family did not just provide a derivation for his ministry, but as we will see, Parsley’s backyard preaching efforts have grown into a lucrative, family business empire.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON THIS SUBJECT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

thinkingblue.org

CAROLYNCONNECTION.COM

Warning very Graphic REAL PICTURES OF WAR

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

ThinkingBlue blogspot

BlogRankings.com

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````