Religion And the Presidency: Have We Progressed Since 1960?

TW: When JFK ran as a Catholic in 1960 he faced tremendous controversy. The debate focused on whether he would or would NOT inject his religion into the Presidency.

Things have obviously changed. Some for the better as Catholicism is no longer regarded as a potential dis-qualifier. Yet religiosity has increased tremendously and candidates must now articulate how they pass an implied evangelical smell test. Some would regard the latter as progress, I do not. Interestingly the discussion in 1960 regarding Catholicism parallels the discussion in 2008 regarding race in many aspects. Hopefully fifty years from now the racial debate will look as ancient as the 1960 Catholicism issue.

Excerpts from JFK's famous Houston speech on religion in Sept 1960:
"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 a Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote...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...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. 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 from office, and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same...

Politicians in both camps agreed that Kennedy stood to gain from the religion furor—so long as a counterreaction did not set in out of suspicion that he was deliberately exploiting it.

Religion was a subject that, most everyone agreed, had to be talked out at some point in the campaign, and sincere men as well as bigots had brought it to the fore. And it was also a question that could be talked about too much, to the exclusion of other important matters in 1960"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,897586,00.html