Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Rice Hotel, Houston, TX September 12, 1960


Senator KENNEDY. Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

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 or imposed 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 might 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 Catholics 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 - in 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 "solemly 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."

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Take Comfort

Individuals who, due to religious grounds, believe abortion is wrong can take comfort in the Constitution prohibiting Congress from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of said religion. What that means is Congress cannot require you to have an abortion. For men that is comforting as it must be for women. 

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Words of Napoleon at the End of His Life

"I die before my time and my body shall be given back to the earth and devoured by worms. What an abysmal gulf between my deep miseries and the eternal Kingdom of Christ. I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant---Jesus---should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations. "



Monday, February 20, 2012

Christianity in a nutshell?

Did Jesus die only so we could get out of this place and go somewhere else?


Is it our Creator's intention that if during our short life time we do not say nice things about him he will torture us for eternity? Is that Christianity in a nutshell? If a parent treated their children like that wouldn't we consider them bullies and child abusers?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Praying is a Delaying Tactic

In his book Radical Together David Platt writes on page 97, "I challenge every member of the church (myself included) to ask God if he desires for us to go and then to wait for an answer. God can be trusted with these kinds of prayers from his people, and he will be faithful to provide those he leads with everything they need to accomplish the task he puts before them" 

Such prayers are nothing more than a delaying tactic. Can you think of any reason why God would tell you not to go and make disciples? We already know God wants us to go. We do not want to go. Platt provides an excuse. If we do not see how to go we just say God did not provide the means so he does not want me to go. 

We all do the same thing. Our congregation recently revisited the subject of elders. The last time we underwent a series on the subject of qualifications. We then found we did not have anyone interested in or who believed themselves qualified to be an elder. This time we decided to spend 2 months praying for guidance. We were to pray individually because publicly nothing has been said about the subject since then. Prayer is a delaying tactic. We do not want elders but we do not want to be seen as not wanting elders. 

Have you noticed how preachers with jobs at a local congregation seldom if ever understand God to want them to leave that job and go make disciples? Such preachers are seldom if ever "gospel preachers" they are more "keynote speakers" for the assembly. Most of those who call themselves preachers are public speakers. You can "preach" the gospel but you cannot preach people to obey all that Jesus commands. That must be taught. Public speakers fill the time allocated for a speech with little if any dedicated to teaching. Teaching requires teacher-student relationship not a speaker-audience relationship. 

Friday, February 17, 2012

I Do Not Believe Romans 13:1-6 Do You?

Read Romans 13:1-6. Paul told Christians in Rome their government was not to be feared because God has given it the right to do what they were doing to the people and if they resisted the authorities they were resisting God and will incur judgment.

 

Paul was talking about Caesar and history shows how Caesar treated Christians and apparently under the guidance of God. So let's change a name here and there and see how it reads today.

 

Paul told the people in Libya, the United Nations as well as the countries around the world  Muammar Gaddafi was not a terror to good conduct but to bad and if they would not incur his rath then they should do what is good and receive his approval since Muammar Gaddafi is God's servant. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists Muammar Gaddafi resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For Muammar Gaddafi is not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for Muammar Gaddafi does not bear the sword in vain for he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

 

Our forefathers did not believe it either otherwise they would never have rebelled. If what Paul said is correct the people of the United States will eventually incur God's wrath.

 

What Does it Mean "God is in Control"

We talk about how God is in control and that we should have faith and not worry. Sounds nice but then reality sets in; 26,000 people most said to be children starve to death each day; children are abused, raped and murdered every day; and recently locally a couple of teenage boys have been accused of using kittens as baseballs.

 

 

If God will not intervene for the most innocent of his creation why do Christians think he will intervene for them? If God did not intervene when his followers were being beaten, tortured, and killed in the past what basis is there for Christians to think he will intervene for them today? History shows the church grows during persecution and shrinks when things go well, why should God intervene?

 

 

I do not take comfort in the thought God is in control since there is so much evidence that he does not intervene. The question is would any one be a Christian if there were no benefits in this life other than those that are byproducts of following Jesus instructions? 

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Is It Easy to be Christian


Folks who find it easy to be Christian may be buying into that popular misconception that Christianity demands no works, and overlook that Jesus taught that one must seek the narrow way (demanding significant sacrifice, a lifetime of overcoming, and works of righteousness). The transformation from carnal and physical to spiritual is attended with a great deal of difficulty. I wonder how they do it with such ease. In a book "Not a Fan" the author differentiates fans from followers i.e. a fan of football or a participant in football; a fan of the military versus someone who gets down and dirty in the blood and muck. 


Thanks, John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



 

"lupDujHomwIj lubuy'moH gharghmey"

---Klingon for "My hovercraft is full of eels."


Monday, February 13, 2012

A Christian's Expectations

I often hear God is in control and that we should have faith and not worry. Sounds nice but then reality sets in; 26,000 people, most said to be children, starve to death each day; children are abused, raped and murdered every day; and locally a couple of teenagers have been accused of using kittens as baseballs.



I find it less than assuring that God is in control since there is so much evidence that he will not intervene.



Would any one be a Christian if they thought there were no benefits in this life other than those that are byproducts of following Jesus instructions?

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Turning the Other Cheek

Recently I read a book by David Platt. In his book he mentioned meeting a Christian from the Batak tribe of northern Sumatra in Indonesia. The fellow told the author the story of how his tribe had come to know Christ. Years earlier a missionary couple had come to his village to share the gospel. The tribe was 100 percent Muslim. The tribal leaders captured this missionary couple, then murdered and cannibalized them.

Years later another missionary came to their tribe and again began sharing the gospel. The tribal leaders recognized that the story he told was exactly what the former couple had shared. This time they decided to listen. After they listened, they believed. Within a short time, the entire tribe was converted to Christ. The believer told the author that today there are more than three million Christians among the Batak tribe of northern Sumatra.

When the author first heard this story he said he immediately had questions: Would he be willing for him and his wife to be that first missionary couple? Would he be willing to be killed and cannibalized so that those who come after him would see people come to Christ?

Five Evangelical Christian missionaries from the United States attempted to bring the gospel to the Huaorani people of the rainforest of Ecuador. The Huaorani, were an isolated tribe known for their violence, against both their own people and outsiders who entered their territory. With the intention of being the first Christians to evangelize the previously uncontacted Huaorani, the missionaries began making regular flights over Huaorani settlements in September 1955, dropping gifts. After several months of exchanging gifts, on January 3, 1956, the missionaries established a camp close to the settlements. Their efforts came to an end on January 8, 1956, when all five—were attacked and speared by a group of Huaorani warriors. The news of their deaths was broadcast around the world, and Life magazine covered the event with a photo essay.

The missionaries left letters to their families explaining why the missionaries had decided not to defend themselves. They reasoned they were read to die but the members of the tribe were not.

The story is much longer but the question is the same. Would I be willing to be killed and cannibalized so that those who come after me would see people come to Christ?

For many years I was a registered official in various soccer leagues and clubs in Ohio. Each year we would meet with to review the laws of soccer and any changes that had been made and were told what the laws meant. The laws said one thing but we were told they meant something else and that was how we were to enforce them. We have a tendency to do the same thing with the Bible.

On the subject of "turning the other cheek" what would Jesus do if he walked in on a robbery? What would Jesus do if someone struck him? What would Jesus do if his life was threatened? What does Jesus do when his followers die doing his bidding? What does Jesus expect of us? Would we deny Christ to save our families? Do we love our families more than we love Jesus?


Friday, February 10, 2012

Christians Deluded

Paul told the church in Thessaloniki: "The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Christians must love truth. Christians must be willing to look at what they believe as compared with the Bible. Otherwise God will send them a strong delusion and be condemned


Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Compare Jesus' promise and Reality

Consider the people who starve to death every day; consider the children who are raped and killed every day; consider the recent local case of teenage boys using kittens as baseballs; consider Jesus' promise recorded by Matthew; please explain.

Matthew 6:25-33

"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Christians are too focused on the Present

Paul told the Christians in Rome:

 

Romans 5:1-5

    Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.  [2] Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.  [3] More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,  [4] and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,  [5] and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

 

Paul does not expect God to relieve him of his suffering. Rather he expects suffering to produce endurance.

 

Peter told his readers:

 

1 Peter 1:6-7   

    In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, as was necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,  [7] so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 

 

Peter did not expect God to relieve them of their trials. Rather he expects the tested genuineness of their faith will result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

Christians are too focused on the present. God will not relieve us of our trials there is no reason to ask him to.