It is not whether you are pro life or pro choice it is the thought that the Church will be so to speak directing traffic through religious blackmail.
A religious organization (or any organization for that matter) can deny anyone who does not share their position.
It's not like they're damning Kerry to hell or even denying him entrance into churches. But communion is only for those who are in communion with the Church thus the name.
That will not sell . If Kerry can be tarred with being, based upon joefromchicago's definition, a "good" catholic his goose is cooked.
Bush is going to need something to energize his base just like Iraq and the Republican social policies are energizing the Democratic base. This is exactly the kind of issue that will cause the evangelical right to rally to protect the country from "papist" conspiracies and other hoary old slanders. There is a deep current of anti Catholicism just below the surface in the Christian right in this country, and this is just the kind of incident that could bring it to the surface if manipulated correctly. In the past Republicans have been past masters at that sort of thing. In another context, race, that is exactly what Dean was talking about when he said the Democrats had to reach out to southern males with confederate flags on their pickups.
Based upon the US being a secular nation and the separation of church and state a "good" Catholic should never be allowed to run for office. Since by your definition his allegiance in political matters would be to his church not the people he is supposed to represent.
Just an observation.
No, Kerry's allegiance in spiritual
matters is dictated by his religion. In political matters his allegiance is clearly not directed by the church -- otherwise he would be anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment.
Every religious person who decides to enter politics is faced with a choice: take politically unpopular stances and remain true to the faith's teachings, or take politically popular positions that deviate from religious doctrine. That situation is not unique to Catholics. Just as no political party enjoys universal support, no religious doctrine enjoys universal approval.
I had never read that piece by jfk before. First of all, let me say have we not gone down hill here, from there?
He even equivocated out loud there, trying to imagine a circumstance where his conscience and the good of the country could diverge and how he would quit (not, y'know, a winning campaign idea). I can see myself being him then and thinking that and saying it.
We are all tested re conscience and our lives.
We do want people with well developed moral sense in our positions of power.
We want, over all, people with judgement. (spelled my way)
The country as a whole doesn't need puppets - strung by religion or by donors.
I am not sure if puppet strings are tighter now for anyone at all trying to make a difference in governing, but they probably are by virtue of the great need for money to get elected in most offices. Even the purest person needs money to be elected, and then, more problematic, to stay elected. Once elected, people immediately - literally immediately - need to accrue funds for next time. But this religious tie in can hamstring presidents as well.
At the time Kennedy gave that speech I was still a catholic.
I am the polar opposite now, but I still am very pleased to read it.