<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>JFK's Houston Speech at 50: Three Views</title>
		<description>Comments for JFK's Houston Speech at 50: Three Views at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:01:33 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views.html#comment-4851</link>
			<description>Mr. Noble: What would a 'unifying ultimate value' to which we all might subscribe resemble? The only belief system I know of that has acticely sought such an outcome is communism. Some Islamists may aspire to it, but it has been a very long time since any Christians have. And what is argued by Messrs. Marlin, Keinker, and Brown is not that the Catholic (or any other) faith ought to be 'imposed' on anybody in politics, but rather that Catholic politicians ought not to abandon religious principle when they campaign, legislate, or govern. If voters don't like a Catholic pol's stance on abortion, for instance, they are free to vote against him. - Brad Miner</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:34:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views.html#comment-4850</link>
			<description>The RC church, of course, does try to impose its views about the world in which we live and how we should live in it. How could it be otherwise? That said, how should we of differing faiths or no faith respond when RC theology and those who believe in it as a matter of faith try to impose their views on the rest of us? JFK tried to uncouple RC teachings and behaviors and their impact on the rest of us and succeeded to the extent that he was able to win the election. The impact was good for him but did nothing to advance the cause of religious tolerance in the US. RC fundamentalism is no different than the fundamentalism of all other faiths and religions. It shows no tolerance for the legitimacy of differences in belief. We do know, however, that dialogue is necessary if the harshness of intolerance is to be mitigated . . . albeit its underlying cause can never cease to be until we all subscribe to some unifying ultimate value that transcends all the world's religions and beliefs. Good luck to us all until that day because all the world's religions  claim to uniquely own and provide access to the ultimate (beatific?) vision and the reward that comes from its embrace. - John H Noble Jr</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 07:10:24 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views.html#comment-4847</link>
			<description>If Kennedy was burdened by his Catholic faith, it was only by accident.   - Yezhov</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:00:26 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/jfks-houston-speech-at-50-three-views.html#comment-4846</link>
			<description>It was disingenuous at the least and dishonest at the worst for JFK to open declare his Catholicism was a &quot;private matter&quot; that did not influence his political views.

He desperately needed votes and his move toward secularization, deliberately made, was a blatant and cynical attempt to distance himself from the Church and win over the skeptics. The strategy worked, as his election proved. But at what cost? Presidents to follow also would try to keep their internal faith, presuming they had any, separate from political considerations at the risk of compromising whatever personal integrity they had. Nixon, the &quot;Quaker,&quot; waged war relentlessly and ran a corrupt administration that was largely devoid of Christian compassion. Other examples can be cited, from Washington on down.

Now, we have Obama, who attends the Church of the Blackberry, insisting he is a Christian, but never once in public discourse evoking the words of Christ in discussing the moral issues of the day.

Presidents want to have it both ways: to be seen as leaders of all the people, which necessitates accommodating all the views of all those who believe or disbelieve (an impossible task but nonetheless the highest goal), and trying to show that underlying whatever principles they claim to adhere to are based on religious convictions. To straddle both the religious and the secular becomes a delicate balancing act they cannot sustain but nonetheless satisfies the secular world. Render unto Caesar.. - Joe</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:46:48 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
