The Religious Issue In American Politics April 21, 1960

The Religious Issue in American Politics April 21, 1960

Collection JFK-2.3: Papers of John F. Kennedy: Pre-Presidential Papers: Senate FilesSeries: Files Related to Speeches and the PressFile Unit: John F. Kennedy Pre-presidential Papers; Senate Files; Speeches and the Press; American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington DC

From the Office of Senator John F. Kennedy

Room 362, Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

FOR FLAT RELEASE AT 12:00 NOON (EST), THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1960

THE RELIGIOUS ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Following is the text of the address of Senator John F. Kennedy before the American Society of Newspaper Editors:

I have decided, in view of current press reports, that it would be appropriate to speak with you today about what has widely been called "the religious issue" in American politics. The phrase covers a multitude of meanings. There is no religious issue in the sense that any of the major candidates differ on the role of religion in our political life. Every Presidential contender, I am certain, is dedicated to the separation of church and state, to the preservation of religious liberty, to an end to religious bigotry, and to the total independence of the office-holder from any form of ecclesiastical dictation.

Nor is there any real issue in the sense that any candidate is exploiting his religious affiliation. No one's candidacy, by itself, raises a religious issue. And I believe it is inaccurate to state that my "candidacy created the issue" -- that, because I am replying to the Bigots, I am now "running on the religious issue in West Virginia" -- or that my statements in response to interrogation are "fanning the controversy". I am not "trying to be the first Catholic President", as some have written. I happen to believe I can serve my nation as President -- and I also happen to have been born a Catholic.

Nor am I appealing, as is too often claimed, to a so-called Catholic vote. Even if such a vote exists -- which I doubt -- I want to make one thing clear again: I want no votes solely on account of my religion. Any voter, Catholic or otherwise, who feels another candidate would be a superior President should support that candidate. I do not want any vote cast for me for such illogical reasons.

-2-

Neither do I want anyone to support my candidacy merely to prove that this nation is not bigoted -- and that a Catholic can be elected President. I have never suggested that those opposed to me are thereby anti-Catholic. There are amply legitimate grounds for supporting other candidates -- (though I will not, of course, detail them here). Nor have I ever suggested that the Democratic Party is required to nominate me or face a Catholic revolt in November. I do not believe that to be true -- I cannot believe our convention would act on such a promise -- and I do believe that a majority of Americans of every faith will support the Democratic nominee, whoever he is.

What, then, is the so-called religious issue in American politics today? It is not, it seems to me, my actual religious convictions -- but a misunderstanding of what those convictions actually are. It is not the actual existence of religious voting blocs -- but a suspicion that such voting blocs may exist. And when we deal with such public fears and suspicions, the American press has a very grave responsibility.

I know the press did not create this religious issue. My religious affiliation is a fact -- religious intolerance is a fact. And the proper role of the press is to report all facts that are a matter of public interest.

But the press has a responsibility, I think you will agree, which goes far beyond a reporting of the facts. It goes beyond lofty editorials deploring intolerance. For my religion is hardly, in this critical year of 1960, the dominant issue of our time. It is hardly the most important criterion -- or even a relevant criterion -- on which the American people should make their choice for Chief Executive.And the press, while not creating the issue, will largely determine whether or not it does become dominant -- whether it is kept in perspective -- whether it is considered objectively -- whether needless fears and suspicions are stilled instead of aroused.