Palin still clueless about religion and government

hat tip to Say It Ain’t So Already

Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics

By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Friday, December 3, 2010; 6:00 PM

Sarah Palin has found a new opponent to debate: John F. Kennedy.

In her new book, “America by Heart,” Palin objects to my uncle’s famous 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in which he challenged the ministers – and the country – to judge him, a Catholic presidential candidate, by his views rather than his faith. “Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy said. “I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic.”

Palin writes that when she was growing up, she was taught that Kennedy’s speech had “succeeded in the best possible way: It reconciled public service and religion without compromising either.” Now, however, she says she has revisited the speech and changed her mind. She finds it “defensive . . . in tone and content” and is upset that Kennedy, rather than presenting a reconciliation of his private faith and his public role, had instead offered an “unequivocal divorce of the two.”

Palin’s argument seems to challenge a great American tradition, enshrined in the Constitution, stipulating that there be no religious test for public office. A careful reading of her book leads me to conclude that Palin wishes for precisely such a test. And she seems to think that she, and those who think like her, are qualified to judge who would pass and who would not.

Read the rest at The Washington Post

  3 comments for “Palin still clueless about religion and government

  1. Gregory Iwan
    December 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    I ,doubt Sarah-puck cares. What she’s looking for is constant attention, so that even if one detests her (just guess where I come down on that), the name recognition is pervasive. Talk about advertising. She wants to come across as the average Joe’s “buddy” — one of us. It’s called a populist approach, and it works when the electorate is afraid, or angry. And especially when it is both. She’s white, she’s flashy, and she’s got somebody running her who is, let’s face it, pretty savvy. Campaigns are all about a common face and a vernacular message. Down deep I suspect the grizzly mama is probably agnostic, and we all KNOW she’s patently ignorant. So some compare her IQ to that of other Chief Executives and say, so what? Well, the world is a bit more complicated today than when Millard Fillmore took office. Or James K. Polk. Electing this charlatan would take the USA straight back to Andy Jackson’s era. Imagine the Cherokees with nuclear weapons. Therein lies the biggest rub for me: a weak President is likely to do something really stupid, just to prove he/she ISN’T weak. If we can divert attention from our severe economic woes, and in the bargain once again establish that “we’re number ‘one’,” well, then she/he would go for it. Let’s put it this way: would you like your nine-year-old daughter to be at the controls of your Airbus (not a 380, to be fair)? I ain’t going on that plane on a bet.

  2. December 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    I honestly hope she DOES run. It’s a win-win. If she loses, ANYONE is better. If she wins, within HOURS she’ll make it obvious to the world what a complete JOKE she is and get impeached. That should get the point across to the under-30 crowd (I’m talking about IQ) that their idiot pals aren’t allowed in the White House.

  3. Kaye Fissinger
    December 5, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Her “handler” may prove not to be all that savvy. She’s on the edge of flaming out. A year from now when the presidential election cycle is in full swing, all but a few will be yawning and bored. If not, then the IQ of Americans will prove to be below zero.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *