Transcripts For CSPAN3 Road To The White House John F. Kennedy Address On Church State 20240712

September 12th 1960, democratic nominee john f. Kennedy on the topic of church and state, religious freedom and tolerance, spoke to a meeting of houston ministers. Look paid for by the Kennedy Johnson Texas Campaign committee, the broadcast includes an extended question and answer session and parts of the film were later used as campaign ads. From houstons weiss hotel, senator jon kennedy is about to address the special meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to which he has been invited. During this telecast, senator kennedy will participate in an informal question and answer period. The telecast of this meeting is sponsored by the Kennedy Johnson Texas Campaign committee, and as being seen throughout texas on a special 22 station network. The audience you are seeing is composed of clergymen of the houston area who have been invited by the association. Reverend herbert meza will introduce the democratic president ial candidate. The meeting is about to be called to order by the president. May i call this special meeting of the association of ministers of greater houston to order . Let us stand for a prayer. God the merciful undo us and bless us and cause this causes space to shine upon us, that they weigh be known upon earth by saving health among all nations. God shell bless us and all the ends of the earth. With these words of the sala most we stand before the oh god, as our only sovereign lord psalmist. Forgive us and show us the mercy, let that greatness rest upon our nation and do not take die gospel light from us. Incline are used to the into the aisle, and show is always the truth but mixes keep them free. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we pray, amen. We are so happy that so many of you ministers are present at this meeting. The pleasure of our association, a pastor has wanted to me if some of you would not like to pay your dues for this time, this year which begins with september. I am sure that he will be in the lobby after this session ready to shake your hand. We are very happy to see so many of you ministers present. And we want this to be a true meeting of this, the association, under the policy of your executive committee this year, we wish to have a as guests, as many personalities known reputation as possible. The purpose, of course, is to provide not only a good program, but to give knowledge and enlightenment to the spiritual leaders of our community a similar invitation was extended by the association of mr. Nixon. Please understand that this is not a political rally. This is a meeting of the association of ministers, and we rely upon your sense for a good order, proper respect for the nominee to the highest office of our land, and good, christian behavior generally. Our little mouse has grown into a lion. This had not been our original intention, but things happen in these ways. Nevertheless, may the atmosphere be informal here, an informal gathering, and may such atmosphere be maintained. May i speak a welcome to all of you . I am the reverend herbert mesa, Vice President of the association, and our chairman. This program this evening does not constitute an endorsement of either the speaker or the party which he represents. The program has been motivated by the religious issues in this campaign, issues that are not monitored. There are some who insist with that nothing has changed in the Roman Catholic church, and there are others who insisted nothing good change. The promise not to deny the religious issue or to brands intolerance those who the problem is to place it in proper perspective and to determine where the candidate stand a relationship that perspective. The extremists on both sides have tended to dominate the debate. Contrary to common propaganda, there are many honest minds. Many catholics differ with us on many questions that are relevant to the welfare of our country. We could see the religious issue does exist. It is because there are many serious minds decently raising questions, that we have invited the speaker of the evening and it is for that same reason that we have allowed this meeting to be broadcast. To that end, i should like to introduce at this time, the senator from massachusetts and the democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States, senator john f. Kennedy. [applause] thank, you reverend. I am grateful for your generous invitation to speak with you about the socalled religious issue necessarily and properly, the chief topic here tonight. I want to emphasize from the outset that i believe that we have far more issues in the 1916 campaign, despite of communist influence until it now faster is only 90 miles on 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 on west virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms, an america with too many slums, with a 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. War and hunger and ignorance and despair no no religious barrier 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 america with a separation of church and state is absolute. Where no catholic fellow would tell the president , should he be, catholic how to act i know 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 employ him or the people who might elect him. I believe in america that is officially neither catholic, protestant or jewish, where no public official either request or accepts instructions on Public Policy from the pope, the National Council of churches, or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious bodies seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populist or the public act of its officials, and where religious liberty is so into visible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. 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 virginias harassment baptist creatures, for example, that led to jeffersons statute of religious freedom. Today, i may be the victim but tomorrow it may be you. Until the whole fabric of our harmonious decidedly is ripped apart at a time of Great National peril. Finally, i believe in an america where religious intolerance will someday end, were all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man as the same right to attend or not to attend a church of his choice, where there is no catholic vote, no anti catholic vote, no block voting of any kind, and were catholics, protestants and jews i both allay and pastoral levels, 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 which must not be humbled nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it. I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition of holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president working to secure the first amendments guarantee religious liberty nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so and neither do i look with favor on those who would work to subvert article six of the constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection, for if they disagree with that safeguard they should be openly working to repeal it, i want to chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill and whos fulfillment of his president ial office 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 of america i fought for in the South Pacific 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 belong to a disloyal group that threatened and i quote, the freedom for which our forefathers died and in fact this is the kind of america for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious that denied office to members of their churches, in the bill of, right the virginia statute of religious freedom and when they fought at the alamo. I thought with many people in no one knows whether they were catholics or not. I ask you tonight to follow, and judge me on the basis of my 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 attended myself, and 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 rarely relevant to any situation here and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed churchstate 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 prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time of anyone in any country. 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 also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as france and ireland and the independence of such statesmen as de gaulle and adenauer. 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 partys 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 , if i should be elected on 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 pressure 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 likewise. 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 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 noncatholics 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 this 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 ive taken for 14 years in the congress. For without reservation, i can, and i quote, solemnly 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. [applause] gentlemen. To the press of time, we should begin immediately with a question and answer period. You know the ground rules. Are there any questions . I think i speak for many that do not in any sense that your loyalty and love for this nation. Your position is an accord with our position with regard the separation of church and state. Flabbergasted to where we stand tonight as two men of nearly equal age standing of facing each other, this meeting held tonight in the center of my shirt, it is a policy in my city that has many fine catholics and it, but its policy of catholic leadership to forbid them to attend a protestant service. If we tonight were in the sanctuary of my church, just as we are, would you and could you attend . Well yes i could. I listed my statement, i would attend any service in the interest of, that had any connection with my Public Office, or in the case of a private ceremony, weddings, funerals and so on of course i would participant have participated. At the only question would be can i participate as a participant, as a believer in your faith and maintain my membership in my church. That seems to be comes within the private beliefs the catholic might have but as far as whether i could attend this sort of a function in your church, were i a senator or president , connected with my position of office, than i could attend, very importantly. And the position with regard to the chapel of the chaplain, which i believe you have accepted the invitation to stand and then i believe colonel downie brought pressure on you to refuse and not attend. Id be delighted to explain. I was invited 1947 after my election to the congress by dr. Polling to attend a dinner for an interface chapel in honor of the four chaplains who went down 14 years ago. I was delighted to accept because i thought it a useful and worthwhile cause. I learned through my Administrative Assistant who had friends in philadelphia to things. First, that i was listed and this was in the book that described the incident, charles taft, senator calfs brother, was there as the spokesman for the president faith. Senator lehman was the spokesman for the jewish faith. The second thing i learned was that the chapel, instead of being located as i thought it was as an interfere chapel was located in the basement of another church. It was not in that sense an inter faith chapel for the 14 years since the chapel was built theres never been a service of my church because of the physical location. I therefore informed the doctor that while i would be glad to come as a citizen and in fact many catholics did go to the dinner, i did not feel a had good credentials to it attend as a spokesman for the catholic faith that dinner. On the whole Catholic Church group in philadelphia were not participating and put the chapel had never been blessed or consecrated. Now i want to make it clear that my grounds for not going to wear private. I have no credentials to speak for the catholic faith at a dinner for a chapel which is never a place where Contract Service has been held and to this day unfortunately no service has been held at the present time but i think, if i may separate, that if this were a public matter, i could go as an individual i could not go the spokesman of catholics. I have read this platform and the planks in it with great interest, and especially around freedom and i know in the educational section, the rate of education for each person is guaranteed or offered for a guarantee. It also says there should be equal opportunity for employment. Another section says, there shall be equal rights to housing and recreation. All of these speak i think in a wonderful sense to the freedom which we want to keep here in america. Yet, on the other hand there is in another place in the platform, i read these words. We will repeal the authorization for right to work laws. Now it seems to me that in this aspect here i feel that these are much more important than any religious issue. Here you are abolishing an open shot. Youre taking away the freedom of the individual worker, whether he wants to work and wants to belong to this union or not. Now, isnt this sort of doubletalk, guaranteeing freedom on one hand and yet youre going to take it away elsewhere. No, i dont agree with that. I think there is an economy here in the platform. That provision is been in the platform since 1948. Im sure the difference of opinion between us on that matter in between Many Democrats on that matter but i think that it is a vision which goes to economic and political views. I dont think it involves a constitutional guarantee of freedom. In other words, under the provision of the tafthartley, law it was not permitted to guarantee a closed shop. My own judgment is that uniformity in interstate commerce is valuable. Therefore, i hold the view that it is better to have uniform laws and not a law which is in interstate commerce which permits one condition in one state and another in another. This is not a new provision, its been in for the last three platforms. Max grandkids, pastor of first church of god here in houston. I am a member of the Houston Association ministries. Mr. Kennedy, you very clearly stating your position here tonight in regards the proposition of the gospel by all religious groups in other countries. I appreciate it that much, because we protestants our missionary people. However, the question i have to ask is this. If you are elected president , will you use your influence to get the Roman Catholic countries of south america and spain to stop persecuting protestant missionaries and to give equal rights to protestant to propagate their fate as the United States gives to the room and catholics or any other group . I would use my influence as president of the United States to permit, to encourage the development of freedom all over the world. One of the rights which i consider to be important is the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right of free religious practice, and i would hope that the United States and the president would stand for those rights all around the globe without regard to geography, religion orpolitical tradition. Senator kennedy, this is dh westmoreland, president of the south bay baptist church, houston. I have received today a copy of a resolution passed by the baptist pastors conference of st. Louis, and theyre going to confront you with this tomorrow night. I would like you to answer to the houston crowd before you get to st. Louis. This is the resolution with deep sincerity and in christian grace, we plead with senator john f. Kennedy as the person presently concerned in this matter to appeal to Cardinal Cushing, mr. Kennedys own hierarchical superior in boston, to present to the vatican mr. Kennedys sincere statement relative to the separation of church and state in the United States and religious freedom as represented in the constitution of the United States, in order that the vatican may officially authorize such a belief for all Roman Catholics in the United States. [applause] may i just say that as i do not accept the right of any, as i said, ecclesiastical official, to tell me what i shall do in the sphere of my public responsibility as an elected official, i do not propose also to ask Cardinal Cushing to ask the vatican to take some action. I do not propose to interfere with their free right to do exactly what they want. There is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoints that i have expressed [applause] there is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoint that i have expressed tonight publicly represent the opinion of the overwhelming majority of american catholics, and i think that my view i have no doubt is known to catholics around the world. So im just hopeful that by my stating it quite precisely, and i believe i state it in the tradition of the american catholics, way back all the way to bishop john carroll, i feel that i hope this will clarify it without my having to take the rather circuitous route. This is the position i take with the american Catholic Church in the United States with which i am associated. We appreciate your forthright statement. May i say we have great admiration for you. But until we know this is the position of your church, because there will be many catholics who will be appointed if you are elected president , we would like to know that they, too, are free to make such statements as you have been so courageous to make. [applause] let me say that anyone that i would appoint to my office as a senator or as a president , would, i hope, hold the same view of the necessity, of their living up to not only the letter of the constitution but the spirit. If i may say so, i am a catholic. Ive stated my view very clearly. I dont find any difficulty in stating that view. In my judgment, it is the view of american catholics from one end of the country to the other. Because as long as i can state it in a way which i hope is satisfactory to you, why do you possibly doubt that i think that i represent a viewpoint which is hostile to the Catholic Church in the United States . I believe i am stating the viewpoint that catholics in this country hold towards the happy relationship which exists between church and state. Do you state it with the approval of the vatican . I dont have to have approval in that sense. Im not submitted. I have not submitted my statement before i read it to the vatican. I did not submit it to Cardinal Cushing. But my judgment is that Cardinal Cushing, which is the cardinal of the diocese of which i am a member, would approve of this statement, in the same way that he approved of the 1948 statement of the bishop. In my judgment, and i am not a student of theology, i am stating what i believe to be the position of my personal position and also the position of the great majority of catholics across the United States. Youve been watching senator jon kennedy appearing for the houston greater ministry association. Today i received this telegram from dr. Poling. I am sure you would like to clear this matter up. Let me read briefly from his telegram. They memorandum on religion as an election issue prepared by senator kennedys associate has the sanction on the polling incident. This section contains serious factual errors. I believe the senator will wish to correct the errors or he will wish to withdraw that section. The original draft of the program on the interfaith dinner held in the bellevuestratford hotel, on december 15, 1947, identified mr. Kennedy, then congressman from massachusetts, as hon. John f. Kennedy, congressman from massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy was never invited as an official representative of a religious organization nor indeed as the spokesman for the catholic faith. No speaker on that occasion, catholic, jew, or protestant, was identified by his faith. When two days before the dinner occasion mr. Kennedy canceled his engagement, he expressed his regret and stated that since his eminence, the cardinal, requested him not to come, he as a loyal son of the church had no other alternative. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy this First Program and to reprint. I will state again that the words i used are a quotation from the rev. Polings book, spokesman for the catholic faith, a book which was produced about a year ago which first discussed this incident. Secondly, my memory of the incident is quite clear in fact its as good as rev. Polings. Because when the matter was first discussed he stated it took place in 1950 and its only in the last 2 months that it came forward that the incident took place in 1947. Thirdly, i never discussed the matter with cardinal docherty in my life. I first learned of this through a mr. Reardon, my Administrative Assistant, who knew a mr. Doyle of the catholic welfare council, who stated that there was a good deal of concern among many of the Church People in philadelphia, because of the location of the chapel and because no service would ever be held in it, because it was located in the basement of another church. It was an entirely different situation than the one that i had confronted when i first happily accepted. Now, there were three speakers. Kennedy was one of them, taft was the second, and senator lehman was the third. I dont think i misstated that one was supposed to speak for the catholic faith, as a spokesman, in mr. Polings word. One for the protestant faith, and one for the catholic faith, and one for the jewish faith, i was glad to accept the invitation. I did not clear the invitation with anyone. It was only when i was informed that i was speaking, and i was invited obviously as a serviceman because i came from a prominent catholic family, that i was informed that i was there really in a sense without any credentials. The chapel as i have said has never had a catholic service. It is not an interfaith chapel. Therefore, for me to participate as a spokesman in that sense for the catholic faith i think would have given an erroneous impression. Now, ive been there 14 years. This took place in 1947. Id been in politics probably 2 months and was relatively inexperienced. I should have inquired before getting into the incident. Is this the best that can be done after 14 years . Is the only incident that can be shown . [applause] this was a private dinner. This was not a public dinner, which did not involve my responsibilities as a public official. My judgment was bad only in accepting it without having all the facts, which i wouldnt have done at a later date. But i do want to say id been there for 14 years. Ive voted on hundreds of matters, probably thousands of matters, which involve all kinds of public questions, some of which border on the relationship between church and state, and quite obviously that record must be reasonably good or we wouldnt keep hearing about the poling incident. Senator kennedy i dont mean to be disrespectful to reverend poling. I have a high regard for dr poling. I dont mean to be in a debate about it. But i must say in looking back i think it was imprudent of me to have accepted it without more information, but i dont think it shows unfitness for holding Public Office. The reason we are concerned is the fact that your church has stated that it has the right, the privilege, and responsibility to direct its members in various areas of life, including the political realm. We believe that history and observation indicate that it has done so. And we raise the question because we would like to know if you are elected president and your church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be under those circumstances. If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a Public Servant, sworn to uphold the constitution, then i would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part, that it was one to which i could not subscribe, that i was opposed to it, and that it would be an unfortunate breach, an interference, with the american political system. I am confident that there would be no such interference. We have had two chief justices of the Supreme Court who were catholics. We have had two prime ministers of canada who were catholics. Ive already mentioned mr. De gaulle and mr. Adenauer. I have already mentioned that [inaudible] as exposed to the pressures which whirl around us, that he will be extremely diligent in his protection of the constitutional separation. We would be most happy to have such a statement from the vatican. Because of the briefness of the time, lets cut out the applause. B. E. Howard, minister of the church of christ. First of all i should like to quote some authoritative quotations from catholic sources and then propose a question. So that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie. Catholic encyclopedia, volume 10, page 696. Quoting, however, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling duty is to say what is false or tell a lie. Catholic encyclopedia, volume 10, page 195. When mental reservation is permissible, it is lawful to corroborate ones utterances by an oath if there be an adequate cause. Article on perjury, catholic encyclopedia, volume 11, page 696. Quoting again, the truth we proclaim under oath is relative and not absolute. Explanation of catholic morals, page 130. Just recently from the vatican in rome this news release was given from the official vatican newspaper, and i am quoting that of date may 19, 1960, tuesday. Stated that the Roman Catholic hierarchy had the right and duty to intervene in the political field to guide its plot. The newspaper rejected what is termed, quoting, the absurd split of conscience between the believer and the citizen. However, Observatore Romano made it clear that its stern pronouncement was valid for Roman Catholic laymen everywhere. It deplored the great confusion of ideas that is spreading especially between catholic doctrine and social and Political Activities and between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the lay faithful in the civil field. Pope john twenty third recently gave this statement according to the st. Louis review, date of december 12, 1958 catholics may unite their strength toward the common aid of the catholic hierarchy had the right and duty of guiding them. Question, sir, do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which i have quoted from the catholic authorities . Do you submit to the authority of the present pope which i have quoted from these quotations . Let me say in the first place i have not read the catholic encyclopedia and i dont know all the quotation youre giving me. I dont agree with the statement. I find no difficulty in saying so. But i do think probably i could make a better comment if i had the entire quotation before me. But in any case i have not read it before, and if the quotation is meant to imply that when you take an oath you dont mean it or it is proper for you to make oaths and then break them, that its proper for you to lie, if that is what this states, and i dont know whether that is what it states unless i read it all in context, then, of course, i would not agree with it. Secondly, on the question of the Observatore Romano article, once again i dont have that in full. Ive read the statement of last december which was directed to a situation in sicily where some of the catholics were active in the communist party, but im not familiar with the one of may 1960 which you mentioned. In any case the Observatore Romano has no standing, as far as binding me. Thirdly, the quotation of pope john of 1958, i didnt catch all of that, and if youll read that again i will tell you whether i support that or not. Pope john xxiii only recently stated according to the st. Louis review, date of december 12, 1958, catholics must unite their strength toward the common aid and the catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding them. So you subscribe to that . I could not describe guiding them in what area . Youre talking about in the area of faith and morals, in the constructions of the church. I would think any baptist minister or congregational minister has the right and duty to try and guide his flock. If you mean by that statement that the pope or anyone else could bind me in the fulfillment, by a statement in the fulfillment, of my public duties, i say no. If that statement is intended to mean, and its very difficult to comment on a sentence taken out of an article which i have not read, but if that is intended to imply that the hierarchy has some obligation or has an obligation to attempt to guide the members of the Catholic Church, then that may be proper. But it all depends on the previous language of what you mean by guide. If you mean direct or instruct on matters dealing with the organization of the faith, the details of the faith, then, of course, they have that obligation. If you mean under that he could guide me or anyone could guide or direct me in fulfilling my public duty, then i do not agree. Thank you, sir. Then you do not agree with the pope in that statement . You see, that is why i wanted to be careful, because that statement, it seems to me, is taken out of context what you just made to me. I could not tell you what the pope meant unless i had the entire article. I would be glad to state to you that no one can direct me in the fulfillment of my duties as a public official under the United States constitution. That i am directed to do to the people of the United States, sworn to do, to an oath to god. That is my flat statement. I would not want to go into details on a sentence that you read to me which i may not understand completely. I think my statement was quite clear. Gentlemen, we have time for one more question, if it can be handled briefly. Senaqtor kennedy, i am robert mclaren, from the Westminster Presbyterian church, houston. You have been quite clear and i think laudably so on the matter of separation of church and state and have answered my the many questions that have come up around it. There is one question, it seems to me, that is quite relevant. This relates to your statement that if you found by some remote possibility a real conflict between your office as president , that you would resign that office if it were in real conflict with your church. No, i said with my conscience. In the syllabus of errors of pope leo xix, which the catholic encyclopedia states is still binding, although from a different century, is still binding on all catholics, there are three specific things which are denounced including the separation of state and church, the freedom of religions other than catholic to propagate themselves, and the freedom of conscience. Do you still feel these being binding upon you, that you hold your oath of office above your allegiance to the pope on these issues . Well, let us go through the issues because i dont think there is a conflict on these three issues. The first issue as i understand it was on the relationship between the catholics and the state and other faiths. No, the separation of church and state, he explicitly considers an error i support that, and in my judgment the American Bishops statement of 1948 clearly supported it. That in my judgment is the view held by catholics in this country. They support the constitutional separation of church and state and are not in error in that regard. The second was the right of religions other than the Roman Catholic to propagate themselves. I think they should be permitted to propagate themselves, any faith, without any limitation by the power of the state, or encouragement by the power of the state. Whats the third one . The third was the freedom of conscience in matters of religion, and also in point 46, i believe it is, extends to freedom of mind in the realms of science. Yes, well, i believe in freedom of conscience. Let me just i guess our time is coming to an end, but let me say finally that i am delighted to come here today. I dont want anyone to think because they interrogate me on this very important question, that i regard that as unfair questions or unreasonable or that somebody who is concerned about the matter is prejudiced or bigoted. I think this fight for religious freedom is basic in the establishment of the american system, and therefore any candidate for the office, i think, should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man. [applause] my only objection would be my only limit to that would be if somebody said regardless of senator kennedys position, regardless of how much evidence hes given that what he says he means, i still would not vote for him because hes a member of that church, i would consider that unreasonable. What i would consider to be reasonable in an exercise of free will and free choice is to ask the candidate to state his views as broadly as possible, investigate his record to see whether what he states he believes and then to make an independent rational judgment, as to whether he could be entrusted with this highly important position. So i want you to know that im grateful to you for inviting me tonight. Im sure i have made no converts to my church. [laughter] but i do hope that at least my view, which i believe to be the view of my fellow catholics who hold office, i hope it may be of some value in at least assisting you to make a careful judgment. Thank you. [applause]. Gentlemen, shall we remain standing . Youve been watching senator jon kennedy appearing before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in a question and answer period. The telecast of this meeting was sponsored by the Kennedy Johnson Texas Campaign committee, on behalf of senator kennedys candidacy for the presidency of the United States. From the facilities of kctr tv, this is been a special texas program. My up next university of mary. Discusses the life of thomas jefferson. His actions on slavery and race. This video is courtesy he of the university. Its part of their lecture series. Mean i am pleased to announce, a special miniseries of six lectures every entitled great president ial lives. Daily this series is particularly attractive for two main reasons, the first being its timeliness. As we face a president ial Election Year and you prepare for it, it will be an insight that all really of us can benefit from. The second is the speaker himself,