The Effects Of Religion And Morality On The Administrations Of Two Presidents

“Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America,” is a speech by Edward M. Kennedy established through literary devices. As he spoke to the college through this dialog there was historical, political and social views but also historical political views and points in which the speech had progressed by expressing views of religion being an aspect in how the government were to rule. Though there is multiple literary devices that are used to create ethical, emotional, and logical appeal, although the majority is ethical, he brings historical factors of political views of past politicians of whether or not it should be an aspect or an influence in government, most of which were presidents at one time or another. Thus informing the audience of the support

During Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s speech, “Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America,” he attempts to bring Americans together by helping them understand different viewpoints and recognize when to input religion into debate. Kennedy concentrates on this topic because during that October of 1983, tensions were rising in the country due to conflicting opinions on the nuclear freeze. Kennedy, a Democrat, delivers this speech at Liberty Baptist University, a largely Republican college, so he repeatedly demonstrates his ability to relate to the audience in an effort to fill the space between their differing political parties and religions. Additionally, he makes references to ethos to prove his authority to speak on the subject at hand. He portrays

Prior to John F. Kennedy’s inauguration was, of course, the election of 1960, in which Kennedy went face to face with Richard Nixon on issues such as, the Cold War, Kennedy’s religious beliefs, and the display of each’s competence. In Kennedy’s inaugural address, he not only alludes, but also addresses to the Cold War, and makes mention of his future plans and Roman Catholic religious beliefs; and, he does so through use of allusions and anaphoras. Through the use of allusions and anaphoras, Kennedy effectively achieves his purpose of fulfilling citizen’s expectations, addressing the Cold War, and stating the United States’s future plans to his audience, the United States of America and other nations, through emphasis and rhetorical appeals towards pathos and ethos.

My seventh quote is, “…His message came across clear and appealing ... He described America as a country 'where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be a Catholic - how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. This is a country where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one Church is treated as an act against all.” That was said by Kennedy. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and many believed that it would affect his loyalty between his nation and his church. Kennedy used a great maxim called hang a lantern on your problem. He brought went to many meeting of groups of Protestant and even toured Texas in order to be judged by his most skeptical voters. He gave his speech on television which included

In the following speech, Kennedy expands on his views regarding his Catholicism affecting his changes to win presidency. He emphasizes his strong beliefs in the separation of church and state and his own personal independence in the decision making process. The general theme of the speech in that religious intolerance has no place in a modern society, and no place in making a determination about who is qualified to lead the nation.

The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.

Kennedy’s speech carries with it a dauntless rhythm of persuasiveness, emboldening and inspiring his audience through emotional conviction and personal attribution. With parallelism and juxtaposition, John F. Kennedy was able to capture the minds and hearts of the American people. During the vast majority of the address, he uses inclusivity (us, we, our) with the audience to show his personal dedication to the public and mankind as a whole. Kennedy’s dedication to his people and god was enough to gain the support of the nation, from both political parties; he proclaims that it was “not the victory of a party, but a celebration of freedom…” Kennedy does this in an attempt to establish his credibility as a just and equal leader, who saw past the petty divisions of our bipartisan dichotomy. Aside from this instance, JFK states later that he is a “fellow citizen of the world…” to appeal to his international audience. As much as Kennedy addressed his fellow man, he also referenced God in many occasions throughout his speech. Considering that at the time of its delivery 84% of the

Compared to Kennedy’s speech, Eleanor Clift’s, “ Inside Kennedy’s Inauguration, 50 Years On,” utilizes a journalistic approach while still appealing to ethos and pathos to achieve her purpose. Clift establishes her credibility through the use of many direct quotes within her article rather than establishing shared values like within Kennedy’s speech. The article is structured so that each paragraph of the article is the recollection of a different person who attended; a different perspective of the inauguration is discussed each time in chronological order rather than the use of parallelism and climax. At the same time, Clift appeals to pathos, similar to Kennedy, but instead uses anecdotes rather than figurative language. An example of which is seen in the quote, “We forget, looking back on it, how powerful the anti-catholic was,” which states the difficulty Kennedy faced in the election due to his affiliation with Catholicism. The quote is then followed up further in the text with the quote, “We had to win in West Virginia to prove that a Catholic could win because there were so few Catholics there, only 1 or 2 percent.” A feeling of inspiration and respect toward Kennedy is created similar to the feelings patriotism stirred during his inauguration speech. Clift establishes her article in a different

The everlasting tension between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of men draws Charles Colson, the author of God and Government, to offer seasoned reflection from his experience. Colson was a well known author, radio commentator, and a former presidential aide to Richard Nixon. As a former atheist worker in the white house and a converted Christian, he highlights the concerns of the involvement of religion in politics. Colson understands the possible dilemma of an individual in trying to keep the Christian conscience while also following a politician’s mandate. Unlike other Christian conservatives, Colson has achieved strong political power in the past.

Throughout Kennedy’s campaign, most of the opposition he received came from evangelical groups like the National Association of Evangelicals and the Southern Baptist Convention (site)14. The perceived threat against the American Protestant dream seemed very real and the anti-Catholic propaganda came back with a vengeance. Perceived wrong-doings by Catholic politicians were hyped, such as the California Catholic Attorney General who made into law that prayer or the reading of the bible were not allowed in public schools (46)15.

In Houston Texas, America’s thirty-fifth and first catholic president of the United States died from two bullet shots to his skull, on November 22, 1963. John Fitzgerald Kennedy had not even served a full term of presidency yet, and was in the middle of campaigning for a second term, before his assassination took place. Near the beginning of JFK’s presidency, back in 1961, he saw greatness in the new generation to come in order to improve America. Kennedy wanted to create peace, discover new sciences, and end the ongoing feud with the Soviet Union. Once the famous president stated, “ ...And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not

Kennedy is where people used his religion to attack him in a way to try to or attempt to lower his credibility. They tried to use it to say that his religion would interfere with being active in office. They tried to also discredit him and say he was working to rule with the blessing of the Roman Catholic empire which was not case. The use of his religious preference in this case was a great example of ad hominem. He pin point this issue then went on to describe pressing matters of society which included and not limited to the jobs, economic stability and equality for all. The action that Kennedy wanted the American people to take was to not judge him on where he came from, however he wanted people to choose who they feel would be the best fit to be President of the United States. He presented himself as a capable person that was able to decide on what was best for the American public without pressure or influence of religion. Overall he wanted mass participation of the American people and he wanted them to use their vote for the right reason and what he explained what would in the you as the American people’s best interest. That it should not be based solely off what the person believes in. It should be solely on the possibility of what the person had to offer if they were to be elected as

The United States of America has the most diverse religious population in the world. In places like Iraq, Syria, Israel, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries too numerous to mention, countless lives are lost over religious differences. In America, a Protestant can live happily next door to a Jew, who might live across the street from a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Sikh, or even a Humanist! This is in no small way attributed to the fact that the US Constitution’s First Amendment includes what is known as the establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” effectively separating affairs of religious institutions from secular,

Being the only Catholic President, John F. Kennedy shares his strong faith in God, saying “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” John F. Kennedy bases a lot of speech on his faith in God, implying that it placed in the hands of God and no longer up to us, implying God helps those who help themselves. He demonstrates power when he states, “In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.” Meaning, we are in charge of what is to come. He symbolizes an end, as well as a new beginning. Each American has the chance to make the change, and it lies within the hands of generations to come. He uses his most famous quote to demonstrate freedom by saying, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy signals renewal, as well as change. This famous quote is also paired with a quote about freedom, it states, “My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” It was paired with a line about freedom, intentionally. These two lines, taken

America wastes a lot of time trying to create a democracy completely absent of the moral expectations that our ancestors have put into place. Our founding fathers’ dream of establishing a country in which all people would be accepted has begun to fall. In our attempt to rid our country of a democracy contaminated with any belief in a supreme power, we have rid ourselves of many of our values and morals. Perhaps it is impossible for religion to dominate our political country, but we have misinterpreted the original intent of “separation of church and state” and taken this concept too far.