“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

These words belonged to John Kennedy and he spoke them to a group of Protestant ministers assembled at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas on September 12, 1960.

To have seen him speak them again, as I did at the Kennedy Library on a recent Sunday afternoon, moved me to admiration for the future president’s oratory, his sound thinking, and his courage.

More important, the speech provided me with renewed perspective on the current turmoil about Islam and its place in American society. You can also throw in discussion about the Mormon religion and its influence.

Only reluctantly did Kennedy undertake the Houston speech. According to Shaun Casey, author of a book on the 1960 campaign, he wanted to avoid discussion of religion. But, under pressure, he came to realize the need to face the religious issues raised by his opponents.

Casey was one of three writers who formed a panel to discuss the speech, exactly 50 years after its delivery. He was joined by two longtime friends of mine, James Carroll and E.J. Dionne. Chris Matthews was billed as moderator but he seemed not to know his place and spoke at least as much as the others.

Jim Carroll provided new and important information about the Catholic background to the speech. Before giving it, Kennedy had read it to the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray. Murray was the leading Catholic expert on matters of church and state, and five years later would inspire the Second Vatican Council to change the official Catholic position on religious liberty.

Not only that, but Murray talked about the speech with Cardinal Cushing, the then archbishop of Boston. Both men agreed that Kennedy’s position, as set forth in the speech, accorded with Catholic teaching.

Of course, the church had previously taught something quite different. In earlier times, popes had seen the separation of church and state as anathema. But clearly the American Catholic bishops were thoroughly committed to the United States constitutional division between the two.

If Americans could remember what Kennedy said that day in Houston they might find it easier to treat other religious traditions with the respect they deserve. And certain attitudes about Barack Obama might change.

At present, some people with strange ideas want to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Unwilling to accept clear evidence that he is a Christian, they continue to insist on an alleged personal tie with Islam.

My response to this non-problem is to echo a question posed by General Colin Powell in 2008. If it were true, he would still be constitutionally qualified for the presidency. His status would accord with the doctrine that Kennedy laid out for the ministers in Houston fifty years ago.

Kennedy did not talk his policies from the pope; Obama – – were he a Muslim – – would not stand at the beck and call of imams. It would be difficult to do so in any case, because Muslims lack the central authority so characteristic of the Catholic Church.

The same situation would come into play were Mitt Romney, a Mormon, elected president (something I fervently hope, on non-religious grounds, will never happen.)  As president, he would surely not be subject to commands from the Salt Lake City-based presiding elders of his church.

In James Carroll’s view, Kennedy’s speech was not only good for the country; it was also good for the church. By emphasizing conscience rather than doctrine or church policy as the ultimate arbiter of proper action, Kennedy stood as a prophet of reformed religion, exemplified a few years later by the Second Vatican Council.

The ongoing dispute over locating a Muslim mosque in an area close to the World Trade Center towers suggests that Kennedy’s approach to religion in America has been lost. Surely, he would have supported locating the mosque there as Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, and other prudent leaders have done.

The Houston speech of fifty years ago continues to ring true. The reaction of electorate the 1960 electorate remains a credit to Americans who voted for JFK regardless of his faith. Some political scientists see the event as the turning point of the 1960 presidential election.

Kennedy’s warning to the ministers that intolerance someday might turn against them registered with at least some voters. Some of today’s zealots condemn fellow Americans of the Muslim faith, and are ready to burn the Quran: would that they could instead take JFK’s approach to heart.