We have received some criticism of last month’s article by one of our Canadian contributors entitled: “So It’s Kennedy.” The writer of this article minimized the danger of Roman Catholic interference in public affairs. I wish to say that few if any of those in charge of TORCH AND TRUMPET are in agreement with that writer’s viewpoint even though they approved the placement of his article. Though this periodical is not an open forum, it does permit the expression of opinions contrary to the views of its editorial staff, unless these conflict with what we hold to be fundamentally sound principles.

As to the election of Mr. Kennedy, we wish to make a few observations. First, now that he has been elected President by the electoral college (whether he actually had more votes than Richard Nixon in Illinois and Texas is another question) and sworn in as our chief executive, it is our solemn duty as Christian citizens to honor him as such and pray much for him. We fear that there is far too little intercession among us, both in our homes and churches, for those in authority, whether in Washington or in our states, municipalities, and other local communities. This is a serious omisSion, especially in view of the inspired teaching of Scripture; as for example in I Timothy 2:2: “I exhort, therefore, first of all that supplications, prayers, intercession, thanksgiving be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.” Perhaps there never has been a time when the extreme seriousness of international crises and the enormous burdens and responsibilities of those who rule make it so imperative to obey this apostolic command as in our own day.

Second, this writer did not fear Mr. Kennedy’s election to the presidency first of all because of the danger of increasing Roman Catholic prestige and intrigue. We do not disavow such. fear; yet the prominence of the “religious issue” during the campaign should make the President extremely cautious in this matter. There is reason to believe that he will bend backward to avoid criticism on this score. I said more than once in last year’s political campaign that if I were a Catholic I would not vote for Mr. Kennedy just because his election would focus national attention on all Roman Catholic attempts to enhance their influence in the government. For example, how would President Kennedy ever dare to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican, or support a movement to give parochial schools a fair share of tax money, especially in view of his public utterances on these matters?

         

           

We deeply regret the election of Mr. Kennedy because we disagree with his economic principles and policies. His avowed purpose is to extend the powers of the federal government far beyond what they were in the preceding administration in order to control the economic life of our country. While the nations of western Europe are retreat· ing from the Socialistic position that the State must direct their entire economic system, our own country is quickening its pace in the pursuit of this Marxian objective which is so contrary to all that Scripture teaches about the limited powers of civil government and as well to our traditional emphasis on private enterprise and a free economy.

We should not be misled by the promise of a balanced budget when many more billions will be spent for public welfare than ever before. Our huge public debt will increase and rapid inflation will be the result. The New Deal measures of former years were not availing to prime the pump of a failing economy. The real causes of the present recession are either beyond the reach of governmental intervention and cure or are of such a nature as to make our present administration unwilling to remove them. One of the principal causes is the unreasonable demands of labor unions and their failure to compensate for increased wages with equivalent increases in productivity and efficiency.

However, there is one thing I should like to add. A free economy does not imply that the government should never do anything to prevent economic evils and abuses even when they imperil the safety or welfare of the nation. For example, President Kennedy has made it known that he is in favor of compulsory arbitration in labor disputes which result in long and costly strikes. The undersigned believes that this measure should be used only when such disputes threaten to paralyze our basic industries and upset our entire economy. It seems to us that the former administration has been too easy-going and patient in this matter.

For the rest, we hope that a coalition of the conservative forces in Congress will succeed in checking, at least to a large extent, the reckless spending on which the new administration is bent.

May God bless President Kennedy but at the same time open the eyes of all Americans to the danger and futility of a federally managed economy.

And, by the way, let those older people among us who voted for Mr. Kennedy in the hop of larger social security benefits consider that one of the measures contemplated by the most influential among his advisors is to stimulate industry by removing certain deductions provided for in the present income tax laws, such as the double exemptions of $600.00 each for all individuals over 65! This would impose a heavy burden on many who are least able to bear it.