They say these ceremonies should be clearly separated from the imperial family's private religious ones when the change of emperors takes place in 2019.

The bishops note this principle was "learned from reflection on history that Japan had fought wars under the emperor-centered national Shinto religion, and had violated the human rights and peace of many people in the world, especially Asian people." Read more

A survey of 2,000 American adults, the Nashville-based Christian research company found:

• Nearly six in 10 Americans (59 percent) say marriage should not be "defined and regulated by the state."
• Nearly half (49 percent) say "Religious weddings should not be connected to the state's definition and recognition of marriage."
• About a third (36 percent) say clergy should "no longer be involved in the state's licensing of marriage." More than half (53 percent), however, disagree.
• Those most likely to favor a split between religious weddings and government or civil marriage include 54 percent of men, 53 percent of Catholics and 45 percent of Protestants.

A LifeWay survey of 1,000 Protestant ministers found 25% favoured separating religious rites from a government-issued marriage license.

The LifeWay survey found the rapid expansion of gay marriage in 35 US states spotlights the tension between religious and state views of marriage.

However, conservative Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, last month told the Catholic Bishops' Conference that Catholic priests might consider opting out of certifying civil marriages as a sign of "principled resistance" to growing legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

"It's hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies 'Spouse A' and 'Spouse B,'" Chaput said in his prepared remarks.

Last month, the traditionalist magazine First Things launched a campaign for clergy to pledge to stop signing marriage certificates. So far, more than 330 clergy have signed the pledge.

Sources

• Crux
• Dan and Child Photography

Santorum says the JFK 1960 speech delivered while campaigning to be the first Catholic US president, made him feel sick.

Gingrich on the other hand, calls the speech remarkable, telling Fox News that as president he would not obey any foreign religious leader.

Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct."

Where Gingrich and Santorum agree however is they both are of the view that US President Barack Obama is 'anti-religious'.

Santorum's comments have rocked some clergy.

Rev Nick Carter, president of Andover Newton Theological Schools is critical of Santorum's comments saying that Santorum's comments show a misunderstanding of the principle of church and state, that Kennedy laid out.

"The nature of what Kennedy did is he showed that he can be a person of deep personal faith but he can be a political leader who can be trusted by all," Carter said.

Rev. Laura Everett, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, labelled Santorum's remarks as "hard words to hear."

"When I went back to read [Kennedy's] speech again, I was struck by what a generous and hopeful vision of religious diversity that Kennedy spoke of 50 years ago," Everett said.

Even those who agree with Santorum's sentiments question his turn of phrase. H.L. Champion, president of Baptist.org, said he sympathizes with Santorum's views, but found the comment about throwing up was "superfluous."

On September 12, 1960, Kennedy the democratic candidate for president delivered a speech defending himself from skepticism over his Catholic faith.

Kennedy outlined his vision for America in which no church would impose their will on government, and no president would face a religious test for office.

"I belive in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," he said.

"I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me."

Sources

• Washington Post
• Boston Globe
• Image: The Blaze