From John F. Kennedy to Abdul El-Sayed: 66 Years Later, America Is Still Confronting Religious Prejudice — A Lesson for the Korean American Community
In the 1960 presidential election, John F. Kennedy found himself facing uncomfortable questions, not primarily about his political qualifications or vision for the country, but about his religion.
As a Catholic, Kennedy was confronted with suspicions that, if elected president, he might place the authority of the Pope above the Constitution of the United States.
At the time, American society was predominantly Protestant, and the idea of a Catholic president was difficult for some Americans to accept.
On September 12, 1960, Kennedy delivered a historic speech before a gathering of Protestant ministers in Houston, Texas.
“I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He was not seeking the presidency to represent the Catholic Church. He was running to serve the American people, and his personal religious beliefs would never take precedence over his constitutional responsibilities as president.
Sixty-six years later, in 2026, a strikingly similar controversy is unfolding in Michigan.
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, is facing questions about his loyalty to America because he is Muslim.
At a recent town hall meeting, El-Sayed was asked whether he would condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. He clearly answered that he would, but then questioned why his Muslim identity should lead anyone to assume that his allegiance lay anywhere other than with the United States Constitution.
He responded with words that echoed Kennedy’s historic statement:
“I’m not running to be a Muslim senator. I’m running for U.S. Senate and happen to be Muslim.”
Here is an American-born citizen, educated and raised in the United States, running for the United States Senate.
What difference should it make that he is Muslim?
I would like to consider this question from the perspective of the Korean American community.
Who Opened the Doors to the Rights Korean Americans Enjoy Today?
For generations, Black Americans suffered under slavery, racial segregation, voting restrictions, and systematic discrimination.
They marched through the streets, resisted unjust laws, and sometimes sacrificed their lives demanding the equal rights and dignity that every human being deserves.
The sacrifices and efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and countless civil rights activists played a critical role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
During the same era, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 dramatically expanded opportunities for immigrants from Asia and other regions outside Europe to come to the United States.
Of course, these historic changes were not solely the result of the Black civil rights movement. Nevertheless, the movement for racial equality and the transformation of America’s immigration system were closely connected.
The opportunities Korean Americans enjoy today — owning businesses, teaching at universities, entering professional fields, and raising children who may become leaders in American society — were made possible, in part, by these historic changes.
Many of the rights and opportunities we enjoy today exist because others fought against discrimination long before we arrived.
This leads me to another question.
Could the Muslim politicians who are confronting prejudice and suspicion today be opening yet another door for future generations of Korean Americans?
That is one of the thoughts I have had while watching this election.
Politics Is Not a Contest to Determine Which Religion Is Superior
I am a Christian.
My Christian faith is important to me, and I value it deeply. But I do not believe my religion should be used as a standard to restrict the political rights of others.
Christians do not have to agree with Islamic teachings. Muslims do not have to accept Christian doctrine.
Respecting religious freedom means recognizing that people have the right to believe differently.
Politics is not a place to determine which religion is superior. It is a place where citizens with different beliefs and values come together to find solutions to the problems facing their communities.
The United States Constitution explicitly prohibits religious tests as qualifications for public office.
There is no requirement that the president, a senator, or a governor belong to any particular religion.
Yet every election season, we witness candidates being judged not only by their policies but also by their religion, race, or country of origin.
Human beings can find a thousand reasons to hate someone else.
They can reject others because their skin color is different, because they speak another language, because they practice a different religion, or even because they belong to a different denomination within the same faith.
But being different does not make someone dangerous.
America’s 5.5 Million Muslims — and the Muslim Community in Michigan
According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population in the United States is estimated at approximately 5.5 million in 2026. Michigan is also home to hundreds of thousands of Muslim residents.
Among them are engineers working in the automotive industry, physicians, attorneys, teachers, small-business owners, university students, and members of the military.
They pay taxes, raise families, educate their children, and care about the future of their communities, just like other Americans.
Why should it be considered unusual for members of this community to seek political office in order to make their voices heard?
As Korean Americans, we often express the desire to see more Korean Americans elected to public office.
We believe that politicians who understand our community’s experiences can better address the challenges we face, including language barriers, immigration issues, small-business concerns, and education.
If that is our expectation, should we not also understand why Muslim Americans welcome political candidates who understand their experiences?
Of course, a Muslim politician should not represent only Muslims. Likewise, a Korean American politician should not serve only Korean Americans.
A United States senator has a responsibility to represent all the people of the state, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation.
That is the responsibility of public office.
For some people, the idea of a Muslim representing Michigan in the United States Senate may seem unfamiliar or even uncomfortable.
But personal discomfort must be clearly distinguished from the constitutional rights of others.
Just as Michigan does not belong exclusively to Christians, the United States does not belong exclusively to any one religion.
The Right to Disagree Is Different From Denying Someone’s Right to Belong
None of this means that we must agree with every policy or political position advocated by Abdul El-Sayed.
We can certainly disagree with his proposals for Medicare for All, taxation, business regulation, or immigration reform.
We should carefully examine whether his policies are financially sustainable, how they would affect businesses and workers, and whether they would benefit Michigan’s automotive industry.
If someone believes his policies are socialist, that person has every right to criticize them as such. Likewise, those who disagree with the conservative policies of his opponent have every right to challenge those positions.
That is what elections are about.
But associating a candidate with terrorism simply because he is Muslim, or questioning his loyalty to America solely because of his faith, is an entirely different matter.
A candidate’s statements, policies, actions, and record should be rigorously examined. However, a person’s religion should not automatically be treated as evidence of a political or national security threat.
Just as Kennedy’s Catholic faith did not make him an agent of the Pope, El-Sayed’s Muslim faith does not make him a representative of all Islam or an agent of any particular religious organization.
Ultimately, voters should judge him by his qualifications, policies, character, and ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities — not by his religion.
In an America Divided Between Blue and Red
American election seasons can be brutal.
Support Democrats, and you may be branded a socialist. Support Republicans, and you may be labeled an extremist.
Blue and Red confront each other with increasing hostility, attacking not only their opponents’ policies but sometimes their character and identity as well.
Yet I believe the strength of American democracy lies in its ability to bring together people with fundamentally different beliefs and allow them to find ways to live together.
America was not a nation of equal opportunity for everyone from the beginning.
Women once had no right to vote. Black Americans endured legally enforced discrimination. Asian immigrants faced exclusion from immigration and citizenship.
Over time, however, through conflict, resistance, compromise, and reform, America gradually changed.
The country eventually elected its first Black president, its first Catholic president, and now has Muslim politicians serving in local governments and Congress.
These developments have not eliminated social divisions or discrimination. But they demonstrate that the range of political possibilities in America has expanded.
If that is the case, who is to say that one day a Korean American cannot become president of the United States or represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate?
And if that day comes, and a Korean American candidate is attacked simply for being Asian, for having Korean parents, or for practicing a religion different from the majority, how would we feel?
Perhaps respecting the political rights of another minority community today is one way of protecting the rights of our own children tomorrow.
The Maturity We Should Expect From America
A person can spend an entire lifetime believing that only his or her own opinions are correct.
But the world is full of people who think differently, and they, too, have the right to express their views and participate in the political process.
Democracy is not a system in which everyone thinks alike.
On the contrary, it is a system in which people with different beliefs and convictions may clash, yet still recognize one another’s rights and dignity.
Whether Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers wins this election will ultimately be decided by the voters.
Regardless of the outcome, one fact will remain unchanged: after the election, we must continue living together as fellow residents of Michigan.
We should not turn our neighbors into enemies simply because they supported a different candidate. Nor should we question someone’s patriotism simply because they practice a different religion.
Sixty-six years ago, Kennedy spoke not merely about his Catholic faith, but about the kind of America he believed in.
In 2026, El-Sayed’s candidacy raises a similar question for all of us.
What kind of America do we want?
Do we want a country in which only those who share our religion, beliefs, and values are considered qualified to lead?
Or do we want a country in which anyone, regardless of religion, race, or background, has the opportunity to present their qualifications and ideas to the American people and earn their support?
I believe in the latter.
Defending my own faith and respecting someone else’s faith are not contradictory. And recognizing the political rights of someone who follows a different religion does not weaken my Christian faith.
We are living through another election season in which Blue and Red collide, and Americans accuse one another of being socialists, extremists, or threats to the country.
But I hope that beyond these conflicts, Americans will demonstrate the maturity to recognize, respect, and eventually accept their differences.
That is the path American democracy has traveled throughout its history.
And it is the principle I believe we must continue to defend.
Tackyong Kim | mkweekly@gmail.com | 248-444-8844
