Posted on 10/01/2004 6:24:57 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Friday, October 1, 2004
A public-interest law firm is trying to prevent a courthouse from removing a religious quote by President Theodore Roosevelt by warding off a threatened lawsuit with legal action of its own.
The Pro-Family Law Center is suing the operators of the Riverside County Historic Courthouse in California and the Anti-Defamation League, which vowed to sue earlier this week if the quote is not removed.
Roosevelt's statement, "The true Christian is the true citizen," is engraved in gold on a mahogany wall at one of the courthouse departments.
The Roosevelt quote is one of many, some secular in nature, that reflect the personal and diverse philosophies of the nation's past leaders, including Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
The quotes have been displayed since 1930 without any formal complaint.
The ADL claims, however, that the Roosevelt quote "marginalizes" non-Christians coming into contact with the courthouse.
Richard D. Ackerman, the lead attorney and plaintiff in the Pro-Family Law Center action, says he's not surprised, because the ADL "hatefully accuses" evangelical Christians of "subterfuge and deception" on its website.
"The engravings in the walls of the courthouse must be taken in their historical context and separated from the ADL's absurd allegations," he said. "The quotes from the various presidents represent a diversity of cultural and historic views."
He points out the ADL has not challenged photographic images of Jews and other religious references placed throughout other courthouse buildings in the same judicial district.
The Pro-Life Family Law Center's complaint alleges the ADL is acting to censor and single out Christians by its threat of litigation against the Superior Court.
The suit is based on preservation laws that make it a crime to alter a historical site in any way.
The Riverside courthouse was designated a "cultural resource" and a "designated historical site" many years ago.
The Law Center says it views this as a case "designed to protect all Christians across the nation, and to preserve the integrity of a nation whose historical identity is permanently affixed to the contributions of Christians and other persons of faith since its founding."
These people REALLY need to get a hobby.
Unfortunately, this is their hobby.
Schizophrenia and history/holocaust revisionism/repression comes to mind here.
What is the date of this statement?
To put it into its true context, it should be juxtaposed (in a way to emphasize the contrast) with a photo and quote from Adolph Hitler:
"One is either a German OR a Christian, you cannot be both."
PS The British liked Hitler's phrase so much, they turned it into a WW II propaganda poster...
The ADL and the JDL are terrorist organizations and this is a *fact* since two of their leaders were convicted of a conspiracy to assassinate Congressman Darryl Issa.
I'm not anti-Jewish and >please< don't toss that at me.
Go to Google yourself and check out the various stories about this.
Richard D. Ackerman, the lead attorney and plaintiff in the Pro-Family Law Center action, says he's not surprised, because the ADL "hatefully accuses" evangelical Christians of "subterfuge and deception" on its website. "
The ADL does seem to have quite a bit of hate for Christians.
Reverse it and the ACLU case has merit: The true citizen is the true Christian.
A lot hinges on what one means by "Christian". The Founders would probably have had no problem with this quotation, provided "Christian" were defined broadly enough. The more orthodox taking it to mean believers, and the Franklins and Jeffersons referring to a standard of conduct, rather than a particular theology. The formula later would have been a more or less secular government in a more or less Christian culture and society. That was natural in a country where most people had Christian roots, regardless of what they actually believed or how they really behaved. But that doesn't seem to cut it today with many people today.
The text of the speech can be found on this site, and it's worth a more comprehensive quote:
We ask that these associations, and the men and women who take part in them, practice the Christian doctrines which are preached from every true pulpit. The Decalogue and the Golden Rule must stand as the foundation of every successful effort to better either our social or our political life. "Fear the Lord and walk in His ways," and "let each man love his neighbor as himself" — when we practice these two precepts, the reign of social and civic righteousness will be close at hand. Christianity teaches not only that each of us must so live as to save his own soul, but that each must also strive to do his whole duty by his neighbor. We cannot live up to these teachings as we should; for in the presence of infinite might and infinite wisdom, the strength of the strongest man is but weakness, and the keenest of mortal eyes see but dimly. But each of us can at least strive, as light and strength are given him, towards the ideal. Effort along any one line will not suffice. We must not only be good but strong. We must not only be high-minded but brave-hearted. We must think loftily and we must also work hard. It is not written in the Holy Book that we must merely be harm less as doves. It is also written that we must be wise as serpents. Craft unaccompanied by conscience makes the crafty man a social wild beast who preys on the community and must be hunted out of it. Gentleness and sweetness unbacked by strength and high resolve are almost impotent for good. The true Christian is the true citizen, lofty of purpose, resolute in endeavor, ready for a hero's deeds, but never looking down on his task because it is cast in the day of small things; scornful of baseness, awake to his own duties as well as to his rights, following the higher law with reverence, and in this world doing all that in him lies, so that when death comes he may feel that mankind is in some degree better because he has lived.
Reversal is not the same as the contrapositive... Nice try, though.
Nitpicking; swing a cat around a post - at what point is it contrapositive?
Thanks for the ping!
This TR speech is from December of 1900, just after the election which elevated him to the Vice Presidency, and given to the YMCA at Carnegie Hall. It seems a rather appropriate speech for the YMCA, which in those days took the "Christian" in its name most seriously.
Note how Roosevelt goes back and forth, this... that.... if... but... It was his dominant rhetorical style, and he used it to spread condemnation and to set himself off as above it all. And he was very, very careful with his words, practically lawyer-like careful. You can almost see his thought process in his choice of phrases and constructions, especially as regards what he did not want to say, or to be accused of saying (thus the excessive use of qualifiers). This is a typical Roosevelt statement, especially one from early in his national career. I don't see anything dangerous in it. He did not say that citizens must be Christians, and he was, as you point out, speaking to accepted thought. I would say that, above all, it was a political speech.
It was the standard politician's duty to speak to Christian and church associations, and as President, Roosevelt didn't much use religion much different from anyone else, except as typified by this speech to the YMCA about character. However, into his ex-presidency, he turns to it, and we get John Brown and the "battle for the Lord." A large part of his Bull Moose support came from religious groups, those of the old abolitionist strain, especially. It's into 1912 that he seized religion and the religious metaphor and, to my mind, abused it.
Nitpicking; swing a cat around a post - at what point is it contrapositive?
Your second statement is a non-sequitur. Had we been
talking about stocks I could at least have inferred some
humor on your part about a "dead cat bounce."
The most I can make out of your original statement
(assuming you are not trolling) is the assertion that
the ACLU has things backwards, but phrased in
an awkward fashion.
David Hackett Fischer in his book Albion's Seed which interprets American history in terms of the various cultures that came together to make up America, tosses out a reason for the differences between Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. TR's maternal ancestors were Scots and Irish Southern planters (Barnhills and Bullochs), and FDR's were Yankee ship captains and traders (Howlands and Delanos).
Thus Teddy was more Southern and Franklin more New England, with whatever connotations one wants to attach to such labels. It's certainly an intriguing idea, but I'm not quite sure it works. There is more than one type of Southerner or New Englander, and I doubt Ted's mom could have raised a "Southern" child on her own at a time of intersectional warfare.
It is strange though that Theodore, who had Georgia uncles who wouldn't come back to the US after the Civil War, ended up paying tribute to John Brown. That's another sign that American history doesn't always fit into our own pre-established categories, like North and South. Another "big picture" book, Generations by Strauss and Howe, sheds some issue on this. The YMCA was part of a missionary generation that could be said to constitute a "Third Great Awakening" in American life, and the religious fervor of the generation of 1900 flowed into political activism with a reformist, millennarian spirit, just as that of the "Second Great Awakening" of the antebellum years contributed to abolitionism.
Speaking of religion in politics, what about Taft? I understand some evangelicals, possibly including his 1908 Democratic opponent, William Jennings Bryan, attacked him for his Unitarianism. Some Unitarian ministers have looked at the question (here and here -- and yes, they all seem to be convinced and passionate Democrats and liberals, though they do admit to being charmed by Taft). Any thoughts?
One could argue that Taft's calmer approach to religion and politics didn't quite suit his times. Wilson, who had largely abandoned orthodox Presbyterianism from what I understand, was shrewder in not losing the passionate sense of righteousness and calling, for that seems to be what the country wanted at that point in history.
Exercising his typical political skill, in 1912 Roosevelt latched on to John Brown while at the same time disassociating himself from him. The New Nationalism speech is a stunning example of this. It went like this: he introduced an alarming or controversial idea, generally by quoting from someone else, then would say or hint that he doesn't necessarily agree. He used this method during his presidency, but went full at it with a new vigor in the 1910-1912 period. I just can’t fathom that historians haven’t seen through the muck. His contemporaries sure did.
From New Nationalism:
It is half melancholy and half amusing to see the way in which well-meaning people gather to do honor to the men who, in company with John Brown, and under the lead of Abraham Lincoln, faced and solved the great problems of the nineteenth century, while, at the same time, these same good people nervously shrink from, or frantically denounce, those who are trying to meet the problems of the twentieth century in the spirit which was accountable for the successful solution of the problems of Lincoln's time.See how it works: he brings up John Brown, then runs off to Lincoln. After the speech he backed away from John Brown even further in an editorial in The Outlook:
Here again, in meeting the problems of to-day, let us profit by, and welcome, and co-operate with the John Browns; but let us also remember that the problems can really be solved only if we approach them in th spirit of Abraham Lincoln. (“The Progressives, Past and Present” Sept. 3, 1910)And again in 1911:
"Lincoln was a radical compared to Buchanan and Fillmore; he was a conservative compared to John Brown and Wendell Phillips; and he was right in both positions."Actually, I know why historians have given him a pass: they like the implications of his program: nationalism, economic regulation, and the welfare state (which TR said, as a qualifier, that he didn't want; nevertheless, it was an extension of his ideas).
You asked about Taft and his religion.
The biggest problem for Taft came of his supposed sympathy for the Vatican. It started when (in 1903 approx) he negotiated the Philippines settlement with the Vatican, the U.S. purchase of Vatican lands in the new American territory. It was stupendous diplomacy and superb management by Taft, and it solved a fundamental problem for the islands. Even so, any association with the Pope was damaging. TR knew it, and he used this sentiment to great publicity in 1910 in his little p.r. stunt of avoiding an audience with the pope - his reasons were reasonable, but the overall act was entirely political. (See also the "Dear Maria" / Storer affair).
In 1908, Taft received a bit of prejudice for his Unitarianism, but it was not a large issue, as the voters didn't have much else to go with. You were either for Bryan or for Taft. It was a plain choice. During that election Roosevelt condemned anyone who would use Taft's religion against him.
In 1912, Roosevelt changed tactics, and let go without comment the anti-catholicism and anti-unitarianism sentiments against Taft. First, he associated Taft with Lorimer, a Catholic, and left the association wide open. Secondly, there arose a mini-scandal regarding Taft's letter of introduction to the Pope given to his ADC for a vacation and personal visit to the Vatican. It was used widely against Taft as evidence of his complicity with the Pope. Even the NYT ran an inaccurate a scandal article on it. I have copies of several letters in the Taft papers condemning his religion, saying that since, by his Unitarianism, he denied Christ he should not be President.
During the campaign Taft issued several damnning statements against anyone who would use religion against him and in the campaign generally. The benefactor of it all was Roosevelt, whose stances on it that year do not make for a proud record.
Overall, the use of religion backfired on Roosevelt, and I don't think any candidate has tried the same tactic since. Candidates profess their faith, but they do not use it as a metaphor or as a political tool, as Roosevelt did in 1912.
Please say if I am wrong about this.
the left will accuse W for 'smearing' Roosevelt ... or should it be spelled 'Rosevelt'?
Are you this much fun when you aren't serious?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.