Re Booker T.s view: Although (or perhaps because) he attended a religious Seminary for about a year, he did not have a high regard for organized religion. On the other hand, he made it a practice to read “a chapter or at least a few verses from the Bible every day.”

Regarding the Rosenbergs, if your point was that DuBois defended them in the same way, he defended others based on the theory of their actions without regard for the reality, great. However, your original statement was that they were people of intelligence and power who used their capabilities for evil results. This is a different point. I’m just trying to make sure I follow your argument.

You wrote: “Final point: re architects of our constitution saw fit to provide for a separation of church and state. Not so. The Constitution enjoins Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. To know what the founding fathers meant, one needs to look at how they lived and practiced.”

On the separation of church and state in the US, I’ll allow Thomas Jefferson to write for himself:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
(http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html)

Great stuff to be digging into. I’m curious. What was Booker T’s view?

Du Bois traveled to Russia and China several times (I’ll build a time-line to be more accurate someday). I mentioned Stalin and Mao because Du Bois refers to their ruling system with affection in that the socialist system treats everyone as equals. He felt he was treated as an equal in those countries, but it seems to me his sense of equality was among the intelligentia and not the oppressed peasantry.

I hope to expand on this theme as time permits.

You disagree that Du Bois’s statement that, “…the greatest gift of the Soviet Union to modern civilization was the dethronement of the clergy and the refusal to let religion be taught in the public schools” is more “progressive than ignorant.”

I’m not sure what ‘progressive’ in that context means, but I believe that for a man to profess freedom for one group (based on race) while professing admiration for the banning of another (based on faith) which included severe persecution, expropriation of property, etc. since 1918, is astoundingly ignorant, . link

The separation of church/state in the Soviet Union context, meant the imposition of one and only one church, in that the state is the church. For him not to see that was, imho, astoundingly ignorant.
He saw what he wanted to see, the good there, the bad here. Of course he was righteously angry with America and justifiably so. The question is how do you deal with that anger. I believe BTW’s more sanguine approach was a healthier way to go.

As to my mentioning the Rosenbergs, Du Bois defended them, as did others. (Yes, we the public knows for certain now that the US Govt was right.)

I’m not ready to lump all religions over all time together to pit their record of atrocities vs. who? atheists? From corrupt popes to embezzling ministers and power hungry imams, any institution, faith-based or governmental, can be “hijacked” by persuasive charismatic individuals. The founding fathers knew this and devised the best system of the day to attempt to assure equal treatment under the law. It’s in the interpretation of the law that things got and get sticky.

Yet, Judaism (G*d’s Word, not necessarily the people who profess it) provided humanity with a code of conduct that works, with room for others to believe, or not. My 2nd most favorite biblical Jew, Saul (Paul) brought the teachings of Judaism’s Christ to the world for Gentile as well as Jew to revel in.

Final point: re architects of our constitution saw fit to provide for a separation of church and state. Not so. The Constitution enjoins Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. To know what the founding fathers meant, one needs to look at how they lived and practiced. But that will have to wait, I’m afraid. I’ve got to root (even pray) for my Boston Red Sox.
Best, RAC

Interesting assessment on WEB DuBois’ comfort in his own skin. I don’t know the history here, I’d be interested to hear what this might have been rooted in, and how you feel it shaped his reaction to Booker T and his viewpoint.

Unfortunately, in your post, you go another unsupported direction.

The comparison between Stalin and Mao and Dubois serves to demonize DuBois, rather than address his points and how they relate to your opening statement. If you are attempting to discredit an academic, which Dubois certainly was, you are better off showing the flaws in his arguments, rather than calling him evil and concluding that makes him irrelevant.

Also, grouping the Rosenbergs in with Stalin and Mao is a weak is confusing given that though they were certainly guilty of treason, their crimes in no way directly caused the deaths of MILLIONS of their fellow citizens. If you want to make an argument about the effects of the Soviet development of atomic weaponry, Klaus Fluchs bears the responsibility for that to a far, far greater extent that then Rosenbergs.

Moving on, you provide only one quotation from Dubois, and it is the first mention or reference to religious belief that you’ve made in the post. I’m not entirely sure how this is related to your previous point regarding “One’s belief in a cause” and the methods to achieve it. If your point is that here are people who were atheists and they did bad things, therefore DuBois is bad, your argument is flawed on several levels. First, your own reference includes the Rosenbergs, who were Jewish, and second, history is full of religiously motivated actions that were anything but ethical. (Ranging from the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, to the Jihadist movements and many, many others.)

Personally, I disagree that that quotation is astoundingly ignorant for DuBois. It is perhaps ignorant of the realities of Soviet life, but the philosophy that education should not be dependent on
or require a specific religious faith is more progressive than ignorant. Even the architects of our own constitution saw fit to provide for a separation of church and state, with the result being that any child, regardless of religion, can go to school and learn the subjects applicable to the second of those institutions.

That’s my two cents. I’d love to see your individual sections broken apart and addressed separately, especially your opening observation, which may shed some very interesting light onto the interaction between Booker T and DuBois.