The world, and this country in particular, owes much to the effort and example that Booker T. Washington set as living proof that, in this country, even when the cards are stacked against you, it is possible to rise up from adversity to inspire others.

Thank you, William Craft, for sharing.

The U.S. Chamber’s History: The idea of a national institution to represent the unified interests of U.S. business first took shape when President William Howard Taft, in a speech before Congress on December 7, 1911, addressed the need for a “central organization in touch with associations and chambers of commerce throughout the country and able to keep purely American interests in a closer touch with different phases of commercial affairs.” Four months later, on April 12, 1912, President Taft’s vision became a reality when a group of 700 delegates from various commercial and trade organizations came together to create a unified body of business interest that today is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 1925, construction on the Chamber headquarters was completed on property that had belonged to Daniel Webster (read the history of the building), and the U.S. business community made it a rallying point for promoting and defending free enterprise and individual opportunity. More than 90 years later, the Chamber has grown to represent more than 3 million businesses, nearly 3,000 state and local chambers, 830 associations, and over 90 American Chambers of Commerce abroad.The U.S. Chamber and the legacy of Daniel Webster share more than just the hallowed ground that is now 1615 H Street Northwest. This venerable institution and this statesman’s spirit share an unwavering commitment to democracy, individual opportunity, and free enterprise. They are forever bonded by the words of Webster, which were inscribed in stone in the original Chamber building: “Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.” — Daniel Webster, June 17, 1825, Speech Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, Charlestown, Massachusetts

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