Reagan on the place of religion in politics
The co-existence of this world and the next was a continuous and conscious theme in Reagan’s utterances. In his beautiful speech at Pointe du Hoc he said that the soldiers in the Normandy landing had faith “that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next.” In his last speech as president, as I’ve noted, he subtlely merged the mundane image of the “city streets” with the divine image of the Shining City on a Hill. And in his farewell message to America, handwritten in a single draft at his dining room table in 1994 as Alzheimer’s was beginning to close in on him, he said: “When the Lord calls me home, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.” That eternal optimism, writes James Lakely, was born of Reagan’s abiding sense that God is always with us and that whatever happens to us, including the manner of our death, is part of God’s plan for us. Given Reagan’s unusual experience of the closeness of God to our life in this world, it is no surprise that he had articulate ideas about the place of religion in society and politics. Here are excerpts from a talk he gave on that subject at an ecumenical prayer breakfast in August 1984:
I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City…. Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2004 10:02 AM | Send Comments
Reagan disobeyed the Catholic Church, he got a divorce. Enough about Reagan and his religion Uh, matt, yes he did disobey the Catholic Church. But he wasn’t a Catholic. Mr Matt reflects the “no-fault” ethos of the day. It is not true that Ronald Reagan “got a divorce”. His wife, Jane Wyman, is the one who filed, citing his distracting union duties as “emotional cruelty”, or whatever they called it in the midcentury California Republic. Posted by: Reg Cæsar on June 7, 2004 7:04 PMDid matt (lower case) really not know that Reagan was not a Catholic? And did he really not know that Reagan’s first wife divorced him, not he her? Doesn’t matt feel he ought to know at least the bare minimum about a subject before he pronounces opinions about it? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 8, 2004 1:30 PM |