View Full Version : Obama Admin Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/obama-administration-opposes-fdr-prayer-at-wwii-memorial/?cmpid=NL_FNTopHeadlines_20111104
Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The objection was noted during a congressional hearing on Rep. Bill Johnson's, R-Ohio, bill -- the "World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011."
"It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation's distinguished World War II veterans," Johnson said. "President Roosevelt's prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression."
Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer as U.S. and allied troops launched the invasion that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. He asked God to give the allied troops courage and faith, saying, "With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy."
But Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would "dilute" the memorial's central message and therefore "should not be altered."
Snip
We have fallen a long ways in the last 60 years.
More election year baloney sauce to detract from the 'real' issues we need to be dealing with...
Richard :munchin
More election year baloney sauce to detract from the 'real' issues we need to be dealing with...
Richard :munchin
This is a real issue, Bro. This is the camel's neck.
This is a real issue, Bro. This is the camel's neck.
Politicians making an issue of wanting to add another politician's speech to a completed memorial...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qam1fbQmA_s
Richard :munchin
Eagle5US
11-05-2011, 16:14
And any of us are surprised by this....why:confused:
We have, as a Nation, lost both our way - and our identity.
If we had leaders, they should be ashamed.
MOO, this controversy reflects GOP's increasingly incoherent opposition to the current administration.
When the current administration appears to step outside the boundaries of the law, it gets pilloried. When it agrees to play by the rules, it receives a similar drubbing.[Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management] explained to lawmakers that altering the memorial would be contrary to the Commemorative Works Act — a law that prohibits “encroachment by a new commemoration on a existing one.” It also respects the design of the “completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements.”
More generally, I wonder if the inclusion of FDR's prayer advances or hinders both the American public's memory of the Second World War as well as its understanding of that conflict's complex history.
Eagle5US
11-05-2011, 18:24
MOO, this controversy reflects GOP's increasingly incoherent opposition to the current administration.
When the current administration appears to step outside the boundaries of the law, it gets pilloried. When it agrees to play by the rules, it receives a similar drubbing.
More generally, I wonder if the inclusion of FDR advances or hinders the both the American public's memory of the Second World War as well as its understanding of that conflict's complex history.
So - for those of us who only have degrees in something other than "English / Grammar"...
am I correct in interpreting your post as saying that the law actually PREVENTS putting the D-Day prayer on the monument even if there is a motion to do so?:confused:
So - for those of us who only have degrees in something other than "English / Grammar"...
am I correct in interpreting your post as saying that the law actually PREVENTS putting the D-Day prayer on the monument even if there is a motion to do so?:confused:QP Eagle5US--
The answer to your question is "yes."
My understanding of the existing legislation is that Congress gave final say to the National Capital Planning Commission <<LINK (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00008903----000-.html)>> <<LINK2 (http://www.ncpc.gov/ncpc/Main%28T2%29/About_Us%28tr2%29/About_Us%28tr3%29/LegislativeAuthorities.html)>>.
(The other side of this coin is that this measure would protect the removal of an element of an existing monument.)
Eagle5US
11-05-2011, 18:47
Well HELL -
So a good idea is blocked by legislation that is designed for a different purpose - but blocked none the less.
Yet there is a proposal on the floor to circumvent the legislation (or allow an exception to it) and though the good idea faery is courting many members on the positive side...until something changes the letter of the law remains.
Sometimes we regulate ourselves into a friggin corner I guess....:rolleyes:
Thanks for clearing that up...unfortunately, the bulk of my original comment still reflects my current point of view :(
ZonieDiver
11-05-2011, 19:07
And... all of this goes back to Richard's point: WTF does any of THIS have to do with the many serious problems that currently plague our nation?
(Besides, when I toured the WWII memorial, I was reminded more of something from a propaganda film from 1936 Nazi Germany than the heroes of Omaha Beach!)
And... all of this goes back to Richard's point: WTF does any of THIS have to do with the many serious problems that currently plague our nation?
(Besides, when I toured the WWII memorial, I was reminded more of something from a propaganda film from 1936 Nazi Germany than the heroes of Omaha Beach!)
What does it have to do with it? What does a melanoma cell have to do with cancer?
In my opinion, FDR's D-Day prayer, available here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16515&st=&st1=#axzz1csnNX9KY), is a hornets' nest of controversial statements.
In my opinion, FDR's D-Day prayer, available here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16515&st=&st1=#axzz1csnNX9KY), is a hornet's nest of controversial statements.
OMFG...controversial statements!? WTFover. This was DDay, the casualty estimates were up to 50% (way wrong as usual thank God)...but there was no way to know that at the time or if the landings would be successful.
This is our HISTORY, not some religious foray into believership.
So I'll go to your fav subject...slavery...you have no issue going into the 'dark side' of our history and exposing it to daylight in almost every argument you make...and I'm fine with that...put it out there, whatever.
But you have issues with actual history if it relates to a prayer...made by the President for and with the people who were glued to their radios.....why?
History is history, good, bad indif.
ZonieDiver
11-05-2011, 21:13
What does it have to do with it? What does a melanoma cell have to do with cancer?
As someone who lost his best friend to the "Triple M", I am well-acquainted with the association of the two.
I, too, tend to agree with the Republican congressperson. However, there is ONLY so much "political capital" to expend. IF the "R's" tend to spend theirs on issues such as this, or flag-burning, or abortion, or whatever - they will condemn the opportunity they have to eject President Obama and make him make Jimmy Carter look good, or put him into office for FOUR more disastrous years.
At this point, it seems to me that this is the point the Republican party is taking: put Obama back in the WH and let the Dems control both houses of Congress.
At that point, I'll join Jesse Ventura - just not in Mexico!
(Dusty - I love and respect you as a Brother... just disagree on this!)
OMFG...controversial statements!? WTFover. This was DDay, the casualty estimates were up to 50% (way wrong as usual thank God)...but there was no way to know that at the time or if the landings would be successful.
This is our HISTORY, not some religious foray into believership.
So I'll go to your fav subject...slavery...you have no issue going into the 'dark side' of our history and exposing it to daylight in almost every argument you make...and I'm fine with that...put it out there, whatever.
But you have issues with actual history if it relates to a prayer...made by the President for and with the people who were glued to their radios.....why?
History is history, good, bad indif.QP PRB--
To clarify, the history of slavery is not my favorite topic.
Yes, I do agree that history is history. IMO, the core question is: Should a public memorial be used to remind Americans about their past or should it be used to shape how Americans remember their history, especially when the subject is a contemporary event?
In regards to FDR's D-Day prayer, I am of the view that it is a hornets' nest because of FDR the president. He was, as R.A. Divine often pointed out "the ultimate political animal." To me, it is problematic to conclude that his prayer was only an evocation to the Lord God for his blessing. It was also a speech in which FDR sought to frame a political narrative of the war and his leadership in it.
Moreover, because of the complexity of FDR's personality and political wrangling, his wartime diplomacy, the way America fought the war, the relationship between the end of the war and the start of the Cold War, and the perception that World War II was "the Good War," which are all matters of continuing political and historiographical controversy, including that prayer would place the memorial itself at the center of those debates.
To be clear, those debates are of enduring interest to me. Moreover, I think a public re-evaluation of these issues is long overdue, I also believe that a memorial is not an appropriate venue.
Instead, if Americans decide that a speech should be introduced to the memorial, I would much prefer that Eisenhower's (http://www.kansasheritage.org/abilene/ikespeech.html) be used.
My $0.02.
Streck-Fu
11-06-2011, 07:11
You have an extraordinary capacity to bring complexity into simple discussions.
Moreover, because of the complexity of FDR's personality and political wrangling, his wartime diplomacy, the way America fought the war, the relationship between the end of the war and the start of the Cold War, and the perception that World War II was "the Good War," which are all matters of continuing political and historiographical controversy, including that prayer would place the memorial itself at the center of those debates.
As someone who lost his best friend to the "Triple M", I am well-acquainted with the association of the two.
I, too, tend to agree with the Republican congressperson. However, there is ONLY so much "political capital" to expend. IF the "R's" tend to spend theirs on issues such as this, or flag-burning, or abortion, or whatever - they will condemn the opportunity they have to eject President Obama and make him make Jimmy Carter look good, or put him into office for FOUR more disastrous years.
I wouldn't personally make light of death by melanoma-that's how my brother recently died.
I do understand your point, however.
Stargazer
11-06-2011, 13:31
I reviewed the purpose for the memorial written on the National WWII Memorial Webpage. I believe the prayer is inkeeping with the stated purpose.
http://www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=dedication2.asp&subpage=intro
Abbey's reference to an act that prohibit's commemorative changes to the mall may hold water if exceptions had not been made for plagues of Dr. Martin Luther King's historical speech and Senator Robert Dole's efforts to build the WWII Memorial.
History is what it is.. FDR's D-Day Prayer is a key historcial reference to that point in time for Americans. We going to strip it from history books too?
I don't think the majority of those who visit the memorial will view it's meaning beyond the snapshot in time that it is.
You have an extraordinary capacity to bring complexity into simple discussions.
That was the KISS version of a longer post.
alright4u
11-07-2011, 10:34
Well HELL -
So a good idea is blocked by legislation that is designed for a different purpose - but blocked none the less.
Yet there is a proposal on the floor to circumvent the legislation (or allow an exception to it) and though the good idea faery is courting many members on the positive side...until something changes the letter of the law remains.
Sometimes we regulate ourselves into a friggin corner I guess....:rolleyes:
Thanks for clearing that up...unfortunately, the bulk of my original comment still reflects my current point of view :(
FDR did say a prayer for those men crossing the English Channel. We have allowed the very institutions that provided America with a value system and a strong moral backbone to be destroyed by those who renounce Chritianity. Yet, heaven forbid a one of us object to a mosque being built or muslims wanting Sharia law.
I did not know a man in combat who did not pray.
ddoering
11-07-2011, 11:04
"History is what it is.. FDR's D-Day Prayer is a key historcial reference to that point in time for Americans. We going to strip it from history books too?"
I'm sure that is in the works.....
"History is what it is.. FDR's D-Day Prayer is a key historcial reference to that point in time for Americans. We going to strip it from history books too?"
I'm sure that is in the works.....
Well, sure. Look what happened to Colombus, the heroes of the Alamo, Kit Carson, et al.
alright4u
11-07-2011, 12:07
MOO, this controversy reflects GOP's increasingly incoherent opposition to the current administration.
When the current administration appears to step outside the boundaries of the law, it gets pilloried. When it agrees to play by the rules, it receives a similar drubbing.
More generally, I wonder if the inclusion of FDR's prayer advances or hinders both the American public's memory of the Second World War as well as its understanding of that conflict's complex history.
I will invite Lonnie Schoultz- "Da Professor" to play academic games with you. You may regret it.
The current president said a brief prayer when he announced the killing of Bin Laden. Would you want his words inscribed on a monument for GWOT?
The 'Memorial' is to WW2, not just to D-Day.
There are bas relief panels along both sides of the memorial depicting 'key' events - one side is for the ETO and one side is for the PTO.
There is a panel for the 'amphibious invasions' of the ETO and it represents North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France.
There are also panels dedicated to the Airborne as well as to the civilian war efforts - both having had a MAJOR impact on our success in WW2.
There are also a number of citations from the likes of FDR (Day of Infamy speech to Congress), CW Nimitz, and Truman.
And as far as D-Day goes, the commission chose to inscribe part of Ike's D-Day message to his troops ( http://www.wwiimemorial.com/construction/photos/photo.asp?picname=2004-5d_day_quote.jpg ) over many other possibilities.
Well, sure. Look what happened to Colombus, the heroes of the Alamo, Kit Carson, et al.
Yes - we learned to study their actual lives within their historical context vs merely perpetuating their myths.
FDR's D-Day Prayer is a key historcial reference to that point in time for Americans.
Is it? Ike's message is well known and often repeated - anybody ever read FDR's radio message (which he titled "Let Our Hearts Be Stout") before this foofarah kicked off? I'd wager very few.
I don't know how many here have visited the WW2 Memorial - I've been there twice and found its simplicity to be quite powerful. To me, the two "Kilroy was here" inscriptions truly represent the American GI - and IMO, the only things missing are:
- A Bill Mauldin cartoon - http://billmauldin.com/
- An Ernie Pyle description of the character of our fighting forces - http://journalism.indiana.edu/resources/erniepyle/wartime-columns/
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Yes - we learned to study their actual lives within their historical context vs merely perpetuating their myths.[/COLOR]
Not so facile, mi Hermano. I have studied the lives of the examples mentioned, and the modern revisionism is in many cases not only wrong but purposely so, in order to foul the memories of heroes.
A good example would be the exhaustingly accurate and detailed bioraphy of Kit Carson i just read; he has been written off as genocidal by those who ostensibly were "studying his actual life vs merely perpetuating the myth".
Ditto with James Bowie, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone and others.
Caucasian heroes have not only fallen out of vogue, but are frequently demonized by educators.
Ward Churchill would disagree with me on this, I know...
Not so facile, mi Hermano.
Exactly my point. Complicated it is, Jedi.
Richard :munchin
Exactly my point. Complicated it is, Jedi.
Richard :munchin
It's OK. 900 years old someday, too, I will be.
Stargazer
11-07-2011, 15:44
FDR's D-Day Prayer is a key historcial reference to that point in time for Americans.
Is it? Ike's message is well known and often repeated - anybody ever read FDR's radio message (which he titled "Let Our Hearts Be Stout") before this foofarah kicked off? I'd wager very few.
Perhaps my choice of words, were less than perfect...
I doubt my children do (except two who love history), but my parents and those of their generation who gathered for FDR's 'Fireside Chats' most likely do. Having several family members involved in the war (and loved ones that remained behind) it is a historical reference. This particular chat has been retold countless times when recalling that time in their lives.
Americans directly affected by those days, are leaving her landscape. Which to me is all the more reason our history, as it was laid, should be remembered.
Americans directly affected by those days, are leaving her landscape. Which to me is all the more reason our history, as it was laid, should be remembered.And just what history should that be?
Should it be the one as remembered by some Americans that casts the Second World War as "The Good War"? (Before one says "yes," I would recommend a review of how that interpretation emphasizes America's industrial and economic might while effacing the military effectiveness of the armed services--especially the U.S. Army.)
Or the should it be the history remembered by other Americans that casts World War II as an event of such complexity and tragedy that it defies any single explanation?
An aside. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California is a popular tourist destination for travelers from Central and Eastern Europe. Each year, tens, if not hundreds of thousands, go there to pay their respects to an American many consider responsible for the liberation of the millions of Europeans who lived under the iron fist of Soviet Russia.
How and why did the Soviets come to dominate so much of Europe--especially Poland--given that the United States fought a war to end tyranny and to defend the basic God given freedoms that all persons should have? Did FDR's wartime diplomacy--especially at the Yalta Conference--have anything to do with it? Do conservatives really want to give FDR's war leadership this much credit for the outcome of World War II?
Sigi, there seems to be a forest obstructing your view of the tree in question. :rolleyes:
Pat
Sigi, there seems to be a forest obstructing your view of the tree in question. :rolleyes:
PatMaybe it is the one in Katyn.
Sigi, there seems to be a forest obstructing your view of the tree in question. :rolleyes:
Pat
No kidding.
I'm not venerating FDR's decision making, or the final outcome of the war.
Simply, a point in time.....A Kennedy shot, 9/11 towers moment when every American that had access to a radio listened to the President when the Invasion of Europe/DD was announced. Every relative I have that was Stateside remembers that day and that moment.
Simply, a point in time.....
Simply - the guys making that crossing (my uncle and future father-in-law were there) heard Ike's message...which is engraved upon the walls of that memorial.
IMO - the substance of this whole "add a speech" foofarah is political nonsense.
Richard :munchin
Simply - the guys making that crossing (my uncle and future father-in-law were there) heard Ike's message...which is engraved upon the walls of that memorial.
IMO - the substance of this whole "add a speech" foofarah is political nonsense.
Richard :munchin
I thought you were there!
The Reaper
11-07-2011, 19:25
How and why did the Soviets come to dominate so much of Europe--especially Poland--given that the United States fought a war to end tyranny and to defend the basic God given freedoms that all persons should have? Did FDR's wartime diplomacy--especially at the Yalta Conference--have anything to do with it? Do conservatives really want to give FDR's war leadership this much credit for the outcome of World War II?
Because Stalin was not a particularly sophisticated man, and he had paid the butcher's bill to liberate/occupy those countries. In his world, possession was more than 9/10ths of the law. He had been fighting the Nazis on the ground for more than four years when we finally landed in Normandy.
Stalin gave some assurances to Roosevelt that free elections would be held in these countries, but only a fool, or someone who really wanted to believe that would have trusted him.
My understanding was that Stalin stated that Poland was the traditional invasion route from Western Europe, and it had to be pro-communist to protect the Rodina from future aggression.
Ultimately, I believe that Americans were tired of war and were unwilling to pay the price that would have been required to wrest Eastern Europe from the Soviet hordes that occupied it. After all, the Red Army fielded over 30,000,000 soldiers during the war and lost more than 1/3 of them to the Nazis. Not to diminsh our efforts, but 80% of the German casualties were from the Eastern Front.
I believe that Roosevelt sold out the Eastern Europeans at Yalta thinking that there was another possible way for them other than 45 years of slavery, persecution, and indentured servitude to the Soviet Empire.
Unfortunately for him (and more importantly, them), he died soon afterwards, and his legacy was the sordid history of millions killed in proxy wars and trillions of dollars spent in the ensuing Cold War.
TR
My understanding was that Stalin stated that Poland was the traditional invasion route from Western Europe, and it had to be pro-communist to protect the Rodina from future aggression.
Ultimately, I believe that Americans were tired of war and were unwilling to pay the price that would have been required to wrest Eastern Europe from the Soviet hordes that occupied it. After all, the Red Army fielded over 30,000,000 soldiers during the war and lost more than 1/3 of them to the Nazis. Not to diminsh our efforts, but 80% of the German casualties were from the Eastern Front.TR
TR Sir,
Your thoughts on this subject mirror my late Uncle's.
Spot-On, IMVHO, and a very well thought out perspective on the issue.:munchin
Holly