Text of Ron Reagan Jr.'s Remarks at Father's Burial Service

Text of remarks by Ron Reagan Jr. at Friday's burial service for former President Reagan, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

RON REAGAN JR.: He is home now. He is free. In his final letter to the American people, Dad wrote, "I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life." This evening, he has arrived.

History will record his worth as a leader. We here have long since measured his worth as a man. Honest, compassionate, graceful, brave. He was the most plainly decent man you could ever hope to meet.

He used to say, "A gentleman always does the kind thing." And he was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. A gentle man.

Big as he was, he never tried to make anyone feel small. Powerful as he became, he never took advantage of those who were weaker. Strength, he believed, was never more admirable than when it was applied with restraint. Shopkeeper, doorman, king or queen, it made no difference, Dad treated everyone with the same unfailing courtesy. Acknowledging the innate dignity in us all.

The idea that all people are created equal was more than mere words on a page, it was how he lived his life. And he lived a good, long life. The kind of life good men lead. But I guess I'm just telling you things you already know.

Here's something you may not know, a little Ronald Reagan trivia for you, his entire life, Dad had an inordinate fondness for earlobes. Even as a boy, back in Dixon, Ill., hanging out on a street corner with his friends, they knew that if they were standing next to Dutch, sooner or later, he was going to reach over and grab hold of their lobe, give it a workout there. Sitting on his lap watching TV as a kid, same story. He would have hold of my ear lobe. I'm surprised I have any lobes left after all of that.

And you didn't have to be a kid to enjoy that sort of treatment. Serving in the Screen Actors Guild with his great friend William Holden, the actor, best man at his wedding, Bill got used to it. They would be there at the meetings, and Dad would have hold of his earlobe. There they'd be, some tense labor negotiation, two big Hollywood movie stars, hand in earlobe.

He was, as you know, a famously optimistic man. Sometimes such optimism leads you to see the world as you wish it were as opposed to how it really is. At a certain point in his presidency, Dad decided he was going to revive the thumbs-up gesture. So he went all over the country, of course, giving everybody the thumbs up.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I found ourselves in the presidential limousine one day returning from some big event. My mother was there and Dad was, of course, thumbs-upping the crowd along the way, and suddenly, looming in the window on his side of the car, was this snarling face. This fellow was reviving an entirely different hand gesture. And hoisted an entirely different digit in our direction. Dad saw this and without missing a beat turned to us and said, "You see? I think it's catching on."

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

Humble as he was, he never would have assumed a free pass to heaven. But in his heart of hearts, I suspect he felt he would be welcome there. And so he is home. He is free.

Those of us who knew him well will have no trouble imagining his paradise. Golden fields will spread beneath a blue dome of a western sky. Live oaks will shadow the rolling hillsides. And someplace, flowing from years long past, a river will wind toward the sea. Across those fields, he will ride a gray mare he calls Nancy D. They will sail over jumps he has built with his own hands. He will, at the river, carry him over the shining stones. He will rest in the shade of the trees.

Our cares are no longer his. We meet him now only in memory. But we will join him soon enough. All of us. When we are home. When we are free.

The reason I asked what you thought is because I know people who feel otherwise. That just because you say you have acccepted the Lord doesn't necessarily mean you're saved. You have to live it. But if you truly are, the actions will follow.

That scripture you quoted in Revelations has nothing to do with salvation; like I said doctrines and traditions of men/women run wild within Christian Churches. There are plenty of lukewarm believers that are saved. Like I said salvation is very simple. Once we accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour; the rest is not up to us but up to Jesus. When we think otherwise we're over stepping.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of folks attending church that aren't saved. But making salvation harder than what the scriptures teach is a man thing, not Our Lord's.

You have to live it. But if you truly are, the actions will follow.

Its a statement I will not agree with in the least. Many times that's the case; lots of times its not. I trust Our Lord in all things....your friends need to do that; they appear to playing the wrong part here.

The politics of Mr. Reagan's son have nothing to do with my comment. His memories of his father, expressed in a service to commemorate his father's passing, should not be a subject for judgmental wise-cracks. And the particular passage, which you and several others have referred to, should not offend any genuinely religious person. He spoke of the genuine faith and sincere commitment of his father. He distinguished his father from poseurs and hypocrites, but named no one as such. Only one who acknowledges wearing his "Faith" on his sleeve for ulterior motives, could possibly take offense.

If some folk are looking for a fight, because they do not like the son's politics, they should wait for a more appropriate occasion. His father's passing and funeral is not a fit occasion for such confrontational efforts.

Ontos-on-Thanks for the kind words. I have been lurking on Free Republic since early 1998 but seldom post. Like you, I prefer to dwell on the beautiful eulogies of this past week and try not to read too much into anything. When I take a moderate stance on FR it seems someone wants to slam me. Years ago, when I objected to being accosted by anti-gay protesters on my church's steps, I was slammed for advocating the gay lifestyle even though my minister had openly condemned it. Why don't Freepers realize how hateful they sound in some of these rants!!!! I don't think RWR would agree with any of this rancor.

Bump!

Just realize you're not alone..

I dont' think you just believe, and then carry on sinning and get to heaven. And I think there is Scripture from Peter and Paul which points to having to walk the walk to remain in Grace. That doesn't mean you're sinless, it means that as you progress in your walk with the Lord you sin less and less. If this isn't happening, I don't think you get there. And your question about Bill was a good one.

The admonishment about 'judge not, lest ye be judged' has to do with the judgement of the State of Grace someone is in, not actions. We are permitted to judge actions as right or wrong, in fact it's our duty. But nobody is allowed to point to someone else and say 'you're not saved', 'you're going to hell.'

You can believe in your heart and continue to have abortions, continue to steal time from your employer by not giving him/her all you've got, by grumbling, complaining, by gossiping, etc., etc., I don't believe you can continue on that path indefinitely and be saved. Actions do matter, even if they are not what can and does initially bring you Grace.

I included you in my reply as I really agree with the tone of your posts. I fully agree we can disagree but calling other Freepers names because they don't see eye to eye either makes me sign off or go to another thread. I get so tired of reading about the crusty suit one, the swimmer and similar childish rants. I agree with their sentiments, just get tired of the silliness. As I stated, I know Ron hates Bush and Bush is much more of a man than Ron, but he just lost a father and I can cut him some slack for that one day.

"Seems truth hurts. Reagan didn't wear his religion on his sleeve."

Ron P doesn't have religion to wear on his sleeve... he is an admitted atheist.

This kind of political backstabbing at President Bush while burying his father is a lame attemp at attention getting.

He is an arrogant, self-promoting POS.

Ronald Reagan was a great President and a great American. I value him for his public life and public service.

Undeniably,He was not a great father. Family values were not that important to him on a personal level. Allowing his children to be raised by nannies and surrogates for absentee parents in the cesspool that is Hollywood is sad.

It is obvious Ron P and Patti suffered greatly. But they are middle aged adults now, and the time is long past to realize their parents did the best they could with the emotional equipment they had. Time to forgive and move on.

when I objected to being accosted by anti-gay protesters on my church's steps, I was slammed for advocating the gay lifestyle even though my minister had openly condemned it

LOL....that's why I stay here and post after seeing so many folks come and go.

If I let myself be run off, well....then the terrorists win! :o)

"Seems truth hurts. Reagan didn't wear his religion on his sleeve."

Its a different time than it was then. NOw the media makes sure every important Politician's religious proclivities are at the forefront.

(they want to keep those stinkin' Christians out of power mainly so their sacred cow of abortion can continue)

"Why you need to make a silly, caustic comment about a son's heartfelt rememberance of his father, totally escapes me. If there was something wrong with the passage that you quote, it would still not be a fit subject for discussion by non-family members. But there is absolutely nothing really even controversial about it."

William, I was going to reply to your comments yesterday, but didn't want to waste the time. Instead, today, I'll let the NY Times waste theirs:

Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It
NY Times June 15, 2004 | Sheryl Gay Stolberg

...But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy that castigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush...

...Ron Reagan, a television commentator who has frequently been critical of Mr. Bush, has already said as much. In 2000, he fired a shot at Mr. Bush in Philadelphia during the Republican convention, which featured a tribute to his father. "What's his accomplishment?" Mr. Reagan asked then. "That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"...

..."The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," Mr. Reagan said then. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the 80's. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's - these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."...

There is no question about it. Ron Reagan used the funeral of his father for political purpises...he "Wellstoned" the moment so he could slap Bush.

Know your enemy.

Nothing you write has anything to do with my comments. If the shoe doesn't fit President Bush, there is no attack in the comment. If you feel that it does, than you have no complaint. The comment was a general one, and could fit a great many phoney politicians through the generations.

And now that the tears from the funeral have dried, I will express my own thought that it is absolutely outrageous for the President's supporters to compare him to Ronald Reagan. Reagan fought for the reduction of Government. Reagan did not allow a Karl Rove to shape his policies to appeal to groups as indicated by old polls. He sought to lead his party, as well as America in general, to do what he considered right, according to the lights that God gave him. He sought to lead, not accommodate.

It is that leading, not accommodating, that makes all the difference. The Medicare, Education, Aids aid to Africa, are all examples of seeking to accommodate the Left. So is the continued exposure of women in combat. (Reagan, remember, is the President that finally shot down the E.R.A..) I could go on, but I do not want to tarnish this period of mourning with a political spat. But do not get sanctimonious over the political debate.

Frankly, I did not realize that the comments about young Reagan's politics went in the direction that you have clarified. I had rather assumed that he had become a "Liberal," from the types of comments that have appeared above. He obviously has not. I hope that you are not suggesting that we on the right do not have a right to criticise the President. That would be a very novel interpretation of Conservative duty.

But again, even if Ron Reagan was the biggest "Liberal" on earth, his rememberances of his father at a funeral ought not to be subject to debate!!

William Flax Return Of The God Web Site

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.