Corazon's Corner

Dear GOP: Thomas Paine Wouldn't Like You

2012-02-07T04:01:00.006-07:00

Over at his excellent blog, historian J.L. Bell takes Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to task for a recent (and fake) quote he used during his Nevada Caucus speech. Here is the video:

This is a stirring quote and Romney supporters gobbled it up like there was no tomorrow. Only one problem: it's bogus. As J.L. Bell points out via Buzzfeed:

The quote is widely attributed to Paine online, but searching through his works [also easily done online] revealed that the quote doesn't appear in any of them. Fred Shapiro, editor of the authoritative Yale Book of Quotations published by Yale University Press, told BuzzFeed that "the notion that Thomas Paine said this is extremely ridiculous."

Apparently Mitt Romney got the message...kinda...sorta. A couple days after making the historical faux pas, Romney abandoned referencing Thomas Paine but not the quote:

Sorry, Governor. Thanks for trying. You still failed.

But in fairness to Governor Romney (and I personally have no problem with the man or his candidacy), this is not the first time that a GOP figure has misused Thomas Paine. I am reminded of a few years ago when radio nut-job Glenn Beck kept invoking the legacy of Thomas Paine to support his conservative talking points. Heck, Beck even went so far as to write a book entitled "Common Sense" (just like Paine's), which he claimed was written in part to honor one of his favorite revolutionary characters. Beck also invoked Thomas Paine on his television and radio programs on numerous occasions. For example:

Yes, it is fair to say that Glenn Beck once had a deep love affair with one Thomas Paine, and GOP activists surely gobbled up this bogus actor's intense portrayal of a modern day, Tea Party-loving Thomas Paine, who not only just happened to agree with everything they believe, but also presents himself as a creepy Dracula figure.

But, sadly, Glenn Beck has given up on Thomas Paine in recent years. Why is that, you ask? Because Beck eventually learned the painful truth that Thomas Paine had almost nothing in common with modern day conservatism. I guess this is what happens when you try to preach history at the same time that you are learning it. Things can get a bit messy, a lesson Glenn Beck has learned first-hand as he came to the realization that the REAL Thomas Paine stood for almost everything Beck hates. For example:

1.) Beck believes that America is a "Christian Nation" and that religion in America is under attack. Thomas Paine believed that religion was a fraud and a plague in society. As Paine stated, "The Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any” and " “We must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries.”

2.) Beck believes that progressive taxation is unconstitutional and destructive of American society. Thomas Paine believed strongly in progressive taxation. Paine wanted estate taxes, land taxes, revenue taxes, taxes on the rich, etc.

3.) Beck believes that America was never meant to be a welfare nation. Thomas Paine believed that it was one of the duties of the new republic to provide welfare for the needy.

Thomas Paine also favored feminism, large government, government programs, animal rights, restrictions on religion, and a number of other things that Glenn Beck believes are "evil." In short, Thomas Paine and Glenn Beck are about as far apart from one another as you can get. Perhaps this is why Glenn Beck has moved on to hijacking and pretending to be a different founder these days?

So what is the deal with modern day conservatives invoking the legacy of arguably our most liberal founding father? Are they just stupid?

I believe it is because Thomas Paine is such a quotable founder and his rhetoric appeals to virtually everyone these days (as it did back in his day). Paine was a FANTASTIC writer. His words cut as deep to the 21st century reader as they did to the 18th century citizen. For this reason, Paine is a desirable man to have in your corner. But the fact remains that Thomas Paine was not supportive of the type of government/politics that Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and most of today's GOP proclaim as gospel. And I am not criticizing those political views. There is much in modern day conservatism that I find valuable. With that said, this bizarre GOP love affair with all things Thomas Paine needs to stop. Thomas Paine was NOT a conservative, and I believe he would detest today's Republican candidates, windbag talk radio hosts and Tea Party protesters.

Sorry folks, Paine was an evil "progressive."

Book Review: Architects of Annihilation

2012-01-30T14:23:00.001-07:00

Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. By Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002. Pp. 514).

The events that led up to the atrocities of the Holocaust have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the fog of Holocaust historiography is no small task for any writer. In their work, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, historians Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim have effectively provided simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to this critical historical event. Instead of prescribing to the traditional view of Holocaust historiography, Aly and Heim have challenged the status quo interpretation of the causes of the Holocaust by rejecting the notion that Nazi atrocities are simply too evil to be understood from a scholarly perspective. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that it is both logical and prudent to view the Holocaust as a well constructed and detailed plan of mass execution (Pp. 4-5).

The central component in the development of Aly and Heim’s thesis is their suggestion that the Nazi extermination of the Jewish population was not motivated purely by racial hatred, but by a desire to establish German economic hegemony over the whole of Europe. In an effort to secure their economic destiny, the Nazi regime embarked on a, “negative population policy,” which sought to achieve, “an optimum population size” (Pp. 4). In other words, the Nazi’s targeted undesirable groups of the population in an effort to purify the German economic machine. The Nazi justification for the elimination of specific groups of the population came from the belief that, ‘Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for ‘readjustment’ and ‘reconstruction,’” (Pp. 7). Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population made a perfect target for the Nazi’s “negative population policy,” because of their strong participation in the German and Austrian economies, which was quickly branded as a detriment to Germany’s quest for economic superiority. Instead of being branded and persecuted by racist xenophobes, Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population’s sufferings originate out of the Nazi doctrine of economic domination.

To help support their claims, Aly and Heim appeal to the role of Auschwitz as a micro history of sorts, which they believe is representative of the larger Nazi policy of “negative population.” Aly and Heim point out the fact that the construction of Auschwitz coincided with Germany’s plan to improve the economic situation in Poland. From the Nazi perspective, Poland was a virtual economic backwater in desperate need of modernization. According to Aly and Heim, the construction and implementation of Auschwitz as a means of population control became a medium through which Poland could be put on the path towards economic prosperity, In other words, the “undesirable” or “excess” segments of the population that were seen as a burden to the Polish economy could simply be collected and eventually eliminated in the most efficient way possible. This bold move towards “social modernization,” in which segments of the Polish population were forced into camps such as Auschwitz, gave the Nazi regime all the justification it needed to further its acts of brutality.

In addition to their analysis of Auschwitz and other parts of Eastern Europe, Aly and Heim devote a large amount of their book to the role of social and economic “technocrats,” who they believe were the principle developers of the Nazi policy of population control. In this regard, Aly and Heim are, yet again, directly challenging the traditional historiography of Holocaust research. Instead of placing the blame on the shoulders of Nazi elites, Aly and Heim suggest that it was the contributions of social scientists (sociologists, economists, demographers, etc.) that were instrumental in developing the Nazi doctrine of negative population. Aly and Heim clearly support the notion that the German policy of population control would not have come to fruition without the involvement of these social “technocrats,” who were given free rein to develop and present their Darwinian-influenced ideas of population control and economic growth to the Nazi hierarchy.

Though clearly a unique perspective into the development of German economics and population control, this book fails to address the role of racism anti-Semitism in the Nazi doctrine of “negative population.” Despite Aly and Heim’s sporadic mentioning of German racism, there is a noticeable omission of its possible influence in shaping Germany’s policy towards the “undesirable” segments of society. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that German racism and anti-Semitism were used as a secondary influence, which helped to bring about the primary goal of German economic superiority.

Despite its controversial claims, Architects of Annihilation should be seen as an enlightening perspective into the possible motives behind the horrors of the Holocaust. Gots Aly and Susanne Heim’s interpretation of Nazi policy is likely to inspire a plethora of debate between critics and supporters on the issue. Regardless of what skeptics or believers may say, this work should remain as a unique contribution to the historiography of the Holocaust.

Zakary's First Play

2012-01-22T20:42:00.002-07:00

Here are a few pictures (and video) from Zakary's first school play. His part: an ant. Cute stuff:

And a video:

Great job, little buddy! The best ant I have EVER seen!

Viva Chile: The United States and the Chilean Coup of 1973

2012-01-20T12:51:00.002-07:00

In the United States, September 11, 2001 is a date equated with terrible tragedy. Virtually every American who lived through that event remembers with horror they felt when they first saw the images of the burning Trade Towers and the Pentagon. That appalling event has been forever seared into the collective memory of American society in too many ways to mention. And though 9/11 has been unofficially claimed as a American day of mourning, the date has an even older meaning for a nation that is often forgotten in the muddle of world affairs. Twenty-eight years earlier, on September 11, 1973, the Chilean nation watched in disbelief as General Agusto Pinochet led an orchestrated coup to overthrow their socialist president Salvador Allende. With the same bewilderment that captivated Americans at the sight of the Trade Towers collapsing, the Chilean people were mesmerized as they witnessed the destruction of their government’s headquarters, known as La Moneda. They listened intently to Radio Agricultura’s broadcast of President Allende’s final words: “Viva Chile!” Shortly thereafter, Chileans came to the realization that September 11 would be a hallmark day in their own history, even though it is currently overshadowed by America’s tragedy.

How and why the Chilean Golpe del Estado (the Chilean coup) took place is both complicated and controversial. The convoluted makeup of Chilean politics, along with its struggling economy were certainly factors in the eventual overthrow, but they do not tell the whole story. Chile also found itself thrown onto the major stage of international politics, caught in a virtual tug-o-war between rival nations. Once the Marxist agenda of presidential candidate Salvador Allende gained serious support, the United States felt forced to intervene to protect its own interests. It was the political divisions within Chile, combined with the involvement of U.S. interests in shaping Chilean politics that created an atmosphere of political tension, and was the major catalyst for the Chilean coup of 1973.

While it is true that the shaping of Chilean politics and government began in the nineteenth century, the major factors are more modern. During the 1960s and 1970s, Chile was a nation with a strong tradition of democratic elections and practices. By the early 1960s, Chilean politics had become diverse and complex. Five major political parties had formed within Chile, each promising economic prosperity to the people: The extreme right of Chilean politics consisted of the liberals and conservatives, who merged to form the National Party, the Radical Party and the Christian Democratic Party were predominantly centrist parties, and the Socialist and Communist Parties made up the extreme left. The majority of Chilean people during the early 1960s favored the center of the political spectrum, in particular the Christian Democratic Party. In 1964 the party won the Chilean presidency with the strong leadership of Eduardo Frei. Frei promised the Chilean people sweeping reforms and economic prosperity. By the latter end of the decade, however, the party had lost momentum. Their inability to establish a coalition with the Radical Party (the party that most closely shared their views) spelled the beginning of the end for the Democratic Christian Party.

The economy also remained a problematic issue for the Chilean government. Compared to other Latin American nations, the Chilean economy was at the higher echelon, but was also on the decline. Soaring inflation rates festered the Chilean economy. In fact, From 1972-1974, Chilean inflation rates were the worst on the planet. The Democratic Christian Party had worked tirelessly to redirect the course of the economy, but met with only minimal success. As a result, the door was opened to the other political parties to seize power.

By 1970, Chilean politics were ripe for change. The political left began gaining new support for its agenda, promising a new prosperous era for the nation. At the head of the Socialist agenda was Salvador Allende. Allende had been in government for many years, and had even run for President three times before. His agenda had always lacked the support that the Democratic Christians enjoyed, and as a result, Allende was never able to achieve the presidency.

The Presidential election of 1970 gave Allende and the Socialists a golden opportunity to finally win. The political right of Chilean politics had lost support, and President Frei of the Democratic Christians was unable to run again for the presidency (the Chilean constitution allowed a person to serve as President for one term of six years). With Frei’s departure, the Democratic Christians had nobody as popular to run against Allende. The left nominated Jorge Alessandri, a former Chilean president, while the Democratic Christians nominated the unknown and unpopular Radomiro Tomic. For once it looked as though Allende had a serious chance to win the election

International reaction to the Chilean election was diverse. The United States took a strong stance opposing the Allende campaign. In his memoirs, Henry Kissinger stated that Allende’s strongest ambition was for Chile and Cuba to unite, and to “create the revolution in Latin America.” The very idea that socialist governments could spring up in Latin America was unacceptable to the United States, which had already been embroiled in problems with Cuba. To make matters worse, Allende, in the words of Kissinger, desired to “undermine U.S. position in the Western Hemisphere by violence if necessary.” Kissinger’s concerns with Salvador Allende’s intentions prove problematic, when compared with the statements of the U.S. ambassador to Chile. In January of 1970 Edward Korry, the U.S ambassador to Chile, told the Nixon Administration that the dangers Chile posed to the United States were greatly exaggerated. “I see little that will endanger U.S. real interests in the country, in the area, or in the hemisphere.” Kissinger’s attitudes toward Chilean government officials also indicate a level of arrogance. In a meeting with Gabriel Valdes, the Chilean foreign minister, Kissinger stated that, “Nothing important can come from the South…The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, and crosses over to Washington.” Valdes replied to Kissinger’s comments with, “Mr. Kissinger, you know nothing of the South.” Kissinger then rudely ended the conversation with, “And I don’t care.”

Despite Kissinger’s comments that the Southern hemisphere was irrelevant in world affairs, the Nixon Administration clearly took note of what was transpiring in Chile. Allende’s promises to nationalize the Chilean copper mines and other assets unnerved White House officials. American businesses within Chile (particularly in the copper industry) quickly developed a sense of fear that if Allende were to win, they would lose all they had worked for.

It was under these circumstances that the Nixon Administration decided to act. President Nixon authorized the CIA to provide any needed support to oppose Allende. This entailed monetary aid given to Allende’s opponents. The aid given to Allende’s opponents was in response to the alleged aid given to Allende from Cuba. The CIA had reported that Cuba had pumped $350,000 into the Allende campaign, and that Fidel Castro himself was helping to lead the charge to get Allende elected. For the United States, it seemed as though Chile was the stage for a much greater, and on-going fight with Communism.

Despite the efforts of the CIA and other U.S. officials, Salvador Allende was democratically elected the president of Chile on September 4, 1970. The official election results gave Allende 36% of the vote, while Alessandri gained 34% and Tomic 27%. Regardless of the fact that Allende had won in a constitutionally and democratically sound election, the Nixon Administration still saw his elections as, “a challenge to our national interest.” The mere thought that a second Cuba could be on the horizon caused U.S. officials to find another solution to the Chilean crisis. As Henry Kissinger stated, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

It was under these circumstances that the Nixon Administration and the CIA corroborated with Chilean officials to seek an alternative to Allende. Initially, it was hoped that a loophole in the Chilean Constitution would provide the answer. According to the Chilean Constitution, any president elected without a majority (51%) had to be elected in the Chilean Congress. Tradition had always obligated the Congress to affirm the winner of the popular vote, but under these circumstances, the U.S. hoped to change precedence. The plan called for the Chilean Congress to elect the runner up (Alessandri) to the Presidency. Alessandri would then step down, and another election (one in which former president Eduardo Frei would be eligible for) would be held. The United States banked on the hope that Frei’s popularity, coupled with U.S. backing, would carry him past Allende in the new elections. President Nixon justified the U.S. response by pointing out the fact that Allende had only been elected by 1/3 of the popular vote. Nixon also stated that the U.S. had every right to conduct secret operations in other nations to protect U.S. interests, since the Soviets were doing the same thing. Despite the intentions of the United States, Soviets, and Cubans, the fact remains that nobody seemed to care that the Chilean people had voted democratically.

It is strange even today to think that the United State, a nation that presumably devotes all its efforts to defend democracy and liberty for all, would go to such great lengths to suppress that very process in Chile. In his memoirs, President Nixon explained this by stating the following:

We live in a far from ideal world. As long as Communists supply external funds to support political parties, factions or individuals in other countries, I believe the U.S. can and should do the same and do it secretly so that it can be effective. Under Communists standards, of morality, governments are meant to be subverted and elections influenced. To me it would have been the height of immorality to allow the Soviets, the Cubans, and other Communist nations to interfere with impunity in free elections while America stayed its hand.

Clearly, Nixon felt justified in impeding a democratic election simply because a rival was involved. This serves as a perfect example of the complexity of U.S. foreign affairs during the Cold War.

Despite the best efforts of U.S. officials to persuade the Chilean Congress not to vote for Allende, the Chilean Congress followed precedent and elected him president. Before his election, however, congress obligated Allende to agree to certain terms that would guarantee the future security of Chilean democracy. In response to his election, the Nixon Administration debated on the proper course of action. Edward Korry, the U.S. ambassador to Chile, had suggested to the White House that a coup involving the Chilean military was a possibility. This excited members of the Nixon Administration, who were still simmering over the Allende election. Korry’s plan called for the CIA to help fund several high-ranking generals in the Chilean Army to organize and overthrow President Allende. Once accomplished, the Chilean government would be able to hold new elections.

Unfortunately for U.S. officials, the plan to overthrow Allende via a military coup was shot down. Korry reported to the White House that most Chilean generals were unwilling to conspire or accept bribes from the United States, and that most generals simply wanted to “adjust” to Allende’s agenda. Rene Schneider, Commanding General of the Army, was a particular problem to the plan. Schneider had promised earlier that any effort of the Congress to disallow Allende the presidency would meet with his disapproval. Schneider also made his stance clear that he strongly supported the Chilean election process, and would not allow anything to interfere with the will of the people. Just a few days after making such comments, General Schneider was killed in an attempted kidnapping. Chilean officials immediately blamed the U.S. and CIA for the assassination, claiming it was backed by U.S. funds. Even though Nixon and Kissinger denied involvement, CIA records indicated that the U.S. did indeed provide weapons and funding. Despite the many efforts of the U.S. to oust Allende, it looked as though he was there to stay.

The reality that Allende was going to maintain his power was almost too much for the White House to bear. Henry Kissinger had even claimed that Allende’s rise to power, “posed for us one of the most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere.” Kissinger had made it clear to President Nixon that Allende’s victory caused unimaginable “political and psychological losses to the U.S.” Under these circumstances, the Nixon Administration took a hard stance against the Allende government. The U.S. government maintained close contact with Chilean military officials that were against Allende, and adopted strong economic strategies meant to choke the already struggling Chilean economy. American businessmen were warned to stay away, due to the unstable government, and Chile was quickly subjected to economic isolation.

At first Allende’s government gave a glimmer of hope to the Chilean people. During his first year in power the Chilean economy experienced unprecedented growth. Salary readjustment laws put more money in the pockets of Chilean citizens, gross national product surged 8.3%, industrial production soared 12.1%, unemployment fell 8.3%, and inflation dropped dramatically. Much of the sudden economic prosperity can be credited to Allende’s nationalization of the Chilean copper industry.

Chile’s economic prosperity did not last for long. After 1972, inflation began to rise and unemployment returned to previous levels. Allende’s inability to maintain the economic prosperity of 1972 was mostly due to American economic boycotts and a dramatic drop in the price of copper worldwide. The White House received constant information on the Chilean situation and was elated at the fact that Allende’s world seemed to be crumbling. Quickly, the United States moved to capitalize on Chile’s economic misfortune. The CIA dumped more than $6 million dollars to aid Allende’s opponents in the Chilean government, particularly in the military. The U.S. also hoped that the new Chilean Congress would move to impeach Allende based on his recent failures. Though impeachment efforts proved futile, U.S. officials were pleased to learn that many Chilean military officials were considering a coup. The Chilean economy had been pushed to the brink, massive protests had irrupted in the streets, and Allende seemed more like a deer in the headlights than the brave leader Chileans had hoped for.

The end came quickly for Allende. On September 11, 1973, Chilean military forces under the direction of Agusto Pinochet took control of the capital. Allende, who was hunkered down in the Presidential headquarters (La Moneda) gave his final farewell to the nation. Shortly thereafter, Allende found dead. Allegedly, Allende had shot himself with the very rifle given to him by his Cuban hero Fidel Castro. The Nixon Administration responded to the coup by claiming it had no involvement. Henry Kissinger commented that United States, “does not support revolutions as a means of settling disputes.” White House officials gave support for the Pinochet coup, calling the General “mild-mannered, businesslike, hard working, honest and dedicated.” Even when reports that Pinochet had ordered the deaths of thousands of Chilean people, Henry Kissinger claimed that Pinochet was simply dealing with “lingering terrorism.” Instead of being called a ruthless usurper of power, Pinochet was hailed as a patriot, called to protect his mother country. Whether they admit it or not, the Nixon Administration had participated (in one form or another) in the successful overthrow of a democratically elected government, and saw that government replaced with a military dictatorship.

The story of the Chilean coup of 1973 is deeply controversial and complicated. There is no doubt that much of this story is still yet to be unraveled. As time has passed, Chilean people (and people around the world) have divided opinions of Allende, U.S. involvement in Chile, and Pinochet. Some see Allende as a villain, while Pinochet is seen as a liberator. Others see Allende as a martyr and the United States as an evil empire, pushing its agenda on weaker nations. Regardless of personal feelings, the Chilean coup of 1973 serves as a perfect example of the complex world of U.S. foreign policy. The complex world of Chilean politics, the emergence of Allende and his agenda, and the involvement of the United States to protect its interests all molded together to create the coup of 1973. One can only hope that current and future leaders will learn from past events like Chile. Perhaps then we will think twice before getting involved in other nation’s affairs to protect our “interests.”

Book Review: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men

2012-01-13T08:59:00.001-07:00

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. By Eric Foner. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Pp. xxxix, 317).

The years leading up to the American Civil War have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the convoluted labyrinth of Civil War historiography is no small task for any writer. Historian Eric Foner, however, is an exception to that rule. In his book, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men Foner effectively provides simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to the critical formative years of the Republican Party, just prior to the commencement of the Civil War. Foner attempts to portray the division between North and South as more than a simple disagreement over political issues, but rather as a passionate and tangible battle between rival moral standards.

Foner’s prose successfully resurrects the underlying tensions that shaped Republican ideology. Foner suggests that the Republican Party eventually grew to see their world dividing into two distinct societies: one agrarian and oppressive, the other industrial and libertarian. As the idea of free labor gained notoriety in the North for being a noble endeavor, slavery was receiving greater condemnation for its barbarity. Foner alludes to this fact when he writes, “If the free labor outlook gave Republicans a model of the good society, it also provided them with a yardstick for judging other social systems, and by this standard, slave society was found woefully wanting” (Pp. 40).

The book’s main strength comes from the author’s analysis of the ideology of free labor. Foner’s opening chapters are almost exclusively dedicated to the Republican Party’s advancement and development of the free labor doctrine. As the economy of the North grew to embrace this new policy on labor, more and more people began to see its benefits. This ideology was then woven into the Republican agenda, which strove to convince the masses of the superiority of a free labor economy. “The economic superiority of free to slave labor became a major argument of the Republicans in their attempt to win northern votes” (Pp. 43). Foner adds further credence to his argument by mentioning the numerous reporters that traveled to the Deep South to bring to light the inferiority of the Southern slave economy (Pp. 46-49). By relating stories of slave oppression, the plight of the poor whites, and the dilapidated nature of Southern infrastructure, the press was able to convince its readers that the economy of the South was morally unacceptable. Northern obsession with free labor, combined with a strong abhorrence of the slave economy, gave Republican politics a strong advantage that propelled their agenda forward.

The development of free labor ideology is a reoccurring theme in this book. Foner uses it to demonstrate just how powerful of a dichotomy there was between the North and South in terms of economics. Foner points out that the Northern economic standard evolved into a moral one, which was in constant conflict with slavery. Foner makes mention that the apparent upward social mobility of the North was of paramount significance, and was one of the primary problems with Southern slavery. “The plight of the poor whites [in the South] was compounded, as Republicans saw it, by their lack of opportunity to rise in the social scale” (Pp. 47). Foner does not neglect the perspective of the South, however, which maintained that, “there must be a class to do the mean duties, to perform the drudgeries of life” (Pp. 66). Clearly the economic divisions depicted by Foner had evolved into much more than a simple dispute, and had in fact become a passionate moral conflict.

The ideology of free labor is not the only issue addressed in this book. Foner also gives a lot of attention to the historical development of the Republican Party. In the middle and end parts of his book, he stresses the fact that Republicans were forced to incorporate a large conglomeration of politically diverse groups into their fold. Foner makes it clear that the Republican integration of abolitionists, ex-Whigs, ex-Democrats, and others was a slow process that required adaptation and compromise. The radically charged viewpoints of many within the party (Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens to name only a couple) required time to adapt to the more conservative perspectives within the party. As Foner claims, there existed a large number of conservatives that were not as charged over the slavery issue as the radicals (Pp. 187).

One of the best aspects of Foner’s inquiry into the development of the Republican Party comes from his chapter on Salmon Chase. In it, Foner demonstrates how Chase was able to effectively weave slavery into a political issue. By doing so, abolitionists and other radicals rallied around the idea, creating an agenda of zero tolerance. As different factions came together under the banner of the Republican Party, slavery became its main political issue. Foner adds credibility to this argument by effectively demonstrating how the conservative elements within the party began to see slavery as an assault to their ideology of free labor. By doing so, Foner reveals how those less interested in the slavery issue were persuaded to believe that slavery presented a legitimate threat to their way of life.

The appeal of this work should thus be seen from the perspective of Civil War historiography. As a result of his research, Foner has provided us with an additional way of understanding the events that led to the Civil War. By effectively exposing the importance of free labor ideology in the North, and its introduction and evolution in the Republican Party, the reader is able to gain a sense of the moral dilemma that existed between North and South. Foner’s insight into the various political factions that made up the Republican Party provide a rich and sophisticated view of the events that drove the North to strongly oppose the South. Though written from a predominantly Northern perspective, this book gives brilliant insight into the origins of the Civil War.

What My Kids do With My Phone

2012-01-12T19:25:00.009-07:00

Some "Home Videos" by
Jaxson and Zakary

So today I was surprised to notice that the memory card on my phone was near capacity. I don't download much onto my phone so I couldn't figure out what was taking up all of my memory space. After some detective work on the matter I discovered that there was a substantial amount of pictures and video that I was not aware of. What kind of pictures and video you ask? Take a look:

According to Jaxson, this is "Iron Man." Much to my delight, my kids are interested in "The Avengers" in a big way. Our house is literally covered with Iron Man, Captain America and Incredible Hulk drawings.

Here are some of the many Lego soldiers that cover our floor on a daily basis:

Spider Man protects our house day and night.

I'm not even sure where he got these teeth.

And here are some examples of what was eating up most of my phone's memory. There were probably 15-20 videos just like these.

Part I:

PartII:

Part III:

Historiography of Bernal Diaz and the Conquest of "New Spain"

2012-01-12T10:45:00.004-07:00

490 years ago, a group of ambitious Spaniards ascended the southeastern slope of the Sierra de Ahualco, a large mountain that overlooked the lush Mexican landscape. Upon reaching the stony top, these men gazed upon a civilization unlike anything that existed in Europe. Tenochtitlan, the native “Aztec” people called it, was a prosperous city nestled neatly into the beauty of the Mexican valley. The panorama of cultivated fields, irrigated by complex water networks was no doubt a charming sight to behold. Towering buildings adorned with gold glistened in the sunlight, enhancing the Spaniards thirst for plunder. Led by the ambitious Hernan Cortes, these Spaniards would stop at nothing in order to seize the riches that lay before them. Unfortunately for the people of Tenochtitlan, these first "explorers" from Spain would turn out to be the beginning of the end for their civilization. Their subsequent conquest and subjugation to the Spanish eventually led to the demise of the Aztec world and the continued rise of Spanish colonization in the "New World."

Over the years the story of Hernan Cortes has been both praised and scrutinized by a wide range of critics. Even his contemporaries were divided over the achievements Cortes had accomplished. Many considered him to be one of Spain’s greatest villains, while others were quick to call him a national hero. Amongst those that rose to defend the acts of Cortes and the conquest of "New Spain" was a poor peasant Spaniard turned conquistador named Bernal Diaz del Castillo. As a loyal soldier in Cortes’s army, Diaz became an eyewitness to the Spanish conquests of Mexico. In the latter years of his life, Diaz wrote his life experiences as a conquistador in his infamous history, The Conquest of New Spain. Though not always kind to Cortes, Diaz gives a predominantly favorable view of Spain’s most legendary conquistador, and the actions of the men that followed him. Over the years, however, the history of Bernal Diaz has been interpreted from many different perspectives. To understand the historiography of Bernal Diaz, a general inquiry into his motivations for exploration, combined with an analysis of how Diaz’s record was perceived by his contemporaries vs. its current historical significance, are essential components in appreciating the historical significance of Diaz’s work.

To understand the record of Bernal Diaz, one must first understand his motivations for becoming a conquistador. Spanish society in the sixteenth century was a world deeply divided by social and economic inequality. A massive number of Spaniards lived in the depths of poverty, expecting little chance to improve their social or economic status. As J.S. Elliot points out, "Cortes, along with the vast majority of explorers, belonged to an overpopulated social class for whom Spain had little to offer." Bernal Diaz also belonged to this low social class. Born in Medina del Campo, Diaz’s childhood was full of scenes of poverty and violence. Having been raised in such an environment, Diaz became acclimated to many of the violent struggles he would face in Mexico. Like Cortes, Diaz longed for the opportunity to make something of himself. The lure of New World conquest became the opportunity he longed for. Historian Rolena Adorno points out that for Diaz, "His primary goal was to achieve economic prosperity for himself and his heirs, and he was fairly successful."

Diaz, however, was not motivated exclusively by economic factors. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Diaz was overcome by the religious fervor that infected most of the Spanish. "Our desire was to throw their [the Aztecs] idols out of the temples, for they were evil and led them astray...we gave them a cross, which would always aid them, bring them good harvests and save their souls." The Spanish were easily able to justify these actions of religious bigotry and hatred. Since 1493 the Spanish (along with other European nations) lived under the delusion that the New World was in fact divinely theirs. With the discovery of the New World, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal decree that promised Spain all the undiscovered lands 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. As a result, Spain was guaranteed its "legitimate" claim to colonize the New World. Queen Isabella even declared the inhabitants of the New World to be her "subjects and vassals."

With such powerful religious conviction behind them, Cortes and his band of soldiers had all the justification they needed to rationalize their brutality towards the natives. Seeing that the Aztecs "eat the flesh of roasted legs of Indians and the arms of soldiers”, Cortes and his men felt it their Christian duty to "purify" the heathen natives and their lands. Backed by the threats of execution, Cotes and his men obligated many native communities to "give up human sacrifice and robbery and the foul practice of sodomy, and to cease worshiping their accursed idols," or, "be absolutely prepared to fight and die." As a result, entire villages of natives were annihilated. As Diaz wrote, "We found the houses full of corpses, and some poor Mexicans still in them who could not move away. Their excretions were the sort of filth that thin swine pass which have been fed on nothing but grass."

The earliest trends in the historiography of Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico have often praised the conquistadors for their remarkable bravery. In the middle part of the nineteenth century, William H. Prescott published his now infamous book, History of the Conquest of Mexico and Peru in which he stated, "The subversion of a great empire by a handful of adventurers...has the air of romance rather than sober history." Prescott interpreted the works of these early conquistadors (including Diaz) in a quasi-poetic fashion. Though occasionally critical of the conquistadors, Prescott gives a great amount of praise to the conquistadors in his narrative. Prescott also credits Diaz for his objective account of the conquest of Mexico. Many of these early interpretations of Spanish colonization were deeply influenced by a Western superiority complex that negated the concerns of native people. Whether in the fictional works of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, or in the words of the conquistadors themselves, European supremacy was asserted to the highest degree.

Bernal Diaz’s work was also rarely scrutinized. Though not published until after his death, Diaz’s account of the conquest of Mexico was taken virtually at face value by the majority of European readers. Even William Prescott rarely challenged the accuracy or prejudice of Diaz. After all, Diaz was "among the writers who defined what was unique about Spain’s early experience in America." His work was seen as central to the historiography of Cortes and Mexican conquest. Questioning Diaz’s work seemed like a ridiculous suggestion for the early scholars of Spanish colonialism.

For the most part, the history of Bernal Diaz remained unchallenged even into the early parts of the twentieth century. Though often harangued on various mundane issues, Diaz’s history rarely received any direct attacks. The only disputations over Diaz’s history centered on various comments that were found to be, "exaggerated or misplaced." The only major issue in the historiography of Bernal Diaz had to do with his clash against the records of Bartolome de Las Casas and Francisco Lopez de Gomara. Both Las Casas and Gomara asserted that the actions of Hernan Cortes and his soldiers were utterly reprehensible, due to their barbaric acts of cruelty during the conquest of Mexico. Diaz’s record, however, seemed to eclipse the histories of Las Casas and Gomara by suggesting that the acts of Mexican conquest were never as destructive as some suggested. In his record, Diaz repeatedly mentioned how he and the other men "tired of war," almost suggesting that they fought because they had no other choice. Diaz also tried to diffuse the notion that he and his fellow soldiers reaped huge economic gains from their plunder. "We captains and soldiers were all somewhat sad when we saw how little gold there was and how poor and mean our shares would be." Of course Diaz neglected to mention the fact that he and others received enormous estates, titles and slaves upon the completion of their murderous rampage.

Recent scholarly inquiry into Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico has made some significant changes to its historiography. As stated before, for centuries the conquistadors rarely received any direct challenge to their legacy. It was not until the latter parts of the twentieth century that the first major attacks to the historiography of the conquistadors were made. The initial question historians made concerning the conquest of Spain was, "is the conquest of Mexico justified?" For the first time historians began to read the words of Diaz in a new light. Instead of interpreting their actions through the lens of European prejudice, the conquistadors were exposed for what they truly were. The conquest of the Aztec civilization was no longer appreciated for its ability to spread Christianity or subdue the "heathens." Instead of being honored for their bravery in battle or glorified for their defense of Christianity, men like Bernal Diaz were recognized primarily for their greed. Though Cortes and his men, "delighted in their new great fortune," which came at the expense of the native people, and after "all the gold and silver and jewels in Mexico had been added together," the conquistadors still could not escape the fact that they were, in the end, thieves and murderers. For the first time, Diaz’s account was subjected to scholarly investigation and genuine criticism. Historians began to suggest that much of Diaz’s work was, "an attempt to keep abreast of the paste of events that profoundly threatened his economic well being." In other words, much of what Diaz wrote was done to defend his social and economic status, not to mention his reputation.

To be certain, Bernal Diaz’s The Conquest of New Spain has played an essential role in the overall historiography of Mexican conquest. It has provided us with an eyewitness account of the destruction, subjugation and assimilation of the native people in and around Tenochtitlan. Though clearly prejudicial and xenophobic in his approach to this historical event, Diaz’s record still remains an important (and hotly debated) primary source document of Spanish conquest. As the interpretation of Diaz’s work has changed over the years, scholars have been able to make significant changes to the historiography of Spanish conquest. Instead of being seen as stalwart Christian heroes, the greedy motives of the conquistadors have been exposed, and the true nature of Spanish conquest revealed. One can only imagine what future historical inquiry will reveal.

Book Review: Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century

2012-01-11T09:14:00.006-07:00

Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. By Benjamin Valentino. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Pp. viii, 253).

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all of human history. The consequences of two world wars left a haunting impression upon the millions of survivors, who became reluctant witnesses to the atrocities of modern warfare. Along with the millions of war victims is another body of mass casualties that is often forgotten in the muddle of twentieth century history. The approximately 60-150 million victims of genocide across the world stand as a monument to the carnage of numerous regimes that embraced mass killing as a necessity. In his book, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, author Benjamin Valentino attempts to address the causes and motivations that have inspired genocide in the twentieth century. By essentially addressing genocide as nothing more than a “powerful political and military tool,” Valentino provides the reader with a detailed perspective into the motives behind genocide.

First off, it is important to recognize the fact that Valentino’s work avoids a discussion of semantics when dealing with the definition of genocide. Instead, the author’s book centers on “mass killings” of more than fifty thousand in number (Pp. 3-4). In so doing, Valentino broadens the scope of his argument by including numerous mass killings that are often ignored in the traditional study of genocide. Valentino also argues that the traditional understanding of genocide as being motivated by “severe ethnic, racial, national, or religious divisions” does not hold up, since “some of the bloodiest mass killings in history have occurred in relatively homogeneous societies” (Pp. 2). Valentino continues his assault on the traditional historiography of genocide by also suggesting that the “traditional studies of genocide have tended to diminish the role of leadership on the grounds that the interests and ideas of a few elites cannot account for the participation of the rest of society in the violence” (Pp. 2). Instead, Valentino proposes in his research that mass killing “occurs when leaders believe that their victims pose a threat that can be countered only by removing them from society or by permanently destroying their ability to organize” (Pp. 5).

To defend his thesis that leaders are responsible for mass killing as opposed to the masses, Valentino provides a detailed comparison between several similar regimes. For example, Valentino makes special mention of the racial tensions that permeated both German and South African society, along with the various forms of intolerance that covered Asia After briefly discussing the backgrounds of these regimes, Valentino poses a question to his audience: Why does mass killing occur in only some of these regimes, which, on the surface, appear to be very similar? Valentino then answers his question by suggesting that a cohesive leadership of elites, with an objective to consolidate their power, is the catalyst for mass killing. By pointing out that perpetrators of mass killing see their actions as, “a rational way to counter threats or implement certain types of ideologies,” Valentino discards the assumption that these regimes kill simply for the sake of killing.

To support his claims, Valentino focuses on three distinct groups of mass killings: communist, ethnic and counterguerrilla mass killings. In the first of these three classifications (which Valentino claims is responsible for the largest number of mass killings), Valentino focuses on the communist regimes of China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia. Valentino then points out the fact that these regimes have resorted to mass killings in an effort to secure that their social changes are met. As Valentino points out, “the effort to engineer utopia has been the justification for some of the world’s most horrendous crimes” (Pp. 92). For communist regimes to secure this “utopia,” they are often required to redistribute land and wealth, which is understandably a difficult change for the masses to accept. For this reason, communist regimes have embarked on some of the worst mass killing policies in world history. As Valentino points out, “The history of communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia is a powerful demonstration of the degree to which historical accidents, serendipity, and the power of individual personalities can determine the rise of extremely radical and violent groups’ (Pp. 150).

In his second group, ethnic mass killings, Valentino pays special attention to the Nazi regime and its motivations for committing to a policy of ethnic mass killings. Valentino emphasizes the fact that the Nazi regime (along with other regimes that are guilty of mass killings) had a specific strategic goal in mind, as opposed to the traditional assumption that they were simply out for blood. As Valentino writes, “Ethnic mass killings, especially the Holocaust, have tended to be portrayed as little more than killing for killing’s sake…The strategic approach, however, suggests that ethnic mass killing occurs when leaders come to believe that large-scale violence is the most practical way to accomplish a policy of ethnic cleansing” (Pp. 155). By focusing on the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda, Valentino provides his audience with ample insight into the evolution of how these regimes came to embrace mass killings as the only plausible solution to their respective ethnic dilemmas.

In the third group of mass killings addressed in his work, counterguerilla mass killings, Valentino discusses how a number of guerilla insurgencies (particularly in Guatemala and Afghanistan) have compelled governments to adopt a policy of mass killing. Valentino points out the fact that these forms of mass killing often come about not because an army becomes undisciplined or fed-up with the guerilla opposition it faces. Instead, Valentino suggests that counterguerilla forces often see their efforts as being “positive policies designed to improve the lives of the civilian population and draw support away from guerillas” (Pp. 199). In essence, the justification for such actions embraces the notion that one must kill in order to save.

Though often contrary to the traditional understanding of genocide, Valentino’s work provides us with a unique perspective into the causes and motivations behind mass killings. By suggesting that mass killings are primarily the result of an elite leadership, Valentino also proposes that we can better prevent these atrocities from happening again, by being proactive against regimes that have committed to the rapid disposal of a specific group from their society. An objective insight into the causes of mass killing, which Valentino considers to be born out of a political motivation to eliminate a perceived threat as opposed to simple hatred, may serve to prevent future atrocities from ever happening again

Einstein Was Wrong?!?

2012-01-10T10:17:00.004-07:00

One of my favorite organizations to follow is CERN: the European Organization for Nuclear Research. CERN, which is best known for its studies with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has afforded physicists a deeper understanding of our universe and its origins. And though I am FAR from understanding everything going on with CERN (I'm no scientist), I have enjoyed reading about some of their incredible discoveries.

One of CERN's biggest discoveries has to do with neutrinos. Neutrinos are one of the fundamental subatomic particles that make up our universe. They function somewhat like an electron except for the fact that they cannot carry a charge. While conducting studies on neutrinos in the Large Hadron Collider (which essentially accelerates particles to the speed of light and then forces them to collide), scientists discovered something remarkable: neutrinos can apparently travel faster than light. From the Associated Press:

Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity — the famous E (equals) mc2 equation — just doesn't happen.

"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, outside the Swiss city of Geneva.

Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

[...]

Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.

Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now."

"This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully," said Ellis.

And though this discovery probably doesn't stand out to most people it is a massive discovery for physicists, for it challenges one of the fundamental theories of Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

One of the fundamental teachings of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light (approximately 186,287 miles per second). This is important because Special Relativity teaches that time is relative to one's motion and position in space. Simply put, the faster a person is moving, the slower he/she will perceive time.

So if neutrinos really do travel faster than light does that mean they are traveling back in time? I won't even pretend to think that I understand physics well enough to answer this question. But what everyone, expert or not, is recognizing is the fact that if this discovery is true, our understanding of the universe will once again have to change. It will force physicists to reevaluate the notion that light is the "speed limit" of the universe.

But before we all rush out and buy our Deloreans and Flux Capacitors don't get too excited. As is the case with any major alleged scientific discovery, skeptics have questioned these findings. As one physicist states:

The things you need to know about this result are:
It’s enormously interesting if it’s right.
It’s probably not right.
By the latter point I don’t mean to impugn the abilities or honesty of the experimenters, who are by all accounts top-notch people trying to do something very difficult. It’s just a very difficult experiment, and given that the result is so completely contrary to our expectations, it’s much easier at this point to believe there is a hidden glitch than to take it at face value. All that would instantly change, of course, if it were independently verified by another experiment; at that point the gleeful jumping up and down will justifiably commence. This isn’t one of those annoying “three-sigma” results that sits at the tantalizing boundary of statistical significance. The OPERA folks are claiming a six-sigma deviation from the speed of light.

But that doesn’t mean it’s overwhelmingly likely that the result is real; it just means it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that the result is simply a statistical fluctuation. There is another looming source of possible error: a “systematic effect,” i.e. some unknown miscalibration somewhere in the experiment or analysis pipeline. (If you are measuring something incorrectly, it doesn’t matter that you measure it very carefully.) In particular, the mismatch between the expected and observed timing amounts to tens of nanoseconds; but any individual “event” takes the form of a pulse that is spread out over thousands of nanoseconds. Extracting the signal is a matter of using statistics over many such events — a tricky business.

In other words, verifying that neutrinos are traveling faster than 186,000 miles per second is a difficult thing to do, even with all of the technology and expertise at CERN. Despite these difficulties we can all rest assured that the good folks at CERN will do all they can to get this right. If the finding is true, then we can look forward to improving our understanding of the universe. If not, it just confirms that we already are on the right track. Either way, this alleged discovery does prove one thing right beyond a shadow of a doubt: science is alive and well in our day and age!

Jeanne d'Arc: Hero or Heretic?

2012-01-07T11:33:00.003-07:00

Yesterday marked the 600th anniversary of the birth of Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc), the infamous French peasant girl who defied the English. Joan of Arc's life story is fascinating to say the least. As a poor daughter of a peasant family in eastern France, Jeanne's life should have come and gone without so much as a footnote in the history books. So how did such a young, poor and obscure female of the 15th century become such a powerful and influential hero?

It is difficult to say. If we asked Jeanne herself, the answer would no doubt be "because it was the will of God." After all, Jeanne claimed that her "calling" came as a result of several heavenly manifestations throughout her childhood (beginning at age 12). She remained steadfast in that assertion throughout the remainder of her short life, even in the face of execution. As she stated during her interrogation and trial:

I know well that that which is contained in my case has come to me by the Commandment of God; what I affirm in the case is, that I have acted by the order of God: it is impossible for me to say otherwise. In case the Church should prescribe the contrary, I should not refer to any one in the world, but to God alone, Whose Commandment I always follow.

This is a remarkable declaration considering the fact that Jeanne d'Arc was all of nineteen years of age. To be a 15th century female of humble roots and to stand defiant against one's accusers was almost unheard of. And though inspiring to say the least, this was the least of Jeanne d'Arc's accomplishments

With the sporadic conflicts that came as a result of the Hundred Years' War, France was thrown into crisis mode, as rival French lords and invading English Kings jockeyed for control of the French crown. These conflicts left the French countryside nearly destitute, as English forces employed Chevauchée tactics that ravaged poor villages. One of these villages was a small northeastern community called Domrémy, which just happened to be home to a young married couple named Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée. The couple owned about 50 acres of farmland, placing them on the higher end of the French peasantry. The family was fairly well off, as Jacques was able to supplement his farming income as a tax collector of sorts. In addition, Jacques' post also included making provisions for the villages defense. Perhaps this is where his famous daughter gained her knowledge of warfare?

Regardless of where or how Jeanne d'Arc gained her military prowess one fact is undeniable: this young peasant girl was a genius. The sheer fact that she was able to gain a command with a group of male French soldiers is astounding by itself, but when we also factor in her generalship on the battle field, Jeanne's brilliance comes to life. Not only did Jeanne successfully predict a the outcomes to key battles but she was also able to effectively lead a number of successful military campaigns. As historian Stephen Richey states: "She proceeded to lead the army in an astounding series of victories that reversed the tide of the war."

Whether Jeanne was an actual battle commander in war, a standard bearer that inspired the army, or a combination of the two has been debated by historians for centuries. There is no doubt that Jeanne participated in a number of war councils with other military commanders, who resented her age, gender (which she tried to hide) and her lack of nobility. Nevertheless, virtually everyone recognized Jeanne's astounding talent, foresight, and apparent divine sanctioning. To many of her French colleagues, Jeanne was a prophetess of sorts, who had a direct line of contact to God himself. And in the wake of defeat after defeat at the hands of the English, anyone, even a young peasant girl claiming divine revelation, was a welcomed change. Her presence brought with it a change in the war. As Jeanne d'Arc herself stated:

Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there.

But not everyone was as quick to revere Jeanne d'Arc's supposed clairvoyance. The English, who had been on the receiving end of Jeanne's military brilliance/inspiration, denounced her as a heretic. After her capture and eventual "sale" to the English, Jeanne d'Arc was put on trial in what became a corrupt show court. Inquisitors tried to pin the French peasant down on a number of theological issues, but were cleverly rebuffed by Jeanne's keen intellect. In one of the more popular exchanges, Jeanne was asked if "she knew she was in God's grace", to which she answered "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me." The question was meant as a trap for Jeanne. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have convicted herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt (her answer was similar in tone to the one given by Jesus Christ to the Pharisees in Matthew, chapter 21:25).

Jeanne's response left inquisitors dumbfounded and forced them to convict her of heresy on bogus charges relating to her dressing as a man. Some scholars have suggested that Jeanne's apparent habit of dressing in men's clothing may have been the result of transgender issues. This is unlikely, however, due to the fact that Jeanne did so only to infiltrate enemy lines and to keep herself safe while in the army. In addition, her choice to dress in men's clothing while imprisoned was likely for protection. Instead of being placed under the care of nuns (which was customary for female prisoners), Jeanne was placed in a prison guarded by English male soldiers. Needless to say, these soldiers took advantage of the female guest who was at their mercy. Dressing in men's clothing of the time afforded Jeanne more protection from rape. As historian Robert Wirth explains:

[W]itnesses related that Joan of Arc had told them that she had worn, and had resumed, this clothing and kept the hosen and doublet "firmly fastened and tied together" because this provided her with the only means she had of protecting herself against the incidences of attempted rape which her English guards were inflicting on her. This description will be immediately understandable if one is familiar with this type of clothing. Based on a description in the Condemnation transcript itself as well as period illustrations of the general type of garment in question, her outfit was equipped with two layers of hosen securely fastened to the doublet, the inner layer being waist-high conjoined woolen hosen attached to the doublet by fully twenty cords, each cord tied into three eyelets apiece (two on the hosen and one on the doublet), for a total of forty attachment points on the inner layer of hosen. The second layer, which was made of rugged leather, seems to have been attached by yet another set of cords. Once this outfit was thus fastened together by dozens of cords connecting both layers to the doublet, it would be a substantial undertaking for someone to try to pull off these garments, especially if she was struggling.

Regardless of the practicality of wearing men's clothing for a woman in Jeanne's position, English inquisitors found her guilty of heresy. And even though she was technically justified by law to dress as a man for her protection and to preserve her chastity, Jeanne was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. Her last words were (allegedly) "I am not afraid. I was born to do this" (again, an incredible declaration from a nineteen-year-old peasant girl).

It is probably a foregone conclusion that much of Jeanne d'Arc's legacy as a hero of France rests with the fact that France was able to defeat the English and reclaim the lands they had lost. Had England emerged victorious, it is likely that Jeanne's legacy would be quite different; a heretic rather than a hero prophetess. And we can't ignore the fact that the multiple conflicts we now call the Hundred Years' War lead to the development of early French and English nationalism, thus exalting Jeanne d'Arc to the status of a national symbol. But regardless of these facts, the remarkable life of Jeanne d'Arc is an astonishing example of unshakable faith, remarkable bravery and undaunted determination. Her life story makes even the most skeptical person wonder if maybe she really did have a divine call from heaven. Whether or not such is the case, Jeanne d'Arc remains one of the most fascinating figures in all of human history.

The "Humanity" of George Albert Smith

2012-01-05T09:30:00.075-07:00

Every couple of years or so, the Curriculum Committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) presents to the general membership of the church a new study manual to be used in various church classes. For the past two years the church has used "Gospel Principles" as its official study manual. Before that, the church spent two years on "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith." And in 2012, the church has produced "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith" as the official text for this year's study.

I'll be honest, spending the last two years on "Gospel Principles" was a bit of a personal drag. I just couldn't get into it. With that said, I am VERY excited about this year's manual. George Albert Smith has been my favorite church president for as long as I can remember. Ever since my youth, George Albert Smith has stood out to me. I recall learning about his personal creed and hearing stories of how he helped to bring the church into modernity in a number of ways. For example, G.A. Smith was a passionate supporter of the Boy Scout's program, and helped to integrate it into the Young Men's program of the church (he was awarded the Silver Buffalo in 1934, which is the highest honor in the Boy Scout's program). Smith was also a major history buff and helped to organize the Utah Pioneer Trail and Landmarks Association, was elected six times as vice-president of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and dedicated the "This is the Place" monument and the centennial celebration of the Mormon Pioneer's arrival into the Salt Lake Valley. In addition, G.A. Smith was an ardent supporter of Teddy Roosevelt's "progressivism" (a fact that I am sure makes Glenn Beck sick to his stomach) and was a vocal advocate for the blind (he helped to push forward the first ever braille Book of Mormon in 1935). G.A. Smith was also the first president of the church to not practice polygamy. All of these facts and accomplishments helped G.A. Smith to lead the Mormon church into the world of modernity.

And though I greatly admire G.A. Smith for all of these (and other) accomplishments, this is not what makes him my favorite church president. What I admire so much about G.A. Smith was his "humanity." Don't get me wrong, I recognize that all church presidents have/had their human side as well. However, G.A. Smith, for whatever reason, seems more "human" and "approachable" than the others. After all, G.A. Smith wore his emotions out on his sleeves for everyone to see. He was an incredibly sensitive man who internalized the world and the struggles that people faced. He took it personally when he encountered individuals who were hurting or suffering, and did all that he could to assist those in need. He was a staunch supporter of the Church Welfare program and did more to advance it than perhaps any other church authority. For example, at the conclusion of WWII, G.A. Smith initiated one of the largest relief efforts in church history. A massive surplus of food, equipment and other relief supplies were made ready and available for the destitute people of Europe who had been left in ruins. When U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally called on the church for assistance, he was astonished to discover that the church was already prepared. All that was needed was to know when and where to ship the goods. Even in the aftermath of war, G.A. Smith understood the worth of every human soul. As he stated:

Let us extend kindness and consideration to all who need it, not forgetting those who are bereft; and in our time of rejoicing for peace, let us not forget those who have given their loved ones as part of the price of peace.

Not only did G.A. Smith preach tolerance and love for those of different (once enemy) nations, but he taught tolerance and acceptance of every member of the human race. G.A. Smith vehemently opposed racial prejudice and vocally denounced the KKK. He made efforts to reconcile bitter rival nations by reintroducing missionary work into parts of Europe and by reconciling church members of those nations. As he stated at the conclusion of WWII:

The best evidence of gratitude at this time is to do all we can to bring happiness to this sad world, for we are all our Father’s children, and we are all under the obligation of making this world a happier place for our having lived in it.

In short, George Albert Smith loved and empathized with humanity. He believed in the goodness of all people. It therefore comes as no surprise that the majority of the lessons in this year's G.A. Smith manual center on topics like "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself", "The Power of Kindness", and "Of You it is Required to Forgive." After all, these were the fundamental themes of his personal life creed:

I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.

I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.

I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.

I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and a happy life.

I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.

I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.

I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.

I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.

I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the successes of all the children of my Heavenly Father.

I would not be an enemy to any living soul.

But for a man who could empathize so well with the plight of humanity, George Albert Smith wasn't without his struggles. Aside from the many physical ailments that effected him throughout his life (vision problems, stomach ailments, and lupus erythematosus which eventually caused his death), G.A. Smith was also plagued by ailments of the psyche. As the good folks at the By Common Consent blog point out, George Albert Smith was a deeply emotionally afflicted man. We can say with almost absolute certainty that G.A. Smith suffered from some sort of chronic depression and anxiety disorder. There were multiple times in his life when he was rendered incapacitated by overwhelming feelings of inadequacy, guilt and sadness. His responsibilities as a church apostle often exacerbated his condition, as he found it very difficult to deal with the problems of those he encountered. As he confided to a local state president:

[Even] when things are normal my nerves are not very strong
and when I see other people in sorrow and depressed I am easily affected.

Even members of George Albert Smith's family could tell that something was wrong. As BYU Professor Mary Jane Woodger points out:

George Albert’s “good work ethic” exposed him to additional pressures because of an apparent “personality style that lent itself to hypersensitivity,” manifest in a preoccupation with “what he ate along with a lot of pressure he seems to have felt to measure up to other’s expectations.”

[...]

Grandchild George Albert Smith V suggests that his grandfather struggled with depression, feeling incompetent, and being overwhelmed. There were times when “he just could not pull it all together.” Another granddaughter, Shauna Lucy Stewart Larsen, who lived in George Albert’s home for twelve years as a child, remembers
that “when there was great, tremendous stress, mostly [of] an emotional kind, it took its toll and he would literally have to go to bed for several days.”

As someone who has personally struggled with bouts of depression and anxiety I can empathize with G.A. Smith's feelings. Depression and anxiety are real struggles that can render an otherwise normal and successful person completely vacant. It is a real struggle that you don't simply "pray away" or "get over." Unfortunately, too many people (even today) don't understand this fact, and in G.A. Smith's day there was even less tolerance for such conditions. As Professor Mary Jane Woodger notes, G.A. Smith's uncle, Heber J. Sears, demonstrated the ignorance of his day when he addressed his nephew's bout with depression:

For Heaven’s sake George -- side step or step backward not forward. Cheat the asylum of a victim. Dump your responsibility for a while before the hearse dumps your bones.

And though I am sure that Mr. Sears was only trying to be helpful, this type of "cowboy up" response is typical of many who don't suffer from or understand the realities of depression. This is especially true of times past when psychology was either non-existent or still in its infancy. I have blogged before about the "melancholy" nature of Meriwether Lewis (which in reality was probably bipolar disorder) and how it eventually drove him to suicide. And most people are aware of Abraham Lincoln's deep struggles with depression. These problems are nothing new to humanity, we just happen to recognize them now.

The fact of the matter is that humans are complex creatures who are, as a result of genetic, environmental and other factors, often susceptible to a wide variety of physical and mental struggles. Yes, even prophets (who are only humans) fall victim to such things, and why should any of us assume differently? Nobody seems to make a big deal of a church president who suffers the infirmities of age, sickness or injury. Why would mental illness make any kind of difference?

The real beauty of the life of George Albert Smith is the fact that he overcame these ailments and insecurities to change the world for the better. I think that the best example of George Albert Smith's "humanity" and goodness can be found in his handling of the "Third Conventionist" controversy. Most Mormon members are probably unfamiliar with this controversy, since it took place in the 1930s. The Third Convention controversy was a case in which a number of Mexican Mormons essentially chose to break off from the church and establish their own autonomy. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 had created a strict separation of church and state and isolated Mexican Mormons from church leaders in Salt lake city. In consequence, many Mexican members, led by District President Abel Páez, requested that the church call only full-blooded Mexican citizens to positions of authority within the country. When rebuffed by the church, these members elected to break away and created the "Third Convention", which held meetings, carried out missionary work and many other regular church functions without church approval.

Needless to say, this upset a large number of church authorities, not to mention many loyal Mexican Mormons. Many within the "Third Convention" were excommunicated in the wake of the escalating tensions between Salt Lake City and Mexico. Church leadership scoffed at the blatant apostasy that was taking place right under their noses. President George Albert Smith, however, had a different opinion. After making a trip to Mexico (the first church president to do so) President Smith met with "Third Convention" leaders and listened to their complaints. No judgements were passed, no fingers were pointed. As had become G.A. Smith's style he simply showed love and empathy for the people. In the end, President Smith reversed the excommunications and most of the Third Convention's followers were welcomed back as brothers and sisters of the church. Sure, President Smith was more than justified to spew out fire and brimstone rhetoric and to rebuke the Third Convention members for their betrayal of the faith. President Smith could have declared the Third Convention a heresy and made them an example to the church of the consequences of apostasy. Heck, President Smith could have avoided the trip to Mexico altogether, kept the excommunications in place, and simply ignored the situation. All of those courses of action would have been justifiable. Only one problem: they weren't what Jesus Christ would do, and President Smith knew it. Today Mexico is the second largest nation in terms of Mormon population. Would such be the case had G.A. Smith blown off the concerns of the Third Convention and other Mexican members in their time of need?

George Albert Smith is my favorite church president for one basic reason: he loved humanity. It didn't matter if they were good or bad, kind or mean, believers or non-believers. All humanity has worth and G.A. Smith knew it. His example is a lesson to every single member who feels the need to rebuke others. Whether it be a member who has "fallen away", a person with a disability or an individual in the depths of depression, George Albert Smith's example shows us the correct code of conduct to all humanity. I for one look forward to this year's curriculum on the life and teachings of a fantastic man, example and prophet.

-------------------
Another way that George Albert Smith helped to modernize the church was via television and media. He was actually the first church president to broadcast his messages on television. I enjoyed this one because it not only shows G.A. Smith's joyous personality but also reveals how he was essentially a "bridge" between old school and modern Mormon preaching. President Smith's boisterous demeanor and use of hand gestures was common of 19th century preachers (including Mormons). You can tell in this video that G.A. Smith was clearly influenced by that style, but was also trying to also change the mold. This is good stuff. Enjoy:

Here We Go a-Caucusing

2012-01-03T11:06:00.005-07:00

What is a Caucus?
And Where Did It Come From?

Tonight the primary season for the 2012 presidential election begins (ugh!). The Iowa Caucus, which has traditionally been the first major presidential primary event since the early 1970's, will be our first forecast into what is sure to be a fascinating election season. After Iowa, several other states (including my beloved "Centennial State") will also gather its delegates into various caucuses to nominate the man/woman they feel is the best possible candidate for the presidency of the United States. These caucuses, which are essentially nothing more than group meetings of political supporters, may seem a bit confusing to both the participants and to the general public. After all, isn't it a much easier process to simply cast an electronic vote?

What most Americans don't know when it comes to the caucus is the fact that it is a very old tradition, which dates back to a time before the United States ever existed. Though the origins of the word are still debated to this day, caucus is believed to have originated from the Algonquin Indians, who resided in what is today New York and Vermont. It is believed that the Algonquin word 'cau´-cau-as´u', meaning "counsel" was adopted by early American Democratic-republicans in the latter part of the 18th century. Historian J.L. Bell notes that the first known usage of the word caucus comes from the diary of America's second president, John Adams, who wrote:

"This day learned that the Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws, the Adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large House, and he has a moveable Partition in his Garrett, which he takes down and the whole Clubb meets in one Room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and select Men, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a most rudis indigestaque Moles of others are Members. They send Committees to wait on the Merchants Clubb and to propose, and join, in the Choice of Men and Measures. Captn. Cunningham says they have often solicited him to go to these Caucas, they have assured him Benefit in his Business, &c."
(Click here for the link to the electronic archive of the Diary of John Adams)

And though the Iowa Caucus represents only 1% of all delegates, Iowa has been an effective indicator into how a presidential primary may go. Of the ten Democratic Iowa Caucuses since 1972, seven have gone on to be the party's nominee. For Republicans, six of the nine Iowa Caucus winners have won the party's nod. In short, the Iowa Caucus votes for the party's eventual nominee about 65-70% of the time; not a surefire gauge for the future but good enough for us to understand why the candidates love Iowa so much.

So as you make your way to your state's caucus in the next few months (assuming your state has one), remember that you are participating in a tradition that is possibly older than America itself. To go "a-caucusing" is an activity as American as apple pie, which, by the way, Native Americans enjoyed as well.

My prediction for tonight's caucus: Mitt Romney edges out Ron Paul to win.

Of Kings, Popes, Ecclesia and Mundus

2012-01-01T07:28:00.004-07:00

The Love/Hate Relationship
Between Church and State

210 years ago today, on New Year's Day, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptists who had been the unfortunate victims of religious persecution. At the time, Connecticut had established Congregationalism as the official religion of the state, and these Danbury Baptists had asked President Jefferson for aid. In what has become known as the Danbury Letter, President Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists by repeating the words of the First Amendment, which state that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." President Jefferson then added the words, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

This "wall" of "separation" between church and state is the fundamental issue at play in many a culture war today. Advocates in favor of a "Christian Nation" reduce the significance of the Danbury letter by revealing the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be had in our founding documents. Those opposed to the "Christian Nation" rebuke such a claim by pointing out that many of those same founding documents (particularly the Constitution) make no mention of God. And while both sides make appeals to different influencing factors that helped to bring about the formation of the United States (i.e. Christianity, Enlightenment, etc.) it is important for us to recognize that there is NOTHING uniquely American about this church/state battle.

To better understand the depth and the importance of this church/state conflict let us travel back to a time when it wasn't constitutions and congresses that made law but rather kings and popes. Of course I am speaking of Medieval times. This was a time of passionate religious and political bickering, as heads of state (or kingdoms) and vicars of Christ jockeyed with one another for ultimate control. The question of who possessed ultimate authority became the central theme of almost all Medieval politics. Pontiffs and princes, priests and politicians, spend centuries arguing over this singular issue in the futile effort to seize a measure of control over the other.

The analysis into the origins of this Church/State conflict could, if we let it, take us all the way back to Constantine himself. Ever since the day that Constantine the Great saw his famous vision and heard the voice "En Hoc Signo Vinces", the battle between church and state has been a raging fire throughout the Western world. Constantine's newly endowed Catholic Church, complete with imperial sanctioning and ecclesiastical authority, was a budding juggernaut of power that would eventually monopolize the governments of heaven and much of earth. Unlike its pagan predecessors, which required no major governing bureaucracy, Christianity (at least of the dominant Roman Catholic form) developed a hierarchical, authoritative governing body that eventually came to rival that of the Roman Empire itself (many historians, including the legendary Edward Gibbon, have hypothesized that this development was THE catalyst to the demise of the western Roman Empire). Traditional and simplistic rituals to the various gods and priests of paganism were replaced with dominant and influential representatives of the resurrected Christ who held all the keys to one's salvation.

As Christianity continued to rise upon the ashes of the dead western Roman Empire, various leaders of various lands hitched their wagons to the church in order to add divine sanctioning to their leadership resumes. Gothic lords and Frankish kings all saw the advantages that Christianity provided. It is therefore no surprise that so many of these former "barbarians" eventually became anointed kings and saints of the church. But these perks were not without their costs. As the Medieval world continued to evolve, monarchs found themselves at odds with their religious counterparts. Popes, abbots, bishops and priests demanded more control (and money) from their secular leaders, who were often found reluctant to acquiesce to those heavenly demands. And with Catholicism still in its infancy, secular leaders were able to put the early church in check by integrating themselves in with church authority. For example, most early popes relied upon powerful monarchs for not only protection but also for their nomination to the papacy. For centuries, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire wielded incredible influence over new nominees to the Holy See, and once in power, these same popes relied heavily upon the Emperor's authority. There is no greater example or precedent of this fact than Pope Leo III, who begged Charlemagne for protection and for reinstatement to his seat as Bishop of Rome. Charlemagne obliged Leo and restored him in Rome; a gesture that Leo rewarded by pledging his allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor and by crowning Charlemagne in St. Peter's Basilica on Christmas Day, 800.

But this reliance upon monarchs was not held in high esteem by everyone within the church. For centuries church authorities had tried, with varying levels of success, to break free from the secular power. From the fraudulent Donation of Constantine to Libertas ecclesiae, examples of Ecclesia's quest to be on equal or superior footing with Mundus fill the archives. The best example of this quest to "break free" and assert the church's ultimate authority is the Investiture Controversy, in which several kings (specifically King Henry IV) and popes (specifically Pope Gregory VII) took center stage in a clash worthy of a Hollywood script. In a nutshell, the Investiture Controversy was a disagreement that arose when church leaders challenged those monarchs who had granted appointments (investitures) to bishops and abbots within their kingdom. Contrary to popular belief, the church did not always exercise its domain over the appointment of local leaders. In fact, almost all local bishops and abbots of the early Medieval period were appointed by their local secular powers. This was due to the fact that these positions were almost always accompanied with a large land endowment. In what became known as the practice of Simony, kings and lords profited substantially from the sale of these church investitures, which were usually granted to secular nobles who could both afford to pay for the post and would remain loyal to the crown. For obvious reasons, church leaders saw this practice as an affront to their sovereignty and authority and looked for ways to change the status quo. This effort, however, proved to be extremely difficult, especially in the wake of ugly affairs like the Rule of the Harlots and the Great Schism of 1054.

An opportunity for change finally presented itself 1056 with the death of Emperor Henry III. Henry's successor, six-year-old Henry IV, was obviously too young to govern, thus opening the door for the church to make its move. During Henry IV's youth, the church made three significant moves to help establish its supremacy: First, in 1059, Gregorian reformers helped to push forward the all-important Papal Bull, In Nomine Domini, which established the College of Cardinals and invested in them the exclusive power of electing future popes. Second, in 1075, Pope Gregory VII created the Dictatus Papae, which, among other things, stated that the Pope alone had the authority to depose an emperor. And third, in a Lantern Council of 1075, church leaders declared that the Pope alone had the power of investitures. With these three new mandates in hand, church authorities were finally armed with the justification for ultimate sovereignty that they had longed for.

But as was often the case with Medieval politics, many within the secular realm were not impressed. Now no longer a child, King Henry IV elected to continue with the status quo and appointed his own bishops and abbots. In addition, Henry revoked his imperial support of Pope Gregory and issued a stern warning to the Holy Father. In a letter to Pope Gregory (in which Henry addressed him as "Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk") Henry declared that his divine kingship came not from papal decree but from god himself:

And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honor of the apostolic see; you, however, have understood our humility to be fear, and have not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from you! As if the kingdom and the empire were in your and not in God's hands! And this although our Lord Jesus Christ did call us to the kingdom, did not, however, call thee to the priesthood. For you have ascended by the following steps. By wiles, namely, which the profession of monk abhors, you have achieved money; by money, favor; by the sword, the throne of peace. And from the throne of peace you have disturbed peace, inasmuch as thou hast armed subjects against those in authority over them; inasmuch as you, who were not called, have taught that our bishops called of God are to be despised; inasmuch as you have usurped for laymen and the ministry over their priests, allowing them to depose or condemn those whom they themselves had received as teachers from the hand of God through the laying on of hands of the bishops.

Unfortunately for Henry, his royal rebuking fell on deaf ears. Pope Gregory simply ignored the letter and responded by excommunicating the Holy Roman Emperor. Not only did Henry's excommunication please church authorities but it also excited a number of German lords who had longed for a justification to usurp the king and increase their own wealth and power. Faced with overwhelming opposition from the church and growing hostility from his nobles, Henry finally chose to swallow his pride and appealed to Pope Gregory for reinstatement (legend has it that Henry traveled to Canossa, adorned himself in hairshirt and stood barefoot in the snow). Pope Gregory eventually removed Henry's excommunication but did not declare him king. In 1080 German lords had elected a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, and had petitioned Gregory to anoint him as Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory found himself at a difficult crossroad and decided to not anoint either man as king. This infuriated Henry who proclaimed Clement III as pope (or antipope if you are on Gregory's team). Henry then attacked and killed Rudolf of Rheinfelden and moved on Rome to forcibly remove Gregory from the papacy. Left with no choice, Gregory called on Normon allies to come to his rescue. And though the Normans were successful in driving Henry's forces back, they chose to sack Rome themselves, causing Gregory to flee for his life.

Eventually the Investiture Controversy was resolved by Henry and Gregory's successors. The Concordat of Worms, which essentially granted sovereignty to both the church and the state in their respective realms, became one of the first occasions in which a "wall" of "separation" was created. The Investiture Controversy, though a dramatic mess to say the least, had revealed the fact that mixing matters of church and state together would surely lead to an explosive reaction. Both entities needed a buffer from one another. As the great Medieval historian Norman Cantor put it:

The Investiture Controversy had shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of ecclesia and mundus. Medieval kingship, which had been largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel, was forced to develop new institutions and sanctions. The result during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, was the first instance of a secular bureaucratic state whose essential components appeared in the Anglo-Norman monarchy.

And though the tug-o-war between church and state would rage on for several more centuries, the Investiture Controversy was a landmark event for both ecclesia and mundus. It gave religion a greater measure of independence from secular authorities who had for too long meddled in affairs to which they did not belong. The Investiture Controversy also endowed the state with a very clear sense of legitimacy that would, over the next millenia, rely less and less upon ecclesiastical endorsement and divine right authority. In short, the Investiture Controversy became the launchpad for future reformers and revolutionaries, who battled against the powers of church and state, in an effort to legitimize the independent authority of both. While the Investiture Controversy (along with subsequent struggles over the next several centuries) didn't completely solve the church/state debate, it did lay some of the initial mortar for the "wall." And as we have learned, this "wall" is not made of bricks but rather is a semi-permeable membrane through which church and state are able to occasionally cross, though once crossed is navigating through delicate waters.

For me, the church/state barrier is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich: though very different in texture and flavor the two were made for one another, so long as they are applied in the appropriate proportions and nobody uses the jelly knife to scoop out the peanut butter (or visa-versa). And as everyone knows, though sticky and often messy, there is nothing better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich!

Noteworthy Historical Anniversaries in 2012

2011-12-31T04:08:00.002-07:00

2012 is sure to be an exciting year in history. Not only is the world going to end on December 21 (according to those clever Mayans who could foresee the future but not their own demise), but it is also the anniversary of an number of interesting historical events. Here are just a few:

January 6: 100th anniversary of New Mexico becoming the 47th U.S. state.

January 6: Tradition holds that 600 years ago on this day, Joan of Arc, the French soldier and saint, was born.

January 24: 300 years ago, Frederick the Great of Prussia is born.

February 5: 250th anniversary of the Great Holocaust of the Sikhsis, carried out by the forces of Ahmed Shah Abdali in Punjab. In all, over 500,000 men, women and children perish in this campaign of slaughter.

February 6: The Diamond Jubilee celebration of Queen Elizabeth II, marking the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne of the United Kingdom, and the 60th anniversary of her becoming Head of the Commonwealth.

February 14: 100th anniversary of Arizona becoming the 48th U.S. state.

February 20: 50th anniversary of John Glenn becoming the first American to orbit the Earth.

February 22: 150 years ago, Jefferson Davis is officially sworn in as the first and only president of the Confederate States of America.

March 2: Wilt Chamberlain scores 100 points in one professional basketball game (50 years ago).

April 13: 150 years ago, the government of Vietnam is forced to cede the territories of Biên Hòa, Gia Định and Dinh Tuong to France. This will be a huge deal for the U.S. in About 100 years.

April 13: 700th anniversary of Pope Clement V forcibly disbanding the Knights Templar. Some argue that this date is the basis for the stigma surrounding the "Friday the 13th."

April 15: Marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic (at 2:20 a.m. that morning), which claimed the lives of over 1,500 people.

April 20: The 100th anniversary of the opening of Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox.

May 1: The Incredible Hulk made his grand debut 50 years ago.

May 5: The 150th anniversary of the Battle of Puebla...i.e. Cinco de Mayo.

May 21: 80th anniversary of Amelia Earhart becoming the first woman to cross Atlantic.

June 18: The 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States. I'm sure the History Channel will ONCE AGAIN butcher the history of this war. Heck, they will probably try to show how aliens, monsters, ice road truckers and ancient Mayans were involved.

June 28: 300 years ago, the great Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is born.

July 2: First Wal-Mart opens in Rogers, Arkansas 50 years ago.

July 10: AT&T's Telstar, the world's first commercial communications satellite, is launched into orbit 50 years ago and activated the next day (this is for you, Grant).

July 10: 800 years ago, the most severe of several early fires of London burns most of the city to the ground, Over 3,000 people die.

July 27: The opening ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics begin in London, making London the only city to host the Olympics three times.

August 5: 50th anniversary of the "probable suicide" of actress Marilyn Monroe. She died from an overdose of sleeping pills and chloral hydrate. I have no clue what chloral hydrate is but it sounds BAAAAAD!

August 31: 2,000th birthday of the horrific Roman Emperor Caligula (and he doesn't look a day over 1,200).

September 22: Otto von Bismarck becomes Prime Minister of Prussia 150 years ago.

October 1: 50 years ago, Johnny Carson took over as permanent host of NBC's "Tonight Show", a post he would hold for 30 years.

October 5: The 50th anniversary of the James Bond franchise, which began with the premiere of "Dr. No."

October 14: 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

October 28: 1,700 years ago, one of the most important battles in world history, the Battle of Milvian Bridge, is fought. Constantine I defeats Maxentius and becomes Emperor of Rome. During the battle, he reportedly has a vision of a cross (labarum) with the phrase "in hoc signo vinces" ("In this sign you shall conquer"). This becomes the catalyst for Rome converting to Christianity.

November 1: 500 years ago today, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, painted by Michelangelo Buonarroti, is completed and exhibited to the public for the first time.

November 25: The 10-year anniversary of the WORST federal agency in American history: the pathetic Dept. of Homeland Security.

November 28: 100th anniversary of Albania declaring independence from the Ottoman Empire.

December 1: 800th anniversary of "The Children's Crusade", led by 12-year-old Stephen of Cloyes from France. That's right, there was a Children's Crusade (oh the insanity!).

December 21: The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (Mayan calendar) completes a "great cycle" of thirteen b'ak'tuns (periods of 144,000 days each) since the mythical creation date of the calendar's current era. Oh, and the world comes to an END!!!!!!

There you have it! 2012 is sure to be another fantastic year. God bless you and yours in this new year!

Christmas, 2011

2011-12-25T15:00:00.008-07:00

It finally came! After 365 days of counting down to the greatest day in humanity, Christmas is finally here! And it was a WONDERFUL Christmas for our family. Here are a few highlights (and yes, the new Christmas countdown clock is up and running on the right-hand side of this blog):

Some videos:

Calm Before the Storm:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Crazy Helicopters

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!!!

Christmas in Colonial America: A Drunken Bash?

2011-12-24T15:58:00.002-07:00

Baylor University historian Thomas Kidd has written an interesting article on how colonial Americans celebrated the holiday season. He writes:

In the 1700s, Christmas was notorious for drunken bashes more reminiscent of Mardi Gras than our family-friendly holiday. An account from New York published during the "twelve days" of Christmas in early 1787 (the same year Americans would frame the new Constitution) paints a picture of a deeply conflicted holiday. As one might expect, some people focused on the religious meaning of the season, setting aside the time "for a most sacred purpose." Others, however, spent the twelve days "reveling in profusion, and paying their sincere devotions to merry Bacchus," the Greek god of wine and festivity.

The city's churches were full on Sundays in the twelve days of Christmas, but so were the "temples dedicated to the service of merriment, dissipation and folly . . . where the sons of gluttony and drunkenness satiate their respective appetites." The taverns let out around midnight, when Christmas revelers poured into the streets, and "by their unmeaning, wild, extravagant noise," the account grumbled, "disturb those citizens who would rather sleep than get drunk."

And the following short poem illustrates the frustration that many pious early Americans had with their wild, drunken neighbors:

So merry at Christmas are some, they destroy
Their health by disease, and by trouble their joy
At Christmas, mix wisdom with mirth and never fear,
You'll secure the wished blessing—a happy New Year.

It has long been a fascination of mine to look at how people of the past celebrated the holidays. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American Christmas celebration is a relatively new phenomenon. As historian Nicole Harms points out:

Christmas in colonial America did not resemble the brightly lit festivities we celebrate today. In fact, many colonial religions banned celebrations of the holiday, claiming that it was tied to pagan traditions. The New England Puritans passed a law in Massachusetts that punished anyone who observed the holiday with a five-shilling fine. The Quakers treated Christmas Day as any other day of the year. The Presbyterians did not have formal Christmas Day services until they noticed that their members were heading to the English church to observe the Christmas services. This sparked the Presbyterian Church to start services of their own.

But not all of the earliest settlers detested Christmas. As I point out in a previous post, the settlers of Jamestown celebrated Christmas by getting absolutely hammered on "grog." Grog was colonial slang for any beverage containing rum (brings a new meaning to the expression of feeling "groggy" in the morning). Eventually, the word was changed to "nog" giving rise to its current name: eggnog. In addition, eggnog probably descended from the English drink "posset" or "sack posset," which was a hot drink made with sweetened milk and ale and was often mixed with eggs.

So however you choose to celebrate your holiday make it a safe one! God bless you and yours this Christmas season and throughout the new year!

Amazing Grace: Fact and Fiction

2011-12-24T15:55:00.003-07:00

One of my favorite movies in recent years was the 2006 film Amazing Grace, which is the story of British politician William Wilberforce and his quest to destroy the slave trade. The film is also meant to explain the origins of the popular Christian hymn Amazing Grace, written by John Newton in 1779.

The film is both inspiring and aggravating. I say this because the movie does an excellent job of shedding light on an important historical figure (William Wilberforce), and aggravating because the film omits some important truths.

The film also does an solid job of recreating the Great Britain of the 18th century, including an excellent portrayal of London's contrasting social classes. The film brings to live the stark reality of both 18th century British poverty, its plight in the wake of emerging market capitalism, and its almost complete dependence upon the far wealthier gentry class. 18th century Britain was a world of two extremes: an incredibly wealthy gentry class invested with power, prestige, comfort and education, and the poor masses, ignorant, brutish, and in the infancy of emerging as a stronger class.

Despite these delightful movie recreations, Amazing Grace is deeply saturated with pop culture imagery that distorts the historical record. As Adam Hochschild points out in his article, English Abolition: The Movie, the abolitionist movement to end the slave trade was in no way a solo effort on the part of William Wilberforce. In fact, Wilberforce had a tremendous amount of support for his abolitionist agenda. As the articles states:

In recent decades, however, scholars have seen the history of British abolition as involving far more than Wilberforce's personal virtue. In 1787–1788, during the heady period between the American and French Revolutions, a huge grassroots movement against the slave trade burst into life in Britain, startling abolitionists and slave traders alike… more than 300,000 people refused to buy West Indian sugar. This was the largest consumer boycott the world had yet seen.

To be certain, Wilberforce is a man that is more than deserving of the accolades he has received over the years (and in this movie in particular), however, we should all be mindful that British abolitionism was a movement in which thousands of British citizens felt morally compelled to take action. In fact, the British abolitionist movement was deeply inspired by the Quaker movement. As Hochschild again points out:

The movement was led by an extremely imaginative, hard-working committee of activists, most of them Quakers, who pioneered tactics that are still used by human rights groups today...In addition, Anglican sentiment against the slave trade forced clergy members to adopt a pro-abolitionist stance in their sermons.

In addition, the best-selling memoirs of Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who became a powerful voice for abolition in Britain (essentially Britain’s Frederick Douglass) made mention of the Christian imperative to end the slave trade:

“O, ye nominal Christians! might not an African as you, learned you this from your God, who says unto you, Do unto all men as you would men should do unto you?”

Any you can see, Wilberforce was FAR from alone in his quest to end slavery in Britain.

Apart from the story on the abolition of the slave trade, Amazing Grace attempts to provide an inspiring tale on the origins of John Newton’s infamous hymn. In the movie, the Reverend John Newton is portrayed as a former heathen, who goes the way of the world by taking part in the transportation of thousands of African slaves to the New World. While in the course of transporting these slaves, Newton allegedly experiences a change of heart, in which he realizes the errors of his ways and devotes the rest of his life to the ministry and a remission for his sins.

While this comes off sounding nice, the truth is actually a bit different. As Adam Hochschild points out:

The reality was quite different. Most inconveniently for sin-and-repentance storytellers, John Newton came to evangelical Christianity before making four transatlantic voyages as a slave-ship officer, not afterward. He left the trade not for reasons of conscience but of health. And when he later was ordained a minister, he had all his savings invested with his former employer, who still had a fleet of slave ships at sea. There is no evidence that he mentioned slavery when Wilberforce first came to see him. Newton said not a word in public against the slave trade until 1788, several years after meeting Wilberforce and more than thirty years after he left the sea; by then a huge mass movement was underway and it was no longer easy for so prominent a former slave trader to avoid taking a stand. He then wrote a forceful pamphlet against the trade, testified twice at hearings, mentioned the subject once or twice in sermons, and otherwise did not openly raise it again for the remaining two decades of his preaching and writing life. He believed that the major evil of the day was blasphemy, which he once called "Our national sin."

So instead of being offered as an atonement for sin, Newton’s hymn Amazing Grace was actually written while the reverend continued to profit from the slave trade.

Though thoroughly entertaining and enlightening to the viewer, Amazing Grace is far from an accurate portrayal of real history. With that said, the film is still worth watching. The story of William Wilberforce is inspiring to say the least. And even if the back story behind John Newton's epic hymn isn't what we would like to envision, the hymn itself is still a timeless classic.

Here is the trailer for Amazing Grace

The Pearl's Great Price: Juxtaposing the Book of Abraham With the Book of Moses

2011-12-23T11:13:00.038-07:00

And What They Teach Us About
the Nature of Revelation

One of the most popular "smoking gun" allegations against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and of Joseph Smith in particular, has been the Book of Abraham. This book, along with the Book of Moses, comprise the majority of what Mormons call The Pearl of Great Price, one of four works canonized as scripture by the LDS faith. To understand the nature of these allegations we must first briefly revisit the history of the Book of Abraham and of the Pearl of Great Price in general.

A Brief History of the Joseph Smith Papyri
In 1833 a man named Michael Chandler purchased a collection of mummies, scrolls and other Egyptian artifacts from an excavator named Antonio Lebolo. Chandler attempted to earn money by touring the eastern United States with the artifacts, electing to sell a number of them along the way. In 1835, while traveling through Kirtland, Ohio, Chandler sold his last four mummies along with a collection of several scrolls to Joseph Smith for $2,400. While examining the artifacts, Smith declared that the scrolls "contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236). Smith immediately set out to translating the record and completed most of the work in the latter months of 1835. After a few revisions in 1842 the work was completed and published in the church magazine Times and Seasons later that same year. In 1880, along with other works, the Book of Abraham was canonized as scripture as part of the Pearl of Great Price.

For members of the Mormon church in Smith's time, the Book of Abraham was seen as the palpable reality of Smith's divine revelatory powers. Though members already had access to the Book of Mormon they did not have access to the golden plates. The Book of Abraham, however, retained its original primary source material in the form of ancient Egyptian scrolls. Even today most members of the church accept the Book of Abraham at face value. Few have found any reason to question its authenticity.

And though Mormons of the 19th century had an excuse to not question the Book of Abraham (the Rosetta Stone had still not been deciphered making any translation of Egyptian impossible), today's Mormon is forced to confront some difficult hurdles. Unlike 19th century historians, modern day scholars know precisely what the book of Abraham scrolls and facsimiles have to say. How? Because we have the scrolls themselves.

When Joseph Smith died in 1844, the papyri became the property of his wife, Emma. In the wake of the succession crisis over who would replace Smith as prophet, a battle that Brigham Young eventually won, Emma refused to relinquish control of the documents to the church. At some point, Emma elected to donate the artifacts to a Chicago museum. For decades thereafter it was believed that the ultimate fate of the papyri ended with their destruction in the great Chicago fire of 1871. However, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The papyri were then given back to the church where they remain to this day.

So What do They Say?
The natural question for us today is, "Have modern Egyptologists deciphered the papyri?" The answer is "Yes." The obvious followup question is "What do modern Egyptologists have to say?" For Mormons the answer isn't very appealing. It turns out that the papyri are nothing more than common Egyptian funerary texts from the first century B.C. (a full translation of the papyri can be found here). In addition to the papyri being common funerary texts, the facsimile's from the Book of Abraham are of note. Contrary to Smith's interpretation, modern day Egyptologists have conclusively shown that the facsimiles are not a depiction of Abraham on an altar (facsimile 1), or of Kolob and other heavenly representations (facsimiles 2 and 3). Rather they are common embalming scenes and a hypocephalus from the Egyptian Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings. When asked about Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles, Dr. W.M. Flinders of London University stated, "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in [Smith's] explanations" (I recognize that these facsimiles deserve further attention but that is not the purpose of this post. You can find a plethora of good material on the topic with a simple Google search. I'll let the reader decide what are good sources for further research). In short, modern day Egyptologists have successfully shown that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith said it was. And make no mistake, this isn't a conspiracy nor an attempt to smear Joseph Smith. This is factual, provable, verifiable reality. There is no reason that I or any other Mormon should attempt to sugarcoat these undeniable facts.

Now before my Mormon friends bail on me for sounding too "anti-Mormon" hear me out for a second. Though it is true that the papyri and facsimiles are not what Joseph Smith said they were, and regardless of the fact that Joseph Smith didn't understand Egyptian in any way, shape or form, and in spite of the true interpretations of modern Egyptologists, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. Here's how:

Don't Throw the Baby Jesus
Out With the Bathwater
As I write this post we are but 2 days away from my favorite holiday: Christmas! This is truly the best time of the year! Holiday cheer is in the air, Christmas lights decorate the town, and homes smell sweet with the scent of freshly cut Christmas trees. But most importantly I love Christmas because of Christ. And though I love this holiday more than all the rest, I fully recognize the fact that almost everything we do on Christmas has nothing do do with Christ. In fact, most of what we do to celebrate this season is pagan in origin. From Christmas trees to holiday wreaths, yule logs to mistletoe, Christmas is LOADED with pagan rituals and tradition that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity (for more on this topic see my post here).

Does this truth about Christmas take away from the holiday season? Is it the duty of all good Christians to reject these traditions? Does the baby Jesus care that we celebrate his birth with pagan symbols in the dead of winter? I contend that he does not. What matters is that Christmas, even with all of its pagan elements, is the medium through which we celebrate the birth of Christ. We are imperfect people. Imperfect people make mistakes. This means that it is only natural that our imperfections will manifest themselves through our traditions, customs and yes, even our history.

And the same is true of the Book of Abraham. Is the book good history? Absolutely not. Is it good scripture? No doubt about it. And make no mistake, there is a clear difference between history and scripture. The former must be analytical, objective and rely on demonstrative evidence, while the latter is allegorical, inspiring and faith-promoting. For critics to expect perfection from the Book of Abraham is to expect what never was, is, or ever will be. Or as the poet Alexander Pope put it:

Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see.
Thinks what ne'er was, nor is, nor e'er shall be
In every work regard the writer's end,
Since none can compass more than they intend,
And if the means be just, the conduct true,
Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due.

And though my defense of the Book of Abraham will no doubt come off sounding like the rantings of a biased apologist to critics, I still maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture, and to support this claim I now turn to the Book of Abraham's "twin sister" in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses.

Enoch: The Mystery Man
Unlike the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses was the result of direct revelation to Joseph Smith while he attempted his revision of the Holy Bible. The work was completed long before the book of Abraham (1830-31) and was incorporated into the Pearl of Great Price as a "sister book" to the BoA. In Smith's translation, 3,422 words were added to the Genesis story up until chapter 6:13, which is where the Book of Moses ends. That almost exactly doubles the conventional word count of Genesis up to that point in the King James Version. The Book of Moses deals with the creation story and a few short narratives on Moses himself, but the bulk of it centers on the story of Enoch. This is significant because the story of Enoch is almost non-existent in most Christian scripture (particularly the Bible) but is the central theme of the Book of Moses. And it also helps that the Enoch of the Book of Moses just happens to fit very nicely with the Enoch from the actual ancient texts. For example:

Moses 7:67 "And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world."

2 Enoch 40:1 "Now therefore, my children, I know everything;...my eyes have seen from the beginning even to the end, and from the end to the recommencement."
-----
Moses 7:4 [the Lord said to Enoch] "Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations."

3 Enoch 45 "And I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts...And every deed of every generation, whether done or to be done in the time to come, to all generations, till the end of time."
-----
Moses 6:51 "And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh."

2 Enoch 23:4-5 "You [Enoch] sit down and write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born,...For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth."
-----
Moses 7:44 "And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted.

2 Enoch 41:1 "And I [Enoch] sighed and burst into tears, and I said concerning their disreputable depravity, Oh how miserable."
-----
Moses 7:59 [Enoch to God] "Thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne."

3 Enoch 10:1-3 [Enoch speaking] "The Holy One made for me a throne like the throne of glory...He placed it at the door of the seventh palace and sat me down upon it."
Needless to say, the similarities between Smith's Book of Moses and the actual records of Enoch are striking (and there are a lot more than what I listed above). These incredible similarities are a fact not lost to many experts. For example, noted Yale scholar Harold Bloom, who specializes in ancient and sacred literature, stated that the Book of Moses (and Abraham) is "strikingly akin to ancient suggestions" that essentially restate "the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist." Bloom continued by stating that he found "enormous validity" in the way these writings "recapture critical elements in the archaic Jewish religion...that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly." So while the Book of Abraham is often the recipient of criticism, it's "sister book" has been praised by scholars in a variety of fields.

Of course, critics have countered these claims by pointing out the fact that the first English translation of the Book of Enoch (the Bodleian/Ethiopic manuscripts) was published in 1821 by Richard Laurence, nine years before Smith's Book of Moses revelation. However, these early translations (and others like them) do not contain the similarities mentioned above. Those come from later (and better) translations of the ancient text made long after Smith's death. In addition, though these works were published in the early part of the 19th century, they did not become popular (even in Europe) until the 1850s. So while it is possible that Smith had access to a condensed early version of the ancient Enoch, it is certainly not probable.

The Nature of Revelation
So how can one book in the Pearl of Great price (the BoA) have so many apparent problems, while the other (the BoM) receives praise? The answer lies with the nature of revelation itself. Contrary to what many believe (even within my own faith) I maintain that revelation is not some magical, mysterious, supernatural connection to heaven. I do not believe in psychics and I reject the "hocus pocus" tactics of fortune tellers. Heck, I reject a lot of the supposed "revelation" that many in my own faith hail as fact (every faith has its mythology). Instead, revelation is (in my opinion) the quiet, consistent persuasions of the mind that often lead to those "AHA!" moments. Or as Joseph Smith himself put it:

A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon...And thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, Pp. 151).

Does that mean that anyone can receive revelation? Absolutely, and I believe that most of us receive it without our even knowing it. Revelation is a part of us. It invigorates the mind the same way air invigorates the lungs (and most of us breathe without even thinking of it). Revelation is the "light bulb" of the mind turning on to new and exciting ideas. It is what inspires the poet, motivates the scientist, drives the composer and enlightens the philosopher. This is how everything from the Bible, the Qur'an, Handel's "Messiah", and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel can be seen as the fruits of revelation (yet all of those still have their human imperfections). I believe that some of the world's greatest thinkers received revelation. As James E Faust taught:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

It is arrogant presumption for us to think that all of our thoughts and ideas are exclusively our own. We thank God for the air we breathe and the food we eat. Why not for the inspirations of our mind? In short, revelation is the "eye" (or "I") to enlightenment, which we discover through: "I"nspiration, "I"ntellect, "I"ntuition and "I"nstinct.

None of this, of course, can explain how the Book of Abraham can appear as an apparent historical fraud and still be inspired scripture. Much of this rests with the eye (or "I") of the beholder. What we do know is that inspiration, intellect, intuition and instincts are tricky things. We all know that they are real but they can also be quite deceiving. It's hard for us imperfect humans to fully trust our intellect, intuition, etc., but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Perhaps Joseph Smith's intellect and intuition were wrong about the papyri he purchased but that doesn't mean that he wasn't inspired. Could the papyri have served to "spark" the revelation? To the critic such an assertion is ridiculous, to the believer in revelation...true revelation...it is quite probable. As Nephi put it:

But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught (2 Nephi 33:2).

For me, the real beauty of the Pearl of Great Price rests with its lessons on revelation. Here are two books, with very different pathways to revelation, testifying of the truthfulness of the Gospel. It is true that scripture never has, nor ever will be, good history or science, but history and science have never been good scripture. History may answer the "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions, while science answers the "how" questions, but it is religion that answers the ever-important "why" questions. The truth of the matter is that we need them all to gain further light and knowledge...i.e. further revelation. As one important revelation put it: "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (and dare I say that the glory of God is also Inspiration, Intuition and Instinct as well).

Let us all be grateful for the revelation we receive, regardless of its source. Whether in the form of "non-Mormon" source material or questionable historical relics is irrelevant. The work of revelation, though often painstaking and difficult to sort out, is worth all of the work. Remember, every butterfly was first a caterpillar, every flower had to first push through dirt, and every pearl of great price was first irritating sand inside of an oyster. No revelation is meant to be easy, if this were not the case, what would it be revealing?

David Cameron: "The U.K. is a Christian Nation"

2011-12-18T12:24:00.001-07:00

In a speech delivered last week at Oxford for the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, British Prime Minister David Cameron called for a "revival" of Christian values to counter Britain's "moral collapse." "We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so" stated Cameron to an audience of more than 3000. Cameron also stated that he was a man "full of doubts" when it came to matters of faith, but that he was, nonetheless, a Christian:

I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith, but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues

But what I do believe is this.

The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this.

[...]

We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.

[...]

Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love, pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities, these are the values we treasure. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths.

But not everyone agrees:

If values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths why the need to specifically label the country Christian? Why not say that we share a common morality and common values? Call it humanism, call it whatever you want - don't call it anything at all. Only this will unite us.

the only reason to evoke Christianity is a desperate attempt to address the declining morality. But he falsely makes the classic polar argument 'it must be either this or god', just as people assume it must 'science or god'. There are alternatives - it just takes just a little bit of forward thinking and trust in mankind's ability to be a moral being.

And from Richard Dawkins' website:

Firstly, the UK is not a Christian country except constitutionally - the Queen being the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England. We are not even a practising religious country.

Secondly, the morals of the bible are, to put it generously, 'confused'.

Thirdly, in any event, Christianity is not the basis of even the good parts of our 'moral code' given that concepts such as the 'golden rule' (like it or loathe it) pre-date monotheistic 'Abrahamic' religions by some distance.

To be honest, I tend to side with Cameron on this one. One doesn't need to be an expert in British history to recognize just how important Christianity has been on Great Britain (and Europe in general). Heck, in many respects Christianity pre-dates the establishment of England, and certainly of Great Britain and the U.K. From Catholicism to Henry VIII's break with the church, from Elizabeth I's creation of the Church of England to the Puritans, Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, etc., etc., etc., the United Kingdom has a rich Christian heritage AND founding.

So how does this relate to the United States?

Obviously the history of Britain and the U.S. are joined at the hip, however, I still maintain that the United States, though incredibly religious in its own right, has a different founding than Europe. As I stated in a previous post, America's PLANTING is certainly Christian in many respects (the Puritans being the prime example). However, America's FOUNDING was something different entirely.

Of course, much of this debate boils down to semantics: what constitutes a "Christian", what constitutes a "Nation"? I maintain that if we look at America's founding from a traditional orthodox Christian perspective we cannot conclude that America was founded as a Christian nation (though England certainly was).

My 2011 Person of the Year

2011-12-15T07:40:00.026-07:00

At the conclusion of very year, since 1927, Time Magazine has selected a "Person of the Year", to headline a special December issue of their magazine. Everyone from Adolf Hitler to Franklin D. Roosevelt; the computer to the endangered Earth have been given this distinction. For 2011, Time has selected "The Protester" as the person of the year. And though I agree that "The Protester" is a fair selection, I have a problem with Time selecting a very generic "person" to headline their "Person of the Year." This isn't the first time that Time has chosen a generic figure. In 2006, Time selected "You" for person of the year. In 2002, the honor went to "The Whistle blowers", and in 1993 the award went to "The Peacemakers."

Now, I realize that Time is trying to do two things with these types of selections: first and foremost, sell magazines and second, I do believe they are trying to be objective. However, I personally believe that a "Person of the Year" needs to be just that: a PERSON! Picking a large, generic group of people just seems like a cop out.

With that said, here are my 10 selections (from 10-1) for the 2011 Person of the Year:

10.) Muammar Gaddafi
The former Lybian dictator, who was killed on October 11 of this year, kicks off my list. I chose Gaddafi not because of anything great he did but rather for all of his horrible acts towards the people he claimed to "love" so much (those same people are the ones who killed him). Gaddafi was the epitome of a narcissistic dictator who used his position of power to exclusively benefit himself. The irony is that his style of leadership is ultimately what led to his pathetic demise. He is deserving to be on this list because he is essentially the embodiment of a changing Middle East. His long reign of terror is finally over. Adios, puto!

9.) The Scientists as CERN
Ok, I know I started this post off by complaining that Time sometimes chooses a group of people for their person of the year, and here I am doing the same thing (I actually do it twice on this list. Another "group" is coming). I chose the scientists at the CERN laboratory for one big reason: they may have proven Einstein wrong. Earlier this year, CERN released the findings from their neutrino studies conducted at the Swiss/French Hadron Collider. In a nutshell, what they discovered is that neutrinos apparently can travel faster than the speed of light. This is a monumental discovery because, if substantiated, it would prove a portion of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to be wrong, and would force us to reevaluate some of the ways we look at physics.

8.) Princess Kate Middleton
Ok, I know that most Americans don't understand the importance of the British Royal Family but that doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to the rest of the world (and especially to Britain). Earlier this year, Kate Middleton married Prince William, the future King of England, making Kate the future queen. Kate has become an icon for the British people. As the spouse of the son of the Late Princess Diana, the pressure for Kate to meet expectations is extreme. Needless to say, she has met those expectations. Kate Middleton, a "commoner" by birth, actually has a great deal in common with her mother-in-law. She has been a vocal advocate against poverty and children with cancer. Kate was also a vocal proponent in favor of the new British law (passed this year) which no longer gives favor to males as heirs to the crown. This means that if Kate has a daughter first, she will be the first future Queen of England to have preference over a brother.

7.) Mitt Romney
As we all know, Romney is running for president in 2012. But unlike the other candidates, Romney has managed to stay consistent and relevant in what has been a whirlwind mess of a GOP field. It seems like every other month a new Republican candidate gains a ton of momentum and then fizzles out. Romney, however, has been the epitome of steady consistency, which according to many political experts, makes him the biggest threat to an Obama reelection.

6.) Ai Weiwei
Most Americans are probably not very familiar with Weiwei (I wasn't until earlier this year) but he has done some wonderful things in China. Weiwei is by trade an artist, but in recent years has taken to being a very vocal supporter of Chinese reform. A former communist himself, Weiwei is now a staunch supporter for democratic reform in China. His work has landed him in prison on a number of occasions, where he has been the recipient of several police beatings. Unlike other Chinese advocates who usually fizzle out, Weiwei is extremely popular throughout the country.

5.) Barack Obama
Anytime you are the President of the United States you are probably a perennial person of the year. Obama has fallen in popularity this year but is still a powerful contender for 2012. Among his other accomplishments this year, Obama concluded the war in Iraq, cut taxes (yes, he really did cut taxes), and ordered the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden. Obviously, 2012 is going to be the most important year for Obama's presidency as he seeks a second term, but his role as President of the United States in 2011 secures him a spot on this list.

4.) Gabrielle Giffords
In January of this year, Congresswoman Giffords was nearly killed in a horrific shooting that claimed the lives of six people. Giffords' prognosis was grim for most of 2011 as she struggled for life while on a ventilator and in a coma. Doctors were unsure if she would survive let alone return to her seat in the House of Representatives. And though she initially had several complications including an inability to walk, talk and breathe on her own, Congresswoman Giffords eventually made a near complete recovery. Less than eight months after being shot several times (including in the head) she was back in the House attending to the affairs of her elected position. Regardless of one's political leanings, Congresswoman Giffords is one heck of an example and inspiration!

3.) Tayyip Erdogan
Erdogan, who is the Prime Minister of Turkey, is the personification of the many changes that are taking place all over the Middle East. A devout Muslim, career politician, popular protester (he served time in prison for opposing Turkey's dictatorship), and a former professional athlete, Erdogan's politics appeal to a wide range of Turks who have been hungry for change. Erdogan has helped Turkey emerge as a serious economic juggernaut. Next to China, Turkey is currently the second fastest growing economy in the world. Erdogan has also been a champion of Islamic pacifism by promoting secular democracy and by opposing Syria. And though he has opposed the United States on its policies regarding Israel and Iran, Erdogan is considered an important American ally in the Middle East.

2.) Seal Team 6
Seal Team 6 is my second "group" nominee for person of the year. Needless to say, Seal Team 6 succeeded in killing a man who had been on the run for almost 10 years. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was a righteous achievement, though not one in which we as Americans should boast. The taking of any life is never an occasion for celebration. With that said, the men of Seal Team 6 did a remarkable job in completing a very complex and important mission and they deserve to be praised.

And the winner of the Brad Hart Person of 2011 is...

...

...

1.) Steve Jobs
On October 5 of this year, Steve Jobs passed away after a lengthy battle with pancreatic cancer. Jobs was a rare and special talent to say the least. As the co-founder of Apple, Jobs became a pioneer in the computer and technology world. He revolutionized the music industry, improved the entertainment business and made personal computers a reality (heck, a near necessity) for humanity. Jobs was the epitome of a dreamer, an innovator, an inventor and a visionary. Jobs' genius was that he wasn't a genius. He was a normal person who knew what he wanted out of life and did it. He expected greatness from himself and all others around him, but not so much that he didn't know how to cut loose. It is a well known fact that Jobs was a drug user in his early years while creating apple (especially LSD). Even though at the end his body fell apart, Jobs' mind was always sharp. He was the primary advocate for the creation of the iPad and the iPhone, innovations that have catapulted Apple to an even greater level.

And even in death Jobs saw what we couldn't. His final words were, "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow!" One can only imagine what Jobs was seeing but I would imagine that it would have to be pretty damn impressive to get that kind of a reaction from Jobs. There is no doubt that the world lost an icon in 2011. Thank you, Steve Jobs for all you gave us! And don't rest in peace (since we know that's the last thing you want to do). Instead, go dazzle the heavens with your next innovation!

Steve Jobs' EXCELLENT address at Stanford University:

We Mormons: An Essay on Church Culture

2011-12-13T11:54:00.005-07:00

We Mormons are a strange bunch sometimes. Most see us as being an ultra-cheerful bunch (which is a good thing), who despite being a bit naive to the realities of the world (which is probably true...that darn "Mormon bubble"), are always willing to give a helping hand wherever possible. And like most churches, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have also developed their own sense of "Mormon-ness", or in other words, our own micro-culture. Heck, we even have our own language. We "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "with every fiber of our being" that certain things are "true", we always ensure that our food is blessed to "nourish and strengthen our bodies", we "revere the brethren", "obey all traffic laws" after General Conference (except for the idiot drivers in Utah County), we "search, ponder and pray", color our favorite scriptures in our "triple combinations", and sometimes believe that popcorn really does pop on an apricot tree.

Oh, and we "always" vote Republican. =)

Of course, these stereotypes are nothing more than an illustration of the fact that Mormonism has, like virtually every other group of people, developed its own culture. And though this culture is far from a fair representation of church theology, the fact of the matter is that Mormon culture does sometimes get messed up with Mormon religion, and occasionally it can be difficult to separate the two.

For example:

1.) We Mormons sometimes revere a BYU education to any other. And though the "Lord's University" is a great institution (I can't rip on it too hard, my wife and most of her family graduated from BYU) there is definitely a cultural preference that is granted to all things BYU. For some, a BYU degree increases one's intellect (and spirituality) to an "Einstonian" level. In addition, BYU football is ALWAYS cheated out of a national championship by evil "gentile" voters, and Steve Young is the greatest athlete in the universe. Oh, and there is no greater musician than a BYU musician. =)

Of course, Mormons should be proud of BYU. It is a wonderful school with much to be proud of. It was inevitable that BYU would eventually become a big part of Mormon culture.

2.) We Mormons obsess over politics. In fact, politics are seen as almost a religious duty for every Latter-day Saint. To be uninterested, or worse, to be a DEMOCRAT, is akin to being sent to "Outer Darkness" for eternity. Republican politicians, even if not Mormon, are almost always considered to be soldiers of goodness, while Democrats are wolves in sheep's clothing. Glenn Beck (who will one day be a General Authority) is a treasure of righteousness that is to be praised in many a testimony meeting.

I find politics to be arguably the most interesting influence on Mormon culture. As most already know, Utah (and American Mormons in general) are overwhelmingly Republican. And though there is surely a large number of Mormon Republicans who are truly conservative to the core, the majority of Mormon "conservatism" is cultural in nature. Most Mormons are probably unaware of the fact that early Latter-day Saints were overwhelmingly Democrat. In fact, when Utah was applying for statehood church leaders resorted to assigning members to join the Republican Party in an effort to show that Mormons embraced all political ideas (the U.S. Government was deeply concerned that Mormons were overwhelmingly Democrats). Mormons in the 20s and 30s overwhelmingly supported FDR, the New Deal, and other "evil" progressive programs.

3.) We Mormons sometimes get upset when we aren't considered mainstream or when we don't get the media attention we think we deserve, but then are furious when South Park makes a "Book of Mormon" musical. I'm not saying I like negative attention but you have to be able to take the good with the bad if you are wanting to become more public.

4.) We Mormons start and end every activity known to man with a prayer, believe violence is only warranted in a church basketball setting, think green Jell-O with shredded carrots is a delicacy, believe the Holy Spirit goes to bed at midnight and think that every time an R-rated movie hits theaters an angel dies. =)

5.) We Mormons celebrate the 24th of July (the day early Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley) as a second Independence Day of sorts. We proudly cover floats in the red, white and blue and waive "Old Glory" from our rooftops. This is ironic since early Mormons were fleeing from the United States. Most early saints had a deep hatred for the U.S. government (and rightfully so). Their arrival to Salt Lake had nothing to do with American patriotism. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. And though I have no problem with modern day Mormons demonstrating our incredible patriotism (and make no mistake, Mormons today are very patriotic) I do think we sometimes forget that early Mormons were actually quite anti-American...and for good reasons.

6.) We Mormons love to collect and store tons of food. The church has done a remarkable job of making canned goods available to its members. Some Mormons have literally years of food storage saved up. We even like to cook creative meals with our massive surplus and then show them off. This is actually a wonderful cultural practice that most people in the world would greatly benefit from if they followed our lead.

7.) We Mormon men are given the "big" leadership roles in the church but the reality of Mormonism is that women run the show. There is no doubt that local Mormon wards and stakes would literally crumble without the women. Almost all of the actual work that is done in the church is done by those who lack a Y chromosome.

8.) We Mormons like to think that we are deep religious scholars. We debate over "deep" religious stuff like, "Did Adam have a belly button?", "What is an intelligence?", "Where is Kolob?", "Is Emma Smith going to heaven?", and "Were we all friends in the pre-existence?" We Mormons hold Gospel Doctrine classes every Sunday, send our kids to four years of Seminary during their high school years, include Institute of Religion classes as part of one's college curriculum, and send our missionaries to intense training centers. Yet despite all of this, most Mormons know very little about other religions. Heck, most don't know much about Mormon theology and/or history. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking these FANTASTIC church programs (I have participated in all of them) but the fact remains that most Mormons are fairly ignorant when it comes to theology in general.

9.) We Mormons like to say, "The church is true no matter where you go." And though I agree that church theology can be found anywhere, the fact is that not all Mormon wards are created equal. Depending on location, demographics, wealth, age, etc., Mormon wards are actually very different from one another.

10.) We Mormons HATE swearing. And though I agree that swearing can be a disgusting practice, most Mormons probably don't realize that early Latter-day Saints swore like sailors...even occasionally in a talk. Hell, some habits are just too damn hard to break!

11.) We Mormons are extremely quiet during church services. Aside from the occasional obligatory laugh at a lame joke, the Mormon congregation sits quietly during a service (with the exception of kids). There is no applauding a musical number and it is rare that people get up during the service (again, usually because of kids). This is ironic because early Latter-day Saints were quite expressive during the church services. Members in the congregation would regularly chime in with an "Amen" or a "God be praised" comment. Members would even interrupt the speaker with a long comment and then the speaker would respond! In the modern Mormon church, the passing of the sacrament is a quiet, reverent time of reflection. In the early church, the sacrament was handed out while speakers spoke and music was sang. And instead of separate cups for the Sacrament water, early Mormons simply shared a cup (and it wasn't always filled water) that they passed around. Oh, and there was even some early Mormons who did the whole "speaking in strange tongues" thing while at church.

12.) We Mormons treat the Sabbath day (Sunday) with great respect. Most refrain from work, shopping, television, and eating out. Spending money on Sunday is sometimes seen as a Sabbath-breaker. And though I greatly enjoy such practices on my Sunday (for me they make Sunday feel special), early Mormons were notorious for spending money on Sunday. In fact, early leaders didn't care much about it. Of course, they preached against gambling and buying alcohol on Sunday, but spending money was no big deal. In addition, work was common on Sunday, in fact, it was a necessity. Crops had to be tended to, cows milked, chickens fed, land plowed, etc.

13.) We Mormons stress the importance of living a healthy life. Our "Word of Wisdom" teaches that we should abstain from harmful things like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and eating too much meat. And though this is great advise, we Mormons sometimes forget that early Latter-day Saints regularly drank coffee, alcohol and tobacco...even in church.

14.) We Mormons preach frugality and condemn obsessive materialism, yet Utah is a leader in the nation in foreclosures and bankruptcies. That is a sad aspect to Mormon culture.

15.) We Mormons love to meet...for EVERYTHING! It seems like we have a meeting in order to plan more meetings.

16.) We Mormons are huge into scouting. For some, earning the rank of Eagle Scout is as important as baptism. Some Mormon girls require an Eagle Scout of their future hubby's. And though I have no problem with scouting, there is no doubt that the church's devotion to the program is purely cultural.

17.) We Mormons have refreshments for EVERYTHING. I remember going to a viewing for a dead person and seeing a table full of bean dip, casseroles and, of course...green Jell-O with carrots...at a VIEWING!!!

In conclusion, though these cultural facts are amusing, I love my faith. It has made me a better person than I would have been without it. Yes, there are a number of crazy cultural components to Mormonism that are fun point out, but none of them fly in the face of the Mormon religion. Perhaps some of my fellow Mormons will think it inappropriate for me to even point out these cultural truths. They may feel that it is "mocking" the faith. This is not my intention. Instead, I think it's more than proper to laugh at the silly things we do. Yes, life is serious but not so serious that you can't laugh at yourself. Being a member of the Mormon Church (or any church for that matter) means taking the good with the bad; accepting the religion and the culture. And even if I sometimes complain about Mormon culture I am, in the end, grateful for it. After all, where else would I get my laughs?

***Special hat tip: S. Faux's incredible blog

A Few Random Kid Pics

2011-12-13T09:05:00.005-07:00

It has been a while since I posted any pictures so here is some random stuff that was hanging around on my computer's hard drive:

Pretty awesome kids!!!

If I Were President...

2011-12-13T08:56:00.002-07:00

My "Twelve Step" Program
to Modernize America

Partisan politics have been a staple in the American experiment ever since this nation's conception. Contrary to popular belief, our Founding Fathers fought every bit as much as we do over the issues of their day. However, the massive commercialization of politics in our modern world is something new. The emergence of 24/7 political analysis on television, coupled with the explosion of political talk radio and the ever-present stream of "best-selling" books, has caused the supposed rift between left and right to widen and deepen over the past two decades. Like the devil himself, pundits on both sides are continually clashing to claim the political souls of man. Unfortunately, this bizarre and prideful war has sacrificed sincere political debate and rational inquiry upon the altars of fame, money and control. Politics in America has become more about who can yell the loudest rather than who can inspire meaningful dialogue. The voices yelling at us through our televisions and car radios care more about provoking an emotional response from their target audience than they do about creating sincere thought-provoking commentary. As a result, you end up with a society that becomes obsessed with conspiracy theories, evil government plots and doomsday hype.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that politics are important. It is both right and good that "We the People" be involved in our nation's political discourse. With that said, it is not acceptable to allow one's pride and/or personal leanings to distort reality, and unfortunately this is what is happening in American politics today. Politicians on both sides are virtually handicapped by know-it-all pundits and a dim-witted populace, who can't see past their own entrenched partisan bickering to effectively distinguish the forest from the trees. In addition, this collection of simple-minded hacks usually does nothing more than complain about our nation's state of affairs without presenting any plans or solutions. I guess they enjoy the misery that comes with bitching about life without the responsibility that comes with trying to fix things.

It is for these reasons that I believe people who engage in political discourse have a responsibility to outline their solutions to the various problems they see before them. Anyone can whine and complain about how horrible things are but very few can articulate a clear plan to correct those things. In essence, one has to pretend that he/she is the president (a scary proposition to say the least). After all, it's one thing to scream from the sidelines and quite another to be in the game.

As one who enjoys INTELLIGENT political discourse I offer up my "Twelve Step" program for America. One of the problems I have with our fair nation is that it seems to be falling behind and is afraid of the modern world. We are caught up in a bizarre and incorrect desire to "return" to the "glory days" of long ago. This is foolish for two reasons: first, looking back prevents one from moving forward. Second, the "glory days" are an illusion. As Thomas Jefferson stated: "I prefer the dreams of the future to the history of the past." To live in the past is to die in the past. Sure, it is important that we all study our history (and as a historian I do that quite often) but the future will ALWAYS be superior to the past. Learn from the past, but don't live in it.

So, without further delay, here are my "Twelve Steps" to modernizing America (if I were president):

1.) Quadruple Funding for NASA
This would be the single most important goal of my "administration". I would give NASA a virtual blank check, but at the same time be a thorn in their side, demanding a mission to Mars, exploration beyond our Solar System, etc. Now, I know that we live in tough economic times but that does not mean we should cut funding for what is arguably the most important agency in the United States. That's right, I am calling NASA one of the most important government agencies in our land. I know that those opposed to further funding for NASA have said things like, "NASA has become outdated", "We've already explored everything worth exploring in our Solar System", and "there are more pressing issues than sending rockets into space", hence the reasons why the space shuttle program was ended (click here for my opinion on the end of the shuttle program) but all of these excuses are just that: excuses. The fact of the matter is that we CANNOT affort to cut spending for NASA. The technology created by the Apollo program alone has resulted in incredible growth and prosperity for humanity today. Without NASA, you can say goodbye to the modern car, iPods, satellite television, GPS navigation, virtual reality, artificial limbs/joints, dialysis, MRI and CAT scans, breast cancer screening, improved water filtration, temper foam, improved eye glasses and eye surgery, cordless power tools, remote controls, athletic shoes, personal alarm systems, weather forecasts and warning systems, cellular phone service, protection for endangered species, many forms of plastic and metal alloys, the Internet, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, space travel is dangerous and expensive but it is worth every single penny. There is no doubt that the continued exploration of the heavens will require great sacrifice of both wealth and manpower. It will require patience, sacrifice, bravery and fortitude. Yes, more astronauts will be lost in the process and more children will see first-hand the unfortunate consequences of human exploration, but is there a greater lesson to be learned? Would we not prefer to have our children emulating people like Neil Armstrong, Christa McAuliffe and John Glenn instead of Katy Perry, Kim Kardashian and the cast of Jersey Shore? Shouldn't our goals be to land a man/woman on Mars instead of becoming the winner of American Idol or Next Top Model?

You cannot put a price on what NASA has given us.

2.) Invest in Infrastructure and Civic Renewal
Ok, here is another area in which I would spend BIG money. Our nation's infrastructure SUCKS and we need to improve it. In addition, we need to invest in civic renewal. I believe we could kill two birds with one stone here by investing in local community projects that would do both. We don't just need better roads and bridges, but better transit systems, playgrounds, parks, community centers, health clinics, libraries, etc. And you can't tell me that the money isn't there because over the past decade we have seen a huge number of state of the art sports arenas being built all over America. Now, I am not against these stadiums being built (they are good for local businesses, generate a ton of money and are a good diversion) but they are not as critical a need as those I listed above. It is time that we draw people out of the bleacher seats and living rooms and into the common spaces of democratic citizenship. If we are to have better public discourse that would require us to gather together. It is time we invest in community again. As Martin Luther King stated: "We hate each other because we fear each other, We fear each other because we won't sit down and talk together."

Included in this project would be a massive federal program to construct a high speed rail system across our nation. For whatever reason, the United States has fallen behind Europe and Asia in this regard. The construction of a modern railway would prove beneficial for a number of reasons: first, it would be a huge, long-term job creator. Second, it would create competition with airlines, which have long neglected the American traveller, and third, it would modernize our national infrastructure. Sure, it would be very expensive but I believe worth the cost. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway Act of the 1950s was met with tremendous opposition but was eventually hailed as one of the finest presidential investments of all-time. Building a modern high speed rail system would be even greater.

***Ok, so the first 2 ideas are big spenders. The next 2 are where I would cut spending.***

3.) Reduce Military Spending
Everybody knows that the United States needs to cut spending, however, nobody seems to want to face the basic fact that our biggest spending problem is the military. Now, I know that the military is important and everyone wants to (rightfully) support our troops, but the fact of the matter is that military spending over the past 30 years has been atrocious. President Eisenhower's quasi-prophetic warning of the military-industrial complex is a reality today that we need to reduce. Our nation consistently spends over half a trillion dollars every year on defense, which is more than the next 38 nations combined (35 of which are our long-time allies) The reason that no politician wants to cut military spending is simple: it would be impossible to get elected. Pundits would be able to portray such a politician as being "anti-American" and against our men and women in uniform. But Americans are eventually going to have to accept reality here. Let me be clear that any military cut would not go towards active service members or veterans (veteran funding is actually a separate category from defense spending anyway). Instead I would eliminate contractors (who are essentially nothing more than hired vigilantes and/or mercenaries). I believe we can cut military spending dramatically without effecting national security.

4.) Phase out the U.S. Postal Service, Eliminate Homeland Security
One of the things that bugs me most about those wacky tea-party folks is their bizarre deification of the Constitution. They treat the Constitution as a religious idol that is more holy than scripture. And though I revere the Constitution for what it has provided, I side with Thomas Jefferson in his appraisal that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must change in order to survive. The 18th century was a great time for America but let's face reality, those days are long gone. The earth belongs to the living, not the dead. As a result, I think we can safely assume that some things in the Constitution need to be changed or done away with. Case in point: the U.S. Postal Service and Homeland Security

The U.S. Postal Service has been a great institution for over 200 years but it has served its purpose. Gone are the days when mail delivery needs the protection and sanction of government. The emergence of private mail couriers and electronic mailing have made the U.S. Postal Service a dinosaur that is sucking resources. Since the 1950s the U.S. Postal Service has limped behind private companies in a futile attempt to stay relevant. I am not one of those "the private sector does everything better than the government" types, but in this case I think it is pretty clear that the Postal Service is an outdated relic that is simply costing taxpayers too much.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security, one of the most ridiculous government bureaucracies in American history, sucks over $100 billion every year just for its basic operations. It is the most pathetic, wasteful, over-the-top government agency in American history. Prior to 9/11, the United States already had 22 major federal law enforcement/intelligence agencies under its umbrella. The creation of a new agency, which receives more funding than all the others, is one of the most irresponsible acts of the Bush Presidency. I would abolish it completely.

5.) Create Extremely Strict DUI Laws.
I'm not against people who drink. I'm not against people who party at bars. I'm not against people who love getting hammered in their free time. To each their own. HOWEVER, I am EXTREMELY against those who choose to drink and drive. Every year in this country roughly 20,000 people are killed in DUI related accidents (roughly half of all automotive fatalities). And let us not forget the estimated $75 billion every year in legal/medical costs. That means that every three years more Americans are killed by drunk drivers than soldiers killed in the entire Vietnam War. And though law enforcement has done an excellent job of reducing DUI fatalities over the years I still think they need more help. As president, I would adopt a hybrid of the Swedish/Russian strategy to DUI laws. In Sweden, an offender is imprisoned for A MINIMUM of a year, while in Russia you lose the privilege of driving FOREVER. Some may think this is strict but consider the fact that in this nation a felony conviction (or domestic violence conviction) results in you never being able to own a gun again. How is a moving vehicle any less of a weapon?

6.) Establish a National Teacher's Corp and Modernize the American Classroom
The problems facing America's educational system are multi-faceted. Everyone wants to blame "the teachers", "the administrators", "the union", "the parents", etc. as the exclusive scapegoats for all that is wrong with education in this country. Reality, however, is that education requires ALL participants to take responsibility for their respective roles. Yes, there are bad teachers, bad parents and bad even students, but that doesn't mean we can't fix the problem.

Of course, the basic starting point to improve education is the classroom, and as president that is where I would focus. It is time that we modernize the American classroom. It's time to do away with traditional teacher-in-front-of-chalkboard/students-sitting-quietly-in-desks education. We need to modernize our approach. In addition, I would support new teachers (and provide them funding for graduate education...that's right, our teachers need graduate level education) by creating a federal Teacher's Corp. These teachers would then "repay" their schooling by working in areas where needed.

7.) Create a National I.D. Card
Now I know that the conspiracy theorists and the Bible-thumpers would freak at this idea, but spare me the "Big Brother is watching" and/or "Mark of the Beast" rhetoric. We live in a modern world, and that means we need modern day ideas and technologies to keep us safe. A national I.D. card is good for two reasons:

1.) It would help keep track of immigrant workers and aid in controlling illegal immigration. The only surefire way to control immigration is to control workers. Immigrants come here for one reason: jobs. This national I.D. card would be required for ANY form of employment (and severe punishments would be created for those who hire workers without an immigrant card). The idea of building a wall on the border is stupid. There are ways around, over, under and through all walls. A national I.D. card (and immigrants would, of course, have a different card than actual citizens) would help to monitor, control and regulate immigration. It's the best alternative to an almost impossible to control situation.

2.) Identity theft is the fastest growing form of crime in America today. A national I.D. card could help to alleviate and protect our citizenry. It would also do away with the need for social security cards/numbers. A national I.D. card would allow for easy, efficient and effective crime protection, passport/visa application, job protection, etc.

8.) Bring Back Jobs From Overseas
It’s time to bring back the jobs that corporations have been sending overseas. America is in dire need of a manufacturing sector. One way to do this is to make it more expensive to outsource jobs. That means outsourcing is going to have to be a profit killer. Essentially, I would enact a 50-75% tax rate on all profits made due to outsourcing. That would force companies to hire American workers so as to avoid that kind of tax. Is it harsh? Absolutely. But it will force American companies to hire American workers. In addition, I would place stiffer regulations on imported goods. This would help give American companies an advantage over their foreign competitors. It's time that we reinvigorate the "buy American" slogan.

9.) Eliminate the Electoral College System
Here is another example of outdated constitutional law still being used in the modern world. The electoral college was a wonderful, cutting-edge idea in the 18th (and even 19th) century but it is stupid today. Pure and simple.

10.) Create Term Limits for Congress.
Our Founding Fathers were great men, but they were not infallible men. I think it is safe to say that they missed the boat when they established a congress without term limits. I understand why they did what they did (it made perfect sense back then) but it needs to be changed. Having life-long congressmen today is an affront to effective democratic government. I propose two, four-year terms for the Senate and four, two-year terms for the House. That way, no person in congress would exceed 8 years.

11.) Abolish the Death Penalty.
I know there are a lot of people who agree with the death penalty, and I don't necessarily blame them, but I am 100% against the death penalty. It is archaic, barbaric, immoral and just plain wrong (IMHO).

12.) Prohibit Lobbyists and Religious Institutions from Government
The idea that corporations, churches, institutions or other groups with particular interests should be allowed to lobby members of Congress is insane. No elected official should ever be given a single cent from any lobbying interest. This is common sense.

There you have it. Let the debating begin!

My Great-Great-Great Grandfather: Thomas Hart

2011-12-06T13:41:00.003-07:00

I have a HUGE family. In fact, I can recall family gatherings during my childhood where standing room only was the expected norm, and the line for Thanksgiving turkey seemed like something you would expect to find at Disneyland. And what is even more impressive is the fact that these family gatherings (in Grand Junction) only represent a small fraction of the Hart family as a whole. Yes, my big, cancerous family spreads out all over the United States (and other countries for that matter); one large, loud collection of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. who all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to one man: Thomas Hart.

I am guessing that some of my family members are a little surprised to hear me say that Thomas is the man who deserves our appreciation and respect. For most in my family the man who is credited with being the "patriarch" is my great-great Grandfather, James Henry Hart. And though there is no doubt that James was a remarkable man worthy of my family's deepest love and admiration, I feel that the story of his father often goes overlooked.

My first encounter with my great-great-great Grandfather came in the form of long, boring lectures on genealogy from my dad, who would harangue my brothers and I on the importance of family history. Of course, like most young boys, my brothers and I would pretend to listen to what my dad had to say, though most of our focus was on "more important" things like basketball, video games, etc. But surprisingly, even though I was young and somewhat uninterested, my dad's words managed to sink in. Tales of my family's proud history, particularly of James Hart and his important role during the critical formative years of the early Mormon church, resonated inside of me. Perhaps it was the passion for history that my dad and I have always shared, or perhaps it was something more. Maybe Malachi's words about "the heart of the fathers [being turned] to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" was true. Perhaps nothing does run thicker than blood.

Either way, as I became older my curiosity with James Hart grew. I recall reading Edward Hart's excellent 1978 biography on James Hart and feeling even more impressed with my roots. But the more I learned about James the more I wanted to know about his father, Thomas. For some reason, Thomas stood out to me. Maybe it was the simple fact that ever since I was a child, I wanted to name one of my children (coincidentally) Thomas (I never fulfilled that goal, though I would certainly consider it now if I were ever to have a 3rd son). Or maybe it's the fact that I too married a woman (coincidentally) named Elizabeth. Whatever the case, my strange attachment to a man I know very little about has remained with me all these years. And now as an adult, after all the years that I have studied history (my family's history in particular), I can confidently say that I have a very proud and noble heritage. Sure, this declaration may sound somewhat conceded (though I certainly don't mean it as such) but I stand by it. Though I never met my great-great-great Grandfather, and regardless of the fact that very little about him survives, I am happy to proclaim loud and proud the name of Thomas Hart!

Unfortunately not much is known about Thomas' life other than a few surviving letters and what his son James briefly wrote in his journals. Even Edward Hart's excellent bio of James Hart treads lightly on the life of Thomas and his wife Elizabeth. From what does survive, however, we can conclusively say that Thomas was a devout Christian man who took his family, civic and church responsibilities extremely serious. In his advanced age, James Hart paid homage to his father by calling him "an upright, honorable, God-fearing man" who loved his wife and family. And though nothing in the way of primary source material survives, I maintain that we can draw some reasonable conclusion about the man from the history of the time in which he lived.

Thomas was born circa 1783 in Godmanchester, England. He was the son of John "Shakespeare" Hart and Alice Rickets. Family legend has it that this John "Shakespeare" Hart was a descendant of none other than William Shakespeare, but this family story is almost certainly a myth. William Shakespeare and his wife Anne Hathaway had three children: Hamnet (who died at 11), Susana (who had a daughter named Elizabeth, who had no known children) and Judith (who had three children, all of whom died before she did). As a result, the supposed Hart-Shakespeare connection is, to borrow from Shakespeare himself, "Much Ado About Nothing." The fact that John was born in Stratford-upon-Avon is interesting, since that is the birth and death site of Shakespeare himself. However, the "Shakespeare" middle name was probably nothing more than a nickname given to honor the town's favorite hero.

With that said, there is one scenario in which Thomas may be related to Shakespeare in a roundabout way. One of William Shakespeare's eight siblings was a woman named Joan, who married a hatter named William Hart. There is the possibility that William Hart was the great-great-uncle of Thomas Hart. If so, that would make William Shakespeare my great-great-great-great-great uncle.

But getting back to Thomas...

Records show that Thomas Hart most likely married a Lady Barnard who probably died shortly thereafter (The "Lady Bernard" connection is also probably another source for the Shakespeare myth, since Shakespeare had a granddaughter named Elizabeth, Lady Barnard). At some point, Thomas made the short move to Huntingdonshire and on March 27, 1807 was married for a second time to Elizabeth Marriott. The couple would go on to have 10 children, the 8th of which was my G-G Grandfather, James. We can say, based on some circumstantial evidence, that Thomas was probably employed as a thatchmaster (and possibly a tenant farmer of sorts). This is supported by the fact that Thomas worked as his church's sexton (and was probably a Verger), which meant that he was responsible for maintaining the church's cemetery, grounds, etc.

Thomas served faithfully for over fifty years as church clerk and sexton for the Church of St. Margaret of Hemingford Abbots, the family's local Anglican parish. It is interesting to note the fact that Thomas' family had apparently maintained a very close attachment to the Church of England for several generations. This is noteworthy because Huntingdonshire was also the birthplace of the infamous Oliver Cromwell, who as we know, overthrew the English crown during the English Civil War. Cromwell's hatred for the Church of England is no mystery to historians. His Puritan leanings were well known to all, and his hometown of Huntingdonshire was certainly aware of, and sympathetic to the views of its favorite son. In addition, Huntingdonshire was home to a massive 19th century surge of Baptist a Quakers, the same time that Thomas was serving in the Anglican church. As a result, the Hart Family's loyal attachment to the Church of England essentially flew in the face of the sweeping tides of change that were taking over the English countryside. Staying loyal to the faith of his fathers was surely a chore for Thomas.

Life in Huntingdonshire must have been an interesting experience for Thomas. Though never a massive center of commerce and industry, the small town did experience a wide range of changes in the 19th century. Expanding industry and increasing agricultural demand were the main changes that would have certainly impacted Thomas' life choices. And if Thomas was employed as a tenant farmer/thatchmaster (which is almost certainly the case), the emerging forces of market capitalism were probably overwhelming. Instead of following in the traditional land subsistence economy that had been standard operating procedure for decades, Thomas was probably forced to acquiesce to new market demands and pressures. No matter what the case, it is clear that Thomas was able to (at least while his kids were young) provide a happy, stable life. As his son James would later write, Thomas and Elizabeth were "held in high esteem."

But as is the case with life, somewhere along the line things changed for Thomas. Probably the result of market forces, the stability of life in Huntingdonshire was becoming more difficult to sustain, and as a result, Thomas eventually longed to follow his son's lead and immigrate to the United States. In an 1854 letter to James' wife, Emily, Thomas wrote:

I long for the time when we shall have your presence more fully. I wish I was on the ocean now. I would rather be drowned in the might of the sea than spend my last days in this country. I am quite tired of it & that will be joyful to meet to part no more, to be with them I so dearly love.

There are several reasons why Thomas may have grown tired of his native soil. First, the English middle class of the 1800's had experienced decades of economic and political pressure. The budding industrial world and emergence of large scale market economics heaped tremendous burdens on the English working class. As a result, criminal activity skyrocketed as impoverished citizens were forced to seek other means for their survival. Workplace theft, begging, prostitution, petty theft, shoplifting, receiving of stolen goods all became commonplace practices as many of the poor were left to their own devices.

For a man like Thomas Hart, who spent an incredible amount of time in the affairs of the church, the plight of the poor was a reality he had to be extremely familiar with. After all, the church was oftentimes the last beacon of hope to those who had nowhere else to turn. As historians Steven King and Allanah Tomkins point out:

For most of its history, the local church parishes had controlled and ordered their poor with a combination of national legislation and local initiative. Poor relief was usually organized by the parish vestry [which Thomas was most likely a part of] who appointed an overseer of the poor to administer relief. Poor relief was an essentially face-to-face system, focused on the relationship between pauper and parish officer.

In other words, Thomas Hart would have been very familiar with the intimate details of poverty relief in his community. In fact, it is likely that Thomas himself had fallen on hard times. In a January, 1854 journal entry, James Hart wrote:

I wrote a letter to Mr. Linton asking his assistance & influence to get my Father & Mother away with me to America, alleging as a cause their age and the distressing times, giving as an apology his past kindness and exigency of the case (my emphasis).

It therefore comes as no surprise that Thomas, and thousands of his fellow countrymen, would look across the Atlantic and see greener pastures. With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo completed, the United States had what must have seemed like an endless supply of land and resources just waiting to be plucked.

But perhaps there was a second reason that Thomas wished to immigrate to the United States. In his letter to James' wife, Emily, Thomas states that he had been working with James on an arrangement that would end with Thomas and his wife "going to the Valley." This is noteworthy because the Mormons had settled the Salt Lake valley by this time and were already starting construction on the temple. Now, perhaps Thomas was simply referring to the Mississippi River valley near St. Louis, where James and Emily were living at the time, but there can also be little doubt that Thomas would have been aware of the Mormon settlement in the west. In addition, it is worth pointing out that most early saints referred to Salt Lake as "Zion", "Deseret" and "the Valley." If Thomas was trying to refer to St. Louis why not simply say St. Louis? By writing "going to the Valley" (capital V), one wonders if Thomas was looking forward to settling with the Saints in Salt Lake. After all, he knew that this is where James and his family would eventually end up.

I find this significant because aside from James converting to Mormonism, Thomas' son John and daughter Elizabeth were also members (along with their spouses). There is little doubt that Thomas, and his wife Elizabeth, were familiar with the church's doctrines. If Thomas was wanting to convert, it would have made sense to move first. After all, he was a prominent figure in his community's parish. To avoid angering the church's parishioners, and to maintain social graces, Thomas would have needed to relocate before converting. The impropriety of converting to Mormonism and remaining in Huntingdonshire would have been almost too much to bear, especially in their older age and poor health. Unfortunately, Thomas and Elizabeth were never able to fulfill their dream of immigrating to the United States. Elizabeth fell on poor health and died on Christmas day, 1862. Thomas followed her four years later, passing away in January of 1866.

There is no doubt in my mind that Thomas Hart's devotion rubbed off on his children, particularly James. Though he never crossed the Atlantic, his love of God and devotion to family crossed all oceans and is felt even 150 years later by his descendants. Thomas' steadfast life is an example of how the integrity of one common man can change the world for the thousands of descendants who have and will continue to follow his lead. And for his descendants, Thomas' testimony of God is captured in his letter to his daughter-in-law, Emily when he wrote:

"Whether we live or die, we shall be safe, for God will hide us in the cleft of the rock, his faithful ones, and truth shall be my shield and buckler. He is also the house of my salvation. O what a happy thing it is when one can say Jesus died for my sake. O what joy to anticipate the time when this earth will be celestialized, when we shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, no more to be tormented by the scoffer and the infidel, when we shall see that spoken in Revelations, a woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet, and 12 stars on her head: a beautiful emblem of the church of God. O, my dear, no tongue can tell nor heart can conceive the things that God has laid up for them that love him.

Thank you, great-great-great Grandpa for your example and faithfulness. I look forward to the day when you and I meet!

Thomas Hart's work was completed for him on the following dates:
Baptism: 29 May 1894, Logan, UT.
Endowment: 30 May 1894, Logan, UT.
Sealed to parents: 4 Dec. 1968, Logan, UT.

Elizabeth Marriott's work was completed on the following dates:
Baptism: 29 May 1894, Logan, UT.
Endowment: 30 May 1894, Logan, UT.
Sealed to parents: 11 Mar. 1993, Idaho Falls.

Thomas and Elizabeth were sealed on 30 May, 1894 in Logan, UT.

***I, Bradley A. Hart, am the son of Alan W. Hart, who was the son of Wendell D. Hart, who was the son of Arthur W. Hart, who was the son of James H. Hart, who was the son of Thomas Hart.***

Zoramite Prayers and "Strange Fires"

2011-11-30T12:21:00.015-07:00

An Essay on the
Evils of Pride

Preface: This post is a little different from my usual ones. I almost never delve into religious, sermon-type postings on this blog. I usually prefer to stick with posts on history, family, etc. But as I state on the blog description, "everything is fair game."

In my readings of the Book of Mormon, I have found the story of the Zoramites to be particularly troubling. In the Book of Alma we read of how the Zoramites had driven out the poor from amongst them, along with all those who didn't believe as they did. In addition, we are told that the Zoramites constructed a "high place" for worshiping God where they uttered the following prayer:

15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.

17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

Setting the Zoramite prayer aside for just a moment I also want to mention a second story from scripture that I have also found to be equally troubling. It is the story of Nadab and Abihu, who were the sons of Aaron the High Priest. In the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 10 we read:

1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.

2 And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.

On the surface, the verses probably don't make a lot of sense and are easily passed over. After all, the Old Testament is full of tales of how the Israelites blasphemed God and ended up paying the price. How is the story of Nadab and Abihu any different?

First off, Nadab and Abihu were not your average Joe's. These were the eldest sons of Aaron and as such were the rightful heirs to not only the Levitical (Aaronic) Priesthood but also to performing the tabernacle (temple) ceremonies. Their inheritance and responsibility was not that of the average Israelite.

So what did they do wrong? What's with the "strange fire"? First off, the removal of the tabernacle censers (fire pans) from the altar was inexcusable, since they were as sacred as the altar itself (Exodus 27:1-3; 38:1-3). Nadab and Abihu had certainly been educated sufficiently by their father, Aaron (and uncle Moses) to have known this. Each should have guessed that, since his censer was a holy object, only fire from a holy object (the altar) would be suitable to put in the censer. In addition, Nadab and Abihu erred in starting their own (strange) fire as opposed to what the Lord had prescribed. Leviticus 9:24 states very clearly that the Lord would provide the fire to consume the offering, not man. In other words, Nadab and Abihu chose to do their own thing, in their own way, according to their own understanding.

So what does the Nadab and Abihu story in Leviticus have to do with the Zoramite prayer in the Book of Mormon? Nothing really. The reason I chose to unite both of these stories is because I am amazed at how intelligent people, who have been given incredible blessings from God, can choose to be so incredibly stupid. How is is that the Zoramites could pray to God and at the same time thank Him for "choosing" and "electing" them over the poor and those who think differently than they? How could the children of Aaron (and nephews of Moses) be so stupid as to ignore the prescribed rituals of the tabernacle when they themselves had seen first hand the miracles of God?

The answer is simple: pride.

One of the central themes of The Book of Mormon is how pride can destroy a person/family/civilization, and the Zoramite prayer, along with the Nadab and Abihu story, are perfect illustrations of this reality. Unlike other sins, pride is one that can ensnare us without our even realizing it. After all, pride doesn't necessarily require us to make any overt act. Pride doesn't require the click of a mouse to enslave us like pornography does, nor does it rely on the lying lips of those who bear false witness to get its point across. No, pride is much more subtle. Pride can take an otherwise intelligent, righteous individual and twist him/her into a false sense of security. Yes, pride can make the very best of us justify our "chosen" prayers and our "strange fires."

But surely we of the modern era wouldn't offer Zoramite prayers or make "strange fires".

Al contraire.

I think it is more than abundantly clear that pride is the most common and progressive sin in the world today. I am reminded of President Dieter F. Uchtdorf's excellent talk from the 2010 General Conference in which he stated:

At its core, pride is a sin of comparison, for though it usually begins with “Look how wonderful I am and what great things I have done,” it always seems to end with “Therefore, I am better than you.”

When our hearts are filled with pride, we commit a grave sin, for we violate the two great commandments. Instead of worshipping God and loving our neighbor, we reveal the real object of our worship and love—the image we see in the mirror.

Pride is the great sin of self-elevation. It is for so many a personal Rameumptom, a holy stand that justifies envy, greed, and vanity. In a sense, pride is the original sin, for before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning “who was in authority in the presence of God.” If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising as this, should we not examine our own souls as well?

So what are some of our modern day "strange fires"?

They aren't hard to find. You see them all around us. The list of prideful acts could fill an entire encyclopedia. With that said, here are three examples of of modern day "strange fires" that I believe seem to infect us (without our knowing it)on a national and personal level:

National Pride:
-- There is no better example of collective national pride than partisan politics. When a partisan political zealot insists that his/her views on the issues of the day are the only acceptable (or truly American) solutions to a given problem, rest assured that his/her convictions come not out of political savvy but are rather the result of pride. When one insists that being conservative/liberal is more in harmony with the ideas of our nation's founding and/or more in agreement with the will of God, that person does not possess deep political understanding but rather has fallen victim to the delusions created by pride. Partisan politics are all about pride. Let me say that again. Partisan politics are all about pride. The problem is that most refuse to see it because they have camouflaged their pride by wrapping it up in the American flag or justifying it by a bizarre appeal to religion. I am reminded of a couple of dear friends who once told me that "you cannot vote for Obama and be a Temple Recommend holder." WHAT!!! The absurdity of such a statement is staggering. Reality is that God cares as much about your political leanings as he does about the toppings you like on a pizza. To borrow from the great William Shakespeare, partisan loyalties are "much ado about nothing." Yes, there are many "strange fires" in American politics today.

-- Another example of national pride is the assumption some make that one nation is more preferred/special in the eyes of God. The stupidity of such a viewpoint would be laughable if it wasn't so widely accepted. In reality, nations are no more than imagined communities. God never created a single nation nor will he. The pretend lines that we draw on maps and accept as "borders" may be political necessities but they carry little weight in God's eyes. Does this mean that God hates patriotism? Not at all. I believe God would have us be a patriotic people. HOWEVER, God DOES NOT approve of nationalism. So what is the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Patriotism is the quiet, steady devotion and appreciation for the blessings provided by the land in which one lives. Nationalism is the arrogant assumption that one nation is inherently better than another, and that as a result, God has given it favor over others. Simply put, patriotism is gratitude, nationalism is pride.

Personal Pride
-- All of us want to feel like we are successful. It's an important component to our sense of personal fulfillment. It is for this reason that we all put tremendous effort and emphasis into our work, schooling, etc. But as is the case with most societies, different trades are met with different levels of status. The lawyer and professor are usually held in higher esteem than the trash man or the plumber. But to God, all are alike. No one trade is better than another SO LONG AS THEY ARE HONEST TRADES!!! But sadly, we as mortals don't see things that way. Too often we puff ourselves up like the Zoramites of old by exalting our status above others simply because of our education and/or employment. And though we should be proud of our personal achievements, there is nothing in a degree, certificate, title, honor or pay grade that makes one any better than another. Unfortunately, too many people of "position" or "education" make the prideful prayers of the Zoramites. They climb their high places and give thanks that they are "better" than others.

On the flip side, pride is also exhibited by those who are jealous of those who have achieved great goals. They see people who have gained an advanced education as being "out of touch" or lacking "common sense". They criticize these individuals, their goals and achievements in an effort to salve their cankered and prideful hearts. They are angry that they did not achieve the same "status". But in the end, the only "status" that matters is the status we have before God. Are we grateful for what we have? Do we give thanks for our blessings? Are we happy and secure in our homes? Cars? Jobs? Or do we complain and always long for the greener grass on the other side? Yes, there is nothing wrong about wanting to improve one's conditions, but to sacrifice gratitude on the altar of pride truly is "strange fire."

In the end, the words of Proverbs 16:18 ring out loud and clear: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Instead of climbing our tall places and offering up our prayers of superiority, let us remember that pride is ever-knocking at the door. Offering "strange fires" to the Lord is a surefire way to contract the virus of pride, which can spread quickly and ferociously without warning. As the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scripture) states: "The ego's pride is a barrier that prevents meaningful dialogue between this world and the next." Only a broken heart and a contrite spirit can help us to safely navigate the oceans of pride. Or as William Penn put it:

Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire.

Being Grateful

2011-11-24T06:45:00.009-07:00

It was 14 years ago that I enjoyed the most meaningful Thanksgiving of my life. I was at the Mormon Missionary Training Center (MTC) preparing for my two-year assignment to Chile. Normally the daily schedule at the MTC was chalked full of Spanish and religious classes but for whatever reason, Thanksgiving was a relatively laid back day. Instead of attending classes, we were instructed to get up early in the morning and for a full two hours list all of the blessings we were thankful for in our lives. It was a wonderful experience that made the Thanksgiving of 1997 the best I have ever had.

And today I would like to rekindle that spirit of gratitude by spending a couple of hours listing the things I am grateful for. One of the goals of this blog is to serve as a personal journal of sorts. I hope that one day my posterity might learn more about their father, grandfather, great-grandfather by reading these words. With this in mind, I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to my posterity.

Perhaps you and I never had the opportunity to meet in life. Perhaps you know very little about me. Heck, maybe you have read some of my material and find me boring, arrogant, etc. That's OK, everyone has their flaws. I know that my life has been FULL of them. But what I do want you to know is that despite all of my imperfections, mistakes, trials, struggles, etc. I have A LOT to be thankful for. For example:

1.) I am grateful for my employment and my wife's employment. The average income in the world (per capita) is $7,000 a year. I have personally seen people (during my time in Chile) who lived on even less. Yet despite their worldly poverty they were some of the happiest people I ever met. Happiness is a state of mind, not a state of wealth. I may not be a millionaire but I have what I need...thanks to God.

2.) I am grateful for my marriage. Recent statistics show that roughly 1/2 of all marriages today end in divorce. Now, of course there are instances when divorce is the best option and I certainly mean no disrespect to those who face such difficulties. With that said, I am EXTREMELY grateful for my wife and our marriage. Of course, like any marriage, we have had our ups and downs. By no means are we the fairytale couple. But I am grateful that we are not. The struggle is what has made our bond stronger. If marriage was easy there would be no growth. I am grateful that it has been a growing experience that we have endured together, equally yoked. To my posterity know this: I LOVE YOUR MOTHER/GRANDMOTHER/GREAT-GRANDMOTHER!!! She is the greatest thing that ever happened in my life.

3.) It is estimated that only 9% of the world's population owns a car. I am grateful for both of mine (a 2004 Hyundai and a 2002 Toyota, both of which have over 100,000 miles).

4.) I am grateful for my education. In 2009 I had the opportunity to complete my Master's degree in History. And though I may occasionally complain about the student loans that I had to incur as a result, I am eternally grateful for my education. It is estimated that only 6.7% of the world has even a Bachelor level of education (and only 35% have a high school level education). The percentage of the world with graduate level education is less than 1%. I am grateful to God for being given the circumstances in which I could gain an education. If student loans are my biggest gripe then I need to shut up!

5.) I am grateful for AWESOME parents!!! Roughly 45% of children worldwide grow up in single parent homes. Roughly 40% of (reported) children are the victims of sexual molestation. Millions of children around the world are the victims of violence, slavery and indoctrination. I was fortunate to grow up in a safe, happy, loving home. Yes, my Dad may have died at a relatively young age (53) but big deal! And yes, my parents did "terrible" things like enforce curfews, make me go to church/school, take a bath, brush my teeth, etc. But when compared with the rest of the world, my childhood was literally heaven on earth!

6.) I am grateful for the health of my children. Approximately 30% of all children worldwide die before their 5th birthday, due to poverty, sickness, war etc.

7.) I am grateful for modern medicine in general. Yes, people today complain ad nauseum about health care and its costs but I am guessing that the MILLIONS of humans who lived in ancient/medieval times would literally kill for what we regularly take for granted. Had I been born anytime before the 20th century I would have been dead at 24 (appendicitis). Thank God (literally) for the miracle of modern medicine!

8.) I am grateful to be a citizen of the United States. Yes, my country isn't perfect but it is pretty incredible. She has been a beacon of hope for literally millions who have struggled to get to her shores. God bless America!

9.) I am grateful for my health. It is estimated that 15% of the world's population suffers from a severe disability, 30.9% suffer from diabetes, and 1/6 of the world suffers from hunger-related health issues. Thank you, God for my health!

10.) I am grateful for my children. I have been lucky enough to have two healthy, happy boys who keep my world crazy busy! I am aware that this is a gift from God and I am grateful every day for Jaxson and Zakary being in my life. In addition, I am grateful for my family in general. I have been blessed with 5 killer grandparents, 8 wonderful aunts and uncles, 27 cousins, 4 sister-in-laws, 3 brother-in-laws, a wonderful mother-in-law and father-in-law and a countless number of others I cannot remember off the top of my head.

11.) I am grateful for the faith of my fathers. I am grateful for my great-great-grandfather, James H. Hart, who sailed to America to join the Mormon movement. I am grateful for his sacrifice in moving west, which was no small feat. I am grateful for Arthur Hart (my great-grandfather) who continued strong in his faith. I am grateful for my grandfather, Wendell Hart, who passed on to his children (my dad, Alan being among them) the important lessons of faith and devotion to God, who in turn passed those lessons to my brothers and I. I hope to leave an equal legacy for my posterity.

12.) I am grateful that I can read, hear, see, smell, walk, talk, laugh, cry, etc.

13.) I am grateful for the Internet and technology in general. Yes, I am grateful for my fair little blog! =)

14.) I am grateful for the charity of others. Like Ann Frank, I too agree that "most people are really good at heart."

15.) I am grateful for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, etc. Too often people have a field day with politicians. The hate-filled rhetoric has simply gone too far these days. I am grateful for the election process in which I can have a say in my government. Yes, my government may not be perfect but I am grateful for men and women who are willing to put themselves out there and do the best they can.

16.) I am grateful for the talents of others. I cannot sing or play an instrument. I can't paint a beautiful painting. I can't write a powerful novel. Thanks to all who can!

17.) I am grateful for peace and quiet. Those rare opportunities when one can sit in peace and meditate on nothing is a blessing to be sure.

18.) I am grateful for the beauty of Colorado. I love this state!

19.) I am grateful for the wonder of all of God's creations. The majesty and awesome immensity of the universe (and our extremely small mark on it) reveal just how incredible God is. Once could ponder the vastness of space for an entire life and barely scratch its surface. God's playground is a marvel beyond man's comprehension.

20.) I am grateful for Jesus Christ. The scripture, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) should have special meaning for all of us on this day (and every day for that matter). I am grateful for the perfect example that was the life of Jesus Christ. I realize that not everyone believes in Jesus (that's OK, he believes in you) but even if you reject his divinity I cannot think of a better example of human goodness. Thank God for the gift of Jesus Christ!

Ok, my two hours are up. This list could, of course, go on forever. In the end, instead of complaining, whining and getting bitter about the things we don't like about our lives, try counting your blessings. The list is quite impressive.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Holy Envy

2011-11-23T13:36:00.013-07:00

A Challenge to
All That Believe

Krister Stendahl, the Late, great Professor of Theology at Harvard, once gave a sermon in which he outlined what he believed were the three rules of religious understanding. They are:

1.When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

2.Don't compare your best to their worst.

3.Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The phrase "holy envy" is one that caught the attention of many, and the idea is one that I agree with 100%. Too often, people of faith get caught up in the finger-pointing game. For whatever reason we can sometimes believe that "exposing" the negative aspects of other faiths will somehow add legitimacy to our own belief system. And though I agree that all religions need to be dissected and deserve serious scholarly scrutiny, sometimes I think we can forget that all religions are essentially striving for the same thing: to make people better than the sum of their parts.

For this reason, I would like to issue a challenge to my fellow blog buddies. At some point during this holiday season demonstrate your "holy envy." What are some of the things that you like in other religions? What do Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc. do on a regular basis that you would like to adopt into your personal life? What would you like to see your own religion do better?

Of course, nobody is asking you to compromise on your beliefs. Faith is a very personal and intimate aspect of life. However, if you cannot see the good in other belief systems then perhaps you are looking at the wrong things. Having "holy envy" for specific practices/beliefs of others is, perhaps, the only occasion in which God will be OK with you being covetous. Take advantage of it!

With this in mind, here is my "holy envy" list (in no particular order or preference).

Islam: The Masters of Prayer
I think we all recognize that Islam has unfortunately gained an undeserved reputation in the Western world. Too many people associate being Muslim with being an extremist, a terrorist, a radical, and/or a heathen. These stereotypes are, of course, based on fear and ignorance. Reality is that Islam is a beautiful faith with much to be admired. The Qur'an is a wonderful holy book chalked full of insightful, inspiring messages that are worthy of our respect.

For me personally, the thing I have admired most about Islam is their INCREDIBLE devotion to prayer. In my opinion nobody does it better. For Muslims, the practice of prayer ("Salah" which means "connection") is fundamental to their faith. The Salah is one of the 5 Pillars of Islam and is arguably the most fundamental component (along with reading the Qur'an) of what it means to be a Muslim. The Salah requires Muslims to pray at least five times a day at specific times. Each of these prayers has a unique purpose that brings the believer closer to Allah. Of course, Muslims are encouraged to pray more than just those five daily occurrences, but the five "required" prayers illustrate the emphasis that Islam has on prayer. Needless to say, Muslims make prayer as much of their daily routine as drinking water. How many of us can say the same? As Sura 2 (Al-Baqara), verse 238 states:

Guard strictly your habit of prayers Especially the middle prayer, and stand before Allah in a devout frame of mind.

What fantastic advise!

I have actually had the opportunity to pray with a group of Muslims during one of their daily prayers and it was an experience I won't soon forget.

Hinduism: If It's True, It's True
The Western world can sometimes misunderstand/misrepresent Eastern religions, and Hinduism, being one of the largest religions in the East, is no exception. What I love about Hinduism is that it doesn't obsess about "being right" like so many Western faiths. Too often religions in the Western world will attack one another in an effort to discover who is "more true." In addition, Western religions do, on occasion, have a hard time accepting certain truths (i.e. science) which appear threatening to their respective doctrine. Essentially, the division between Western religions and Hinduism can be summed up this way: Western religions sometimes let their religion stand in the way of truth, while Hinduism doesn't let truth stand in the way of religion.

Some may see this approach as being too doctrinally liberal. After all, Hinduism is far less restrictive than other faiths. But Hinduism isn't about doctrine but about the individual's approach to God. Hinduism insists that all of humanity (and all religions) are striving for the same God, just in a different way. The important thing is to put one's life in harmony with the divine through meditation, tolerance, etc. It's emphasis on the individual's unique journey as opposed to strict doctrine allows Hinduism to fully accept scientific discovery and adapt to a changing world. In short, Hinduism simply strives to cling to truth, regardless of the source.

Catholics: It's a Matter of Reverence
A lot of people see the Catholic faith as outdated, too conservative or too superstitious, but nobody can doubt that Catholics are the best at showing sober, sincere reverence for the divine. The liturgy of the Catholic mass is saturated with solemn reverence for both God and the Eucharist, as are all of the significant days of their liturgical calender. Yes, you probably won't find upbeat Christian rock music coming from their churches but that is what makes the Catholic faith so special. It insists upon the individual demonstrating his/her quiet, heartfelt respect for God through solemn ritual and purposeful repetition.

Too often the modern day "disciple" wants to be "entertained" when he/she goes to church, and too many churches today are more than willing to compromise on this matter. Catholicism, however, has managed to maintain their quiet reverence in the face of a changing (and evermore loud and obnoxious) world. As a result, Catholicism has not forgotten one of the most important aspects of religion in general: church isn't about you, it's about God.

Jehovah's Witnesses: A Religion of Action
We've all experienced it. You lie in bed on a Saturday morning, happily smiling at your alarm clock as you bask in the knowledge that the busy work week is over and you can finally sleep in, when all of a sudden..."DING DONG!" Who could possibly be knocking at your door at 7:30 in the morning! And what to your wandering eyes should appear when you open the door? Those darn Jehovah's Witnesses!

Yes, we all may get irritated from time to time when our weekend slumber is disturbed but have you ever tried to see it from their perspective? Are you not amazed at incredible devotion that so many JW's have for their faith? After working a busy week themselves, the JW's get up bright and early in the morning to spend the weekend sharing their faith with anyone who will listen, usually meeting with anger and scorn from those "Christians" they have "disturbed."

As a former missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can sympathize with those JW's who know first-hand just how hard it is to knock on doors and talk to people, most of whom are furious to see you at their door (they act as if knocking on their door is the same as desecrating a loved one's grave). But what is amazing about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they don't proselyte for only two years (as Mormon missionaries traditionally do). They do it for their entire life. Getting out and sharing the "good news" is in their DNA. To be a Jehovah's Witness is to be a hard worker, and very few religious people can out-work a JW!

Judaism: You'll Never Keep it Down!
Most Christians have a healthy respect for Judaism. The religion essentially serves as a father figure for Christians. After all, without Judaism you wouldn't have Christianity!

But what most Christians don't stop to ponder is the fact that the Jews are TOUGH AS NAILS!!! Has any other religion been through the hell that they have? Time and time again the Jews have faced violent opposition that has threatened their very existence. And despite all of these terrible atrocities (almost too many to mention) the Jews are still going strong. What the Jews would call "routine discrimination" would likely break other faiths. Judaism is the epitome of fearless faith in the face of evil. It is the refiners fire of affliction that has put grit in their teeth and made them some of the most resilient people on the planet. There's no doubt in my mind that Judaism is the embodiment of the phrase "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."

Evangelical Christianity: Scriptures and Patriotism
I'll admit that I have, from time to time, knocked Evangelical Christian beliefs on a few points that I don't agree with. And though I will likely never embrace their belief in America being a "Christian Nation" or their rejection of evolution, I cannot deny that Evangelical Christians are second to none in their appreciation of scripture. Their love of the Bible and its teachings have inspired a countless number of Evangelicals to live a more Christ-like life.

In addition, I believe that Evangelical Christians tend to be some of the most patriotic people you will ever meet. In consequence, they unapologetically defend this nation in the face of ridicule and scorn. Evangelical Christians enthusiastically show their love and support of God and country in such a way that their zeal has become incredibly contagious. As a result, they have improved the lives of millions in their communities. Having lived in Colorado Springs (a very Evangelical community) I have seen with my own eyes how a love of God's word and country can bring about beautiful change in a community. In essence, Evangelicals have followed the admonition of Christ to "let your light so shine."

In short, I am grateful for the wonderful lessons that are to be learned from the diverse approaches to religion that each religion embraces. I realize that I didn't mention every religion in this post (there are so many great faiths that have much to be admired) and my omission is by no means a judgement against them. Aside from groups like Scientology or the Jonestown cult, I believe that having "holy envy" for the practices/beliefs of others can only serve to help build bridges of understanding and increase one's personal conviction in the divine. For these reasons, I am personally very grateful for the prayers of the Muslim, the truth-seeking of the Hindu, the reverence of the Catholic, the work ethic of the Jehovah's Witness, the resilience of the Jew, and the patriotism and love of scripture of the Evangelical. It is my hope that I can better incorporate these teachings/beliefs into my own life and worship. God knows I need the help! =)

Occupy Wall Street and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381

2011-11-23T11:08:00.005-07:00

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

This rhetorical rhyme, made famous by the English Medieval Lollard Preacher John Ball, illustrates what many throughout the course of human history have believed: the rich get richer while doing less while the poor get poorer while doing more. Whether this is true or not is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, the fact remains that history is replete with examples of those who have challenged the social and economic divisions of their time in an effort to balance the scales of justice.

Of course, the obvious example for us today is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is presumably operating under the assumption that the current economic state of affairs in the United States are unacceptable. Whether the "99%" has a legitimate argument or not has become a hot topic in today's political discourse and is likely to be an issue in the upcoming 2012 Presidential election. Do the "99%" have a case to be made? Who knows. Again, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I am not a fan of either the Occupy movement or the Tea Party movement (for personal reasons) but the fact remains that protests over alleged economic inequality is a big deal to a lot of people

And America is far from unique when it comes to protest. As stated before, humans have long argued over issues of economic inequality and perhaps one of the best examples of this phenomenon is a surefire Hollywood script in the making: the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

To understand the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 we need to place it within the context of its time. In 1350, England (and most of Europe as a whole) was finally beginning to emerge from the devastation left behind in the wake of the Black Death, which had claimed the lives of at least 1/3 of the continent. In addition, the Black Death created serious and severe economic problems for almost all survivors. Church resources were severely drained as were the pockets of the noble classes. With the labor force dramatically reduced, peasants were able to (in some cases for the first time ever) demand higher wages and better working conditions from the ruling class. Nobles, who before the Black Death were able to exploit the working masses, were forced to temporarily acquiesce to the demands of the peasantry.

This temporary (and relatively small) empowerment of the peasantry was not destined to last. Urged by the complaints of the nobles, King Edward III (and later his successor, Richard II) increased poll (census) taxes while at the same time passing laws that restricted peasant demands and fixed wages to pre-Black Death levels. In addition, nobles who belonged to large groups like the Knights Hospitilar, which controlled vast amounts of wealth and capital, were given tax breaks by the king, who depended on these nobles for his support.

Of course, this blatant show of favoritism for these elite, noble "corporations" did not sit well with the peasantry. In consequence, men like John Ball, Wat Tyler and Jack Straw emerged from the working ranks to inspire resistance against the ruling elite. These men, and thousands of others like them, staged public protests throughout England. No doubt inspired by the works of early Lollards like John Wycliffe, and having felt the horrific pressures of the Black Death, these peasants stood defiant to a ruling class that they believed no longer cared about their needs. This Medieval "99%" (a far more oppressed 99% than that of today) would eventually storm different locations that represented oppression in their eyes. For example, on June 14, 1381 a mob of nearly 20,000 stormed the Tower of London and executed Simon Sudbury (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Robert de Hales (the Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitilar). These men, who were essentially the Medieval equivalent of corporate CEO's, had been some of the most vocal supporters of increased poll taxes and peasant restrictions. Needless to say, this "Occupy London Bridge" movement was meant to send a clear message. These sentiments would later be captured by Medieval Writer John Gower, who in his work Vox Clamantis, called the protesters "heathens", "angels of anti-Christ...who according to foolish ideas...believe in a world with no Lords." In his work Geoffrey Chaucer in his Nun's Priest's Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer immortalized one of the peasant leaders (Jack Straw) when he wrote:

Certes, he Jakke Straw and his meinee
Ne made nevere shoutes half so shrille,
Whan that they wolden any Fleming kille.

And though the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 ended with the murder of its leaders and the suppression of the masses (King Richard II actually lured men like Jack Straw and others into meeting with him in London only to have them executed), most agree that the revolt marks the beginning of the end for Medieval serfdom. Though it would take centuries, the upper class nobles were made to understand that they could not treat commoners as chattel. Slowly but surely a sweeping wave of change (in the shape of the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution and further economic opportunity brought on by Mercantilism) overcame Europe. Medieval kings and lords no longer maintained their monopoly on the "99%."

Is the same likely to happen today? Who knows. Only time will tell. Certainly today's economic oppression is not the same as that of our Medieval ancestors. Perhaps John Ball's poetic lines are as meaningful today as they were more than 600 years ago:

"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

"Ramah" and Joseph Smith

2011-11-18T10:40:00.005-07:00

When it comes to Mormon Founder Joseph Smith, I am of the opinion that only one of two different possibilities is true: 1.) Smith was a brilliant, self-educated Bible scholar who possessed equally impressive traits of deception and persuasion. 2.) He was a relatively ignorant (dare I say even a little dumb) farmer, who despite some obvious character flaws (we all have those), really was a prophet of God.

Admittedly, I realize that my dichotomy is a bit simplistic, being that all humans are complex creatures (there are no simple men no matter what Lynyrd Skynyrd has to say on the matter). With that said, hear me out for a second.

In the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 31: 15 we read:

Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

The verse is essentially a commentary on the suffering that the Jews would experience down the road, but this is not what I am interested in. What is interesting is that the word "Ramah", a word used throughout the Bible, is spelled in a different way in the Book of Matthew. Look at Chapter 2, verse 18:

In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

As you can see, the New Testament version omits the letter H in its spelling of "Ramah." Is this an error? Not at all. It is actually, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word. "Ramah", in Hebrew, means "Hill" or "High place". The word is also used several times throughout the Bible as a name for various locations.

Now look at the Joseph Smith translation of Matthew (see chapter 3):

In Ramah there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning; Rachael weeping for the loss of her children, and would not be comforted because they were not.

Interesting that Smith elected to go with the Old Testament (more correct Hebrew) version rather than the Greek that is found in the original Book of Matthew. Either this reveals some serious skills in understanding Hebrew/Greek or Smith really was inspired (or for you critics it was just luck).

But the saga doesn't stop there.

From the Book of Mormon, in Ether 15: 11 we read:

And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did hide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.

What is interesting to note here is the fact that nowhere in the King James Version of the Bible is there any hint that "Ramah" means "Hill or high place." Again, Smith was either incredibly familiar with Hebrew or really was inspired.

And there's more.

In the Book of Alma, chapter 31 (again, from the Book of Mormon) we learn about the Zoramites, who due to their pride, built a giant "place for standing, which was high above the head" (chapter 31: 13). And what did they call this large and tall "place for standing"? Verse 21 has the answer:

Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.

Notice that the prefix "Rame" appears to be a variant of "Ramah." Interestingly enough, the word "Ramah", as a Hebrew object-noun, also means "a high place of illicit worship". Again, what impressive Hebrew skills on the part of Joseph Smith! Or maybe he really did translate what he said he translated?!?

All of this is further proof (for me personally) that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are either one hell of a great fraud or the real deal. And yes, The Book of Mormon (and all scripture for that matter) deserve sincere scholarly inquiry and analysis.

But no level of scholarly insight would or could conclusively prove anything. Matters of faith are just that: matters of faith. There will always be supporters and detractors to all holy books. The only true way to know the validity of scripture is through sincere prayer (Moroni 10: 3-5).

But the scholarly doesn't hurt either. =)

Major hat tip: S. Faux.

Jaxson's 7th Birthday

2011-10-02T14:12:00.009-06:00

Last week, Jaxson celebrated his 7th birthday!!! When asked where he wanted to have his party he told us Chuck E. Cheese...a favorite location for kids but a dreaded place for parents. And even though it was overwhelming for the adults in attendance, the party was a huge hit for the most important demographic: the kids. Take a look:

Happy 7th, buddy! I love you forever!!!

"GRACE": My Favorite Picture

2011-10-02T09:58:00.012-06:00

As a child, I distinctly remember going over to my Grandmother's house, on many occasions, and seeing this picture hanging in her home. Even at a young age I recognized the powerful imagery that was captured in this picture. I recall having feelings of gratitude for personal blessings as I gazed at the figure of an old man, alone, invoking the blessings of heaven for the humble meal he was about to enjoy. I could imagine this blue collared man, perhaps not highly educated or very sophisticated, returning home from a hard day's work to an empty home, but still finding the energy to humbly study the Bible and thank God for the day's blessings.

And now, though a grown man with a family of my own, every time I see this picture I am teleported back to the 1980s, sitting in my Grandmother's house, smelling the sweet aroma coming from the kitchen as she labored to prepare a meal for her family, and above all, feeling grateful for all that I have. Yes, it is safe to say that of all the lessons I have learned from the countless hours spent in my grandmother's home the most important thing I learned is gratitude; simple, heartfelt gratitude, and the importance of always expressing that gratitude. As Doctrine and Covenants 59:21 states:

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

For all of these reasons, this particular picture has become my personal favorite. Officially known as "GRACE", the image was originally captured as a photo back in 1918 by Eric Enstrom. On one particular autumn day, Enstrom had a chance encounter with a bearded, saintly, old salesman named Charles Wilden, who was busily going door to door to sell foot-scrapers in the local Minnesota mining community. But instead of buying foot-scrapers, Enstrom felt impressed to pull out his camera.

"There was something about the old gentleman's face that immediately impressed me. I saw that he had a kind face...there weren't any harsh lines in it," Enstrom said in recalling the 1918 visit of Charles Wilden to his studio.

It happened that Enstrom, at that time, was preparing a portfolio of pictures to take with him to a convention of the Minnesota Photographer's Association. "I wanted to take a picture that would show people that even though they had to do without many things because of the war they still had much to be thankful for," Enstom said.

On a small table, Enstrom placed a family book, some spectacles, a bowl of gruel, a loaf of bread, and a knife on the table. Then he had Wilden pose in an manner of prayer...praying with folded hands to his brow before partaking of a meager meal.

"To bow his head in prayer seemed to be characteristic of the elderly visitor", Enstrom recalled, "for he struck the pose very easily and naturally." As soon as the negative was developed, Enstrom was sure he had something special... a picture that seemed to say, "This man doesn't have much of earthly goods, but he has more than most people because he has a thankful heart." That Enstrom's camera had captured "something special" is an appraisal widely shared.

Needless to say, "GRACE" became an instant best-seller. A countless number of homes, restaurants, churches and hospitals became homes for Enstrom's infamous picture.

Initially, the first "GRACE" pictures were printed either in black and white, or in sepia (brown tone). Later, Enstrom's daughter, Mrs. Rhoda Nyberg, of Coleraine, Minnesota, began hand-painting them in oils, and interest in the picture mounted.

And today, "GRACE" continues to be a best-selling picture/painting. In fact, the State of Minnesota officially made "GRACE" the state picture in 2002. I'd imagine that Charles Wilden probably never thought that his face would be so popular today. But I bet he would be grateful to know that a countless number of people have been touched by the simple yet powerful imagery he helped to bring to life. Yes, it is likely that "GRACE" will continue to touch the hearts of future generations, who sit in the homes of their grandparents on those special Sunday evenings.

To Bee or Not to Bee

2011-09-22T18:04:00.004-06:00

"Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue." ~Songs of Solomon 4: 11

"The pedigree of honey does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him is aristocracy." ~Emily Dickinson

"And thy Lord taught the bee to build its cells in hills, on trees and in men's habitations...there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for mankind. Verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought." ~Al Quran 16: 68-69

"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth." ~Psalms 119: 103

"For so work the honey-bees, creatures that by a rule in nature teach the act of order to a peopled kingdom." ~William Shakespeare

"Like the honeybee, the sage should gather wisdom from many scriptures." ~Bhagavad Gita.

"Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price." ~2 Nephi 26: 25

One of my closet ambitions in life is to be a professional beekeeper. In my opinion, bees are one of the most beautiful, hard working and interesting forms of life on this planet. The ability of these tiny little insects, to work tirelessly together towards a common goal is an inspiration to even us who reside at the top of the food chain. And make no mistake, the role of bees is fundamental to our food chain.

Most people don't realize that bees and their hives are much more than simple little honey factories. In fact, honey is far from the most important function these little guys perform. Bees are nature's most proficient pollinators, and as such, they are directly responsible for the continued prosperity of literally thousands of forms of plant life. And many of these plants are of huge importance to humans. Whether it is kiwis, onions, cashews, almonds, strawberries, celery, beets, broccoli, cabbage, papaya, peppers, watermelons, blueberries, cranberries, raspberries, cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, zucchini, lemons, carrots, figs, soybeans, apples, mangos, avocados, lima beans, kidney beans, cherries, plumbs, peaches, pears, eggplant, cocoa, vanilla, tomatoes or grapes (and those are just a few), bees are fundamental to the survival of these plants. In short, roughly half of everything you and I put into our mouths to eat is the direct result of a bee's efforts. That's right, these tiny little guys (actually gals, since 95% of a hive is female including 100% of the workers) are of paramount importance to humanity. Crazy to think that we big, bad Homo Sapiens, with all of our technology, knowledge, and dominance of this planet rely so heavily on a simple little insect!

And just what would happen if these little bees died off? Well, we may get to find out sooner than we thought.

Ever since the dawn of civilization, mankind has looked to bees for their sweet nectar. Ancient cave dwellers drew pictures of bees and their honey, hailing them as the workers of the gods. In Egypt, bees were seen as great soothsayers. The location of their hives were graced with worship and awe, and the bee's honey was so special that only those of Pharaoh's court could partake of the liquid gold. Medieval Europe, having still not discovered sugar, saw honey as the nectar of the gods; a substance that demanded great appreciation from all of society. Yes, it is safe to say that human history is replete with stories of respect and reverence for the mighty little bee.

That is, until today. Sadly, the bee has been introduced to a modern world where corporate interests and the capitalistic quest for continued consumption and production have forced our little yellow and black friends into uncharted waters. Now days, bees are shipped across the world to large corporate farms who need these bees to pollinate their crops.

And sadly, this is the least of the bee's concern. Modern pesticides have made their way into the bee's precious nectar, causing the hive to succumb to disease. Their brood is often born with weaker immune and nervous systems. And as American farms become more oriented to a single crop (often spanning over acres of land) pests are able to find all the food they need, thus increasing the need for pesticides. In consequence, the bee's job is made even harder to accomplish. In short, the mass corporate agenda of our modern food industry has forced beekeepers to ship their bees further, to farms with even more pesticides, thus causing the bees far more stress than they have ever experienced before.

So what's the big deal? Why should we care in the first place? Because our bees are dying...by the BILLIONS. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has become a new phenomenon that the American beekeeper is having to face on a daily basis, and the consequences have been disastrous. Literally thousand upon thousands of hives have simply gone extinct all across the United States leaving the beekeeper virtually destitute, and the American farmer in a real pickle. The blueberry and almond farms of California have suffered huge losses, as have the cranberry fields on the east coast and the farms in the American heartland. If Colony Collapse Disorder continues, chances are we will see serious losses to American farms that will have real and long-lasting consequences for all of us.

So what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder and how do we stop it? There have been literally hundreds of suggested causes ranging from cellular phones to a supposed Soviet plot. And though these suggestions are provocative, you don't have to look for the dramatic to see what is killing our bees. The increased stress to produce goods in order to fulfill the hunger of the capitalist markets has fueled the need for more bees to do their job faster, longer, harder and better than ever before. Farms that were normally producing 80 bushels of goods per acre are now being forced to produce 150 bushels. Economic pressures to compete with other countries who aren't required to meet the standards of our FDA have pushed farmers and food companies to find any way possible to cut corners in order to turn profits. And as can be expected, the bee is taking the brunt of the work.

But unlike the American worker, bees don't care about capitalism or other economic pressures. And as the bee is shipped further to stranger farms, full of pesticides, mites and diverse climates, the bee has reached its limits. Being confused due to geographic relocation, gathering pollen from plants infected with pesticides and fed with synthetic sugars as opposed to their rich and natural honey has caused the bee to die in numbers we have never seen before. And can any of us be surprised? Just imagine how each of us would handle being shipped across the country, given synthetic food, forced to work is a strange climate and exposed to foreign chemicals. It's no stretch to suggest that we too would get very sick and possibly face death. Now just imagine what this must do to the little bee.

We can save the bees, but unfortunately it requires change on our part. As Albert Einstein stated: "We can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created." We must change the way we think and operate before we can effect real change, and such is the case with our bees. Eliminating the ridiculous corporate mentality that permeates our food industry along with the pesticides that infect these hives is of paramount importance. We must quit seeing the food industry as a way to magnify the corporate drive for further consumption and production. We eventually need to recognize that we will never be able to eat money! Taking care of our bees (and our farms/environment in general) is a priority that will forever transcend corporate interests.

That is, assuming you want to keep half of the food you now enjoy!

Zakary's First Day of School and Jaxson's First Race

2011-09-22T17:43:00.009-06:00

I finally decided to try and get my camera cleared out but before I did, I wanted to get these pics posted. They are of Jaxson's first race and Zakary's first day of pre-school.

Jaxson getting his first ribbon in his first race.

A pretty decent turnout for an elementary school race.

Our Jedi Knights

Zakary getting ready to go to his first day of pre-school.

And the customary video:

Our Founding Fathers and the Death Penalty

2011-09-22T16:16:00.010-06:00

Yesterday, the State of Georgia executed convicted murderer, Troy Davis after the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request for a stay on his execution. And though I don't know all the specifics of his case, I know that it was supposedly somewhat controversial.

Now, whether Mr. Davis is guilty of the murder or not is not the purpose of this post, nor is it my intention to debate the death penalty here today. But yesterday's execution did make me wonder what (if anything) our Founding Fathers thought of capital punishment. Of course, we all recognize that 18th century America (and the world at large) was far different in terms of how punishment for criminals was carried out. Everything from whippings, beatings, beheadings, being placed in the stocks, etc. were seen as standard operating procedure for much of colonial America. We also know that General George Washington and many of his fellow army commanders regularly carried out executions of soldiers for a variety of offenses that many today would be horrified to see carried out.

And then there's the good ol' 8th Amendment. Perhaps more so than any other clause in the Constitution, the 8th Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" is more clearly affected by societal change than any other amendment in the Constitution. After all, the very nature of the phrase "cruel and unusual" appeals to evolving societal standards. What we consider to be "cruel" or "unusual" today was seen as routine and just to our forefathers.

And to be 100% certain, it is not the role of the historian to pass judgement on what a society deemed to be acceptable/unacceptable. By no means do I wish to sound as though we of the modern era are somehow too sophisticated for the "savagery" of our less-than-civil ancestors. Instead, it is our role to simply understand the meat and potatoes of why people of the past did what they did, objectively and free from prejudice.

To accomplish this, I offer three unique takes on the death penalty from three different founders. Of course, these three voices hardly sum up the sentiments of an entire continent but I do believe they help to illustrate the conflict which some colonial Americans faced with regards to the death penalty.

First up is Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend Edward Pendleton, Jefferson clearly reveals his "black or white" personality. Being the passionate idealist that he was, Jefferson rarely saw or embraced the "grey area" of any argument, and his sentiments regarding the death penalty pretty much fall in line with how Jefferson saw the world.

The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes, which you say you have heard insisted on by some, I assure you was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them, strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c. punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies &c. a certain time proportioned to the offence. But as this would be no punishment or change of condition to slaves (me miserum!) let them be sent to other countries. By these means we should be freed from the wickedness of the latter, and the former would be living monuments of public vengeance. Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the law-giver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge, or of the executive power, will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man.

(Thomas Jefferson to Edward Pendleton, August 26, 1776).In contrast, Jefferson's friend Benjamin Rush adopted a far more forgiving approach to the punishment of criminals. For Rush, there was ZERO justification for the taking of another's life, regardless of the severity of the crime committed. In an essay on punishing murder by death, Rush writes:

I. Every man possesses an absolute power over his own liberty and property, but not over his own life. When he becomes a member of political society, he commits the disposal of his liberty and property to his fellow citizens; but as he has no right to dispose of his life, he cannot commit the power over it to any body of men. To take away life, therefore, for any crime, is a violation of the first political compact.

II. The punishment of murder by death, is contrary to reason, and to the order and happiness of society.

III. The punishment of murder by death, is contrary to divine revelation. A religion which commands us to forgive and even to do good to our enemies, can never authorise the punishment of murder by death. "Vengeance is mine," said the Lord; "I will repay." It is to no purpose to say here, that this vengeance is taken out of the hands of an individual, and directed against the criminal by the hand of government. It is equally an usurpation of the prerogative of heaven, whether it be inflicted by a single person, or by a whole community.

***I simply referenced Rush's 3 main bullets. I recommend reading his entire essay which can be found on the link above.***And then there's James Wilson's views on capital punishment. For Wilson, the death penalty is fine and dandy, but unlikely due to the fact that (in his mind) juries will reluctantly hand out severe punishments due to the human nature to want to forgive. As a result, Wilson recommended mild punishments for all crimes in the belief that criminals would be deterred due to the fact that juries would be more likely to convict. As he stated to a Grand Jury in 1791:

We are told by some writers, that the number of crimes is unquestionably diminished by the severity of punishments. If we inspect the greatest part of the criminal codes; their unwieldy bulk and their ensanguined hue will force us to acknowledge, that this opinion may plead, in its favour, a very high antiquity, and a very extensive reception. On accurate and unbiassed examination, however, it will appear to be an opinion unfounded and pernicious, inconsistent with the principles of our nature, and, by a necessary consequence, with those of wise and good government.

So far as any sentiment of generous sympathy is suffered, by a merciless code, to remain among the citizens, their abhorrence of crimes is, by the barbarous exhibitions of human agony, sunk in their commiseration of criminals. These barbarous exhibitions are productive of another bad effect--a latent and gradual, but a powerful, because a natural, aversion to the laws. Can laws, which are a natural and a just object of aversion, receive a cheerful obedience, or secure a regular and uniform execution? The expectation is forbidden by some of the strongest principles in the human frame. Such laws, while they excite the compassion of society for those who suffer, rouse its indignation against those who are active in the steps preparatory to their sufferings.

We may easily conjecture the result of those combined emotions, operating vigorously in concert. The criminal will, probably, be dismissed without prosecution by those whom he has injured. If prosecuted and tried, the jury will probably find, or think they find, some decent ground, on which they may be justified, or at least excused, in giving a verdict of acquittal. If convicted, the judges will, with avidity, receive and support every, the nicest exception to the proceedings against him; and, if all other things should fail, will have recourse to the last expedient within their reach for exempting him from rigorous punishment--that of recommending him to the mercy of the pardoning power. In this manner, the acerbity of punishment deadens the execution of the law.

The criminal, pardoned, repeats the crime, under the expectation that the impunity also will be repeated. The habits of vice and depravity are gradually formed within him. Those habits acquire, by exercise, continued accessions of strength and inveteracy. In the progress of his career, he is led to engage in some desperate attempt. From one desperate attempt he boldly proceeds to another, till, at last, he necessarily becomes the victim of that preposterous rigour, which repeated impunity had taught him to despise, because it had persuaded him that he might always escape.

When, on the other hand, punishments are moderate and mild, every one will, from a sense of interest and of duty, take his proper part in detecting, in exposing, in trying, and in passing sentence on crimes. The consequence will be, that criminals will seldom elude the vigilance, or baffle the energy, of publick justice.

So were the founders as divided on the issue of the death penalty as we are today? Perhaps. At least some of our founders felt uneasy or even morally motivated at the thought of capital punishment. But again, those were different times. For example, the Crimes Act of 1790 mandated execution for treason and required the mutilation of the corpse. Public flogging were a weekly occurrence and even charges of counterfeit could end in one's execution. As evidenced in the U.S. Coinage Act of 1792:

Section 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the
gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be
debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver
therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be
pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the
connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said
mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent,
and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals
which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being
coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint,
every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said
offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Great Moments in Presidential Election History

2011-09-21T20:50:00.005-06:00

In 1988, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen went head-to-head with George Bush Sr. and Dan Quayle for the presidency of the United States. During the campaign (which was the first presidential campaign that I actually paid attention to...I was ten years old) I recalled a couple of occasions when both sides delivered a pretty solid strike against their opponent. And thanks to Youtube, I have been able to see them again. I remember seeing them both live as a kid and recall how they helped to kindle my interest in American politics. Here they are:

Lloyd Bentsen making Dan Quayle look like a chump:

And Ronald Reagan's fantastic response:

In the end, I suppose both Bentsen and Reagan were right. Quayle was far from being anything like JFK and Dukakis was hardly the next Thomas Jefferson.

SHOCKER!

Only 2% of Welfare Recipiants Use Drugs. I "ASS"-"U"-"ME"-D Different

2011-09-07T08:55:00.008-06:00

I try not to get too political on this blog but this recent article was too interesting to pass up. Back in July, Florida Governor Rick Scott pushed a law through his state requiring welfare recipients to be tested for illegal drugs. In a nutshell, the law stated that anyone who failed the test (or refused to take it) would be deemed ineligible for welfare. To be honest, this is a law that I am 100% in favor of. It seems only logical that people who apply for welfare should be drug free. After all, why should tax dollars be dedicated for people who are breaking the law or have a serious substance abuse problem?

And though I might run the risk of appearing somewhat jaded, I was fully convinced that this new law would reveal the fact that a large number of welfare recipients are drug dependant. Yes, this may be a terrible stereotype but I am guessing that most people probably feel as I do. We all assume that drug addicts are abusing the system to death.

But as is often the case with people who ASSUME, they make an ASS out of U and ME.

This week, Florida released the results of their drug testing for welfare recipients, and to everyone's surprise, the numbers were not what had been expected. Only 2% of Florida welfare recipients tested positive for illegal drugs while another 2% refused to take the test. In other words, 96% of Florida welfare recipients were drug free. This is lower than the national and state average for drug abusers overall (about 8%).

Even if you assume (again, "assuming" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me") that all who refused to take the test were positive, that’s far below the overall rate of use both nationally and in the state of Florida. According to federal data, 7-7.7% of Florida residents use illicit drugs, meaning the rate of welfare recipients is about half that of the general population of the state. And remember, Governor Scott sold this idea on the grounds that welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than others. And even if we assume (there's that word again) that another 4% of those tested were able to "cheat" on the test (the typical margin of error on most drug tests), the numbers would mirror the state average for drug abuse. Simply put, these numbers prove that welfare recipients are not a bunch of drug abusing bums like so many of us ASSUME.

I'll admit, these numbers have forced me to reevaluate the way I look at welfare. Now don't get me wrong, I am still in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients (even though these tests cost taxpayers roughly $35,000 a month). What has changed for me is the way I will look at welfare recipients. No longer am I going to ASSUME that a large portion abuse drugs because the data has proven me wrong.

And you have to wonder if Governor Scott's motives were as genuine as he claimed. As one reporter has revealed, Governor Scott just happens to own a large number of health care clinics in Florida, and drug testing is one of their primary sources of revenue. This comes as a terrible shock to most Florida voters who ASSUMED that Governor Scott's plan was as pure as the driven snow.

Holy pill-poppers, Batman! I guess we should be a little more careful about the ASSUMPTIONS we all make every day!

Hat Tip: E. Brayton

The Empire Strikes Zak (and Jax)

2011-09-06T20:29:00.004-06:00

Over the past few months, our two boys (Jaxson and Zakary) have fallen in love with Star Wars. From video games to movies, Star Wars has taken over our home. With this in mind, I decided to capture in video my kids during a recent trip to Target as they went down the Star Wars toy isle:

Jaxson at Landsharks

2011-09-06T18:27:00.007-06:00

This school year is a big one for Jaxson. Not only is he starting 1st Grade but he is also being introduced to the wonderful world of after school sports, the first of which is a local running club for elementary school kids called Landsharks. Ever since the beginning of last year, Jaxson has wanted to participate in Landsharks. Sadly, we missed the sign up date last year so he had to wait. But the wait was definitely worth it:

Jaxson with his fellow teammates.

And off they go...

Jaxson with his coach.

Getting ready for the first timed half-mile.

Hanging out with brother.

And here is the shirt!

We LOVE Frontier Elementary School! Thanks for all that you do!

And, as always, a short video:

The Glenn Beck Check, Part VI: Glenn Beck, David Barton and the Fabrication of the Black Robe Regiment

2011-09-06T09:15:00.027-06:00

It has been a while since I have posted anything on America's favorite clown Glenn Beck and his pseudo-historian friend David Barton. Fortunately, Beck has become largely irrelevant, as most people have finally accepted the fact that he is an utter fraud. The cancellation of his ridiculous Fox television program, coupled with the abysmal turnout to his stupid "Restoring Honor" rally in Israel, are a foreshadowing of Beck's eventual demise (thank goodness).

But this doesn't mean that the "Dynamic Duo" of Beck and Barton aren't still pulling rabbits out of their magic "historical" hats. On the contrary. In fact, one of their most recent claims has to also be one of their most ridiculous.

Back in 2010, during Beck's other Restoring Popularity...er...Restoring "Honor" rally (funny that Beck held rallies for "Honor" and "Courage" when he himself possesses neither), Beck proposed the "restoration" of "The Black Robe Regiment." According to Beck and Barton (who aren't real historians but play one on T.V.) , the Black Robe Regiment were:

the preachers [of the Revolution], because they wore black robes. Black preachers, white preachers — they all wore black probes. And the British specifically blamed the preachers for the American Revolution. That's where the title "Black Regiment" came from. One of the British officials talked about that. It's interesting that the British so hated the preachers — they claim if it hadn't been for the preachers, America would still be a happy British colony. So they blamed it on the preachers. When they come to America, they start to decimating churches. They went to New York City. Nineteen churches — they burned 10 to the ground. They went across Virginia burning churches. They went across New Jersey burning churches. Because they blamed these preachers.

First off, Barton's claim that the British "specifically blamed the preachers for the American Revolution" is an extremely irresponsible and baseless claim. It is a claim based more on the current culture wars than on actual history. Barton and Beck, like their fellow Christian Nationalists, need to "prove" that the American Revolution was a religious, particularly Christian war/event, and to do so they make some RIDICULOUS conclusions based on very weak evidence.

On his website for the Black Robe Regiment, Barton provides a singular citation as "proof" that the British feared this "Black Robe Regiment." The citation comes from a Peter Oliver, who was a British official living in Boston. Oliver essentially labels the American clergy who were sympathetic to revolution as "Black Robes", but what Barton neglects to mention is the fact that Oliver labels them as such due to his belief that they had "replaced God at the pulpit with politics", a practice that both Barton and Beck are quite familiar with. Somehow, Barton is able to take the words of a single British official living in Boston and apply it to the entire British nation. In other words, if this Peter Oliver said it, all of Great Britain (despite the fact that there is no other mentioning of the "Black Robe Regiment" from actual British leaders) must have felt the same.

Second, Barton's claim that the British "decimated churches" is completely misleading. While it is true that the British (and more so their Hessian mercenaries) were responsible for the ransacking of a few American churches, it is NOT true that these churches were specifically targeted for their teachings. They were usually ransacked for goods and supplies or made into shelters or hospitals for soldiers; a common practice used by almost every army of the time. Heck, the Union Army would do the same during the Civil War yet nobody ever assumed religious persecution as the reason like Barton has with the British. Barton is simply implying that since the existing churches, located in battle ground areas of the war were damaged, this must therefore mean that the British disliked their teachings/religion.

Not so.

Reality is that just as many (if not more) churches were destroyed by rebel patriots who were either upset at the loyalist leanings of the clergy/parishioners or didn't want the church to fall into the hands of the British. When Barton mentions the "Nineteen churches" in New York that were burned to the ground, he neglects to tell his audience that many were burned as a result of the "Great Fire of 1776", which was most certainly started by rebel patriots (even George Washington blamed patriots for having caused the fire). For example, Trinity Church in New York (yes, the same Trinity Church made famous in the movie National Treasure as the location of the buried treasure) was burned to the ground in 1776 as a result of the Great Fire. Reverend Charles Inglis, assistant minister of Trinity Church, noted that the church's teachings of "passive obedience and no resistance" and "to watch and refute all publications disrespectful to the Government tending to a breach" were met with severe scorn by those who wanted revolution. In fact, the teachings of Trinity Church and other loyalist churches throughout New York (much of New York remained loyal to the King) were met with such severe scorn from patriots that Reverend Inglis and other clergy voted unanimously to shut the churches down. As Reverend Inglis stated:

By omitting the prayers for the king, give that mark of disaffection to their sovereign. To have prayed for him had been rash to the last degree—the inevitable consequence had been a demolition of the churches, and the destruction of all who frequented them...I shut up the churches. Even this was attended with great hazard; for it was declaring, the strongest manner, our disapprobation of independency, and that under the eye of Washington and his army.

In addition, Barton's source for "proof" that the British "decimated" churches comes primarily from the writings of Daniel Dorchester and Benjamin Franklin Morris: two 19th-century Christian advocates who, like Barton, were obsessed with "proving" that America was a Christian Nation. But what Barton neglects to note in his narrative is the fact that BOTH of these men ALSO noted that many of these churches, which were supposedly "decimated" by the British, were actually destroyed by American patriots:

The church at Crumpound was burned to save it from being occupied by the enemy. That of Mount Holly was burned by accident or design. The one at Princeton was taken possession of by the Hessian soldiers and stripped of its pew and gallery for fuel.

Apparently Barton would prefer that we believe in this version of the American Revolution than in reality:

When Glenn Beck and Barton discussed the formation of the Black Robe Regiment, they did so not out of a desire to reveal the truth of American history, but instead to push forward a political/religious agenda:

Apparently, the idea began with Beck's favorite historian, David Barton. When Beck told Barton he wanted to "get religious leaders together," Barton suggested forming a Black Robe Regiment -- named after what Barton had said was a group of preachers who supported the American Revolution from their pulpits. Beck decided that was "exactly" what he was looking for because it was a movement supposedly like his that was "not about politics."

In short, Beck and Barton did what they have always done: hijack history and twist the truth in order to add legitimacy to their bogus claims. And this piece of propaganda is the result:

As for the "rights in the Declaration of Independence" coming from the clergy, Barton needs to go back to History, 101. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the DOI, cited Locke, Cicero, Montesquieu and other figures as "inspiration" for what he put into the DOI, but AT NO TIME did Jefferson give any kind of credit to the Bible or any other specific Christian teaching. And, perhaps more importantly, of the twenty-seven reasons for declaring Independence that are mentioned in the DOI, not a single one has anything to do with religion. Why? Because the American Revolution was NOT a religious war like so many involved in the culture wars want us to believe. It was a war over representation, taxation, ultimate sovereignty and a host of other reasons. But religion was NOT the cause of the Revolution. Yes, it may have been used to justify rebellion to the motherland but that was the extent of its usage.

In the video propaganda piece, Barton also states that Ministers were at the "forefront of everything that happened" during the Revolution. Uh, no. Of the 55 signers to the DOI, only one (John Witherspoon) was an actual minister (as opposed to Barton's claim that 27 were ministers). But for the record, just as many (if not more) ministers preached AGAINST revolution as those who were in favor. For more on this topic click here.

In conclusion, I know that Barton and Beck probably mean well in their efforts to "restore" America's "forgotten heritage" and I don't necessarily disagree with their motives. With that said, the fact remains that their blatant misuse of history does not help them in their quest. Twisting facts, misusing quotes, and fabricating events doesn't "restore" a damn thing. I share in Beck and Barton's belief that religion is the most awesome and influential power on earth and that it was EXTREMELY important to those of early America. However, our Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize the FACT that religion should have no place in government. For Barton and Beck to say otherwise is what lies at the heart of all our current culture war problems. In their ignorant and misguided march towards "saving" America's "Christian heritage" they have revealed their woeful historical illiteracy.

And shame on them because they should know better.

The Top 10 Documentaries of All-Time

2011-08-27T10:13:00.011-06:00

One of my favorite things to do when I have the time is to watch documentaries. Unlike regular movies, documentaries usually make me feel like I am at least attempting to use my time wisely. Now don't get me wrong, I love a good mindless movie as much as the next guy, but documentaries have always had a special place in my heart.

And though I love to watch them, I am actually EXTREMELY picky about the documentaries that I choose to watch. After all, let's face the facts: a lot of supposed documentaries are nothing more than either mockumentaries or political propaganda pieces. As a result, my list of the top 10 all-time documentaries will probably not contain some of the traditional "best hits" that others love.

So, without further delay, here are my 10 Greatest Documentaries of All-Time:

10.) The Tillman Story (2010): The Tillman Story is a moving account of the life and legacy of Pat Tillman (one of my all-time favorite athletes), who gave up a career in the NFL to join the U.S. Army. Sadly, Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Of course, everyone already knows about Tillman's incredible story and legacy but that is not what this documentary focuses on. The Tillman Story explores how the military, politicians and the government in general manipulated his tragic death by covering up the truth and using him as a propaganda tool. Members of Tillman's family and the military come forward to reveal just how twisted Pat Tillman's legacy became for the powers that be.

9.) Friends of God (2007): In this HBO documentary, Alexandra Pelosi travels across America to chronicle the beliefs, practices and politics of American Evangelicals. I enjoyed the film because Pelosi allows the subjects, who include both prominent Evangelical leaders and average believers to speak for themselves. Usually religious documentaries are made to simply poke fun at believes. This film, however, lets the viewer judge for himself/herself.

8.) Life (2009): In this 10-part series narrated by Oprah Winfrey (which is still regularly shown on the Discovery Channel), the miracle and vast diversity of life on planet Earth is revealed in fantastic detail. The camera work in this documentary is second to none, as life in various parts of the planet (at the depths of the sea or the tops of the mountains) is brought to light.

7.) Vanishing of the Bees (2009): One of my closet ambitions in life is to become a professional beekeeper. Bees are, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful, hard working and impressive forms of life on this planet. In this documentary, scientists and beekeepers alike examine the global epidemic that is Colony Collapse Disorder. For the past few years, bees have simply been disappearing from their hives, and the impact on agriculture has been tremendous. Roughly 1/3 of everything humans eat is the result of bee pollination, and without these bees humanity (and other forms of life on earth) will be severely impacted.

6.) Tyson (2009): In this James Toback film, the rise and fall of one of America's most dramatic, charismatic and controversial athletes is Chronicled. The boxing career of Mike Tyson was like a runaway freight train that derailed violently. This film shows an intimate look into the psyche and life history of Tyson. It is one of the most entertaining documentaries I have ever seen.

5.) Baseball (1994): In this Ken Burns documentary, the history of baseball is chronicled. It was a nine-part PBS series that captured the attention of historians and sports fans alike. Baseball shows how the game evolved and influenced American society over its 100-year history. A fascinating and very in-depth analysis to say the least.

4.) Super Size Me (2004): Pretty much everyone has seen this film. Morgan Spurlock (the film's creator and chief figure) goes on a 30-day McDonald's binge, which leads to several health issues. In addition, Spurlock looks at how the food industry in America has effectively woven itself into American culture.

3.) The Wonder of it All (2007): In The Wonder of it All, chronicles the stories of the men behind the Apollo missions to the moon. Interviews with the astronauts, mission control personnel and other important participants reveals the miracle behind America's space program. The Wonder of it All captures the true majesty and wonder of human exploration and leaves the viewer asking, "why don't we do more of this today?" A truly inspiring documentary to say the least.

2.) The Fog of War (2003): The Fog of War is, without question, one of the most chilling films I have ever seen. The documentary is essentially an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was one of the chief advocates for the escalation of the Vietnam War. In the film, McNamara essentially breaks down as he reveals for the audience the deep personal anguish of decisions that he made which led to the tragic deaths of thousands of American soldiers. Hearing McNamara admit his guilt, remorse and error is a surreal experience. A must-see documentary for sure.

1.) Hoop Dreams (1994): There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hoop Dreams is the greatest documentary ever made. To give you an idea of how good this film was, it came out the same year as Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show...and it won more awards than all those movies combined. Hoop Dreams follows the lives of two inner city Chicago kids who, over the course of eight years, try to make it to the NBA. The film reveals the incredible pressures that inner city Black kids face on a daily basis and how dreams of basketball greatness serve as a hope for a better life. In the film, the two kids receive scholarships to wealthy, upscale private high schools (the same high school that NBA great Isaiah Thomas attended). But once one of them falls short of expectations, the scholarships suddenly disappear and he is forced to return to inner city public school. Whether you like basketball or not is irrelevant. Hoop Dreams is a remarkable inside view into a world that few ever see or experience. Again, there is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest documentary ever made.

There you have it! Now, get out to Redbox and rent one! =)

Honorable Mentions:

Planet Earth
It Might Get Loud
March of the Penguins

"Let There Be Light": The Big Bang, Evolution, God and Creation, Part II

2011-08-26T14:45:00.018-06:00

Part II: Reckoning the Genesis Creation
with Scientific Creation

***Note: Be sure to start with Part I of this series, which can be found here.***

In this installment I want to attempt to look at how the biblical account of creation (found in the Book of Genesis) compares with scientific reality, and how both can be useful source material. To do so we must first attempt to understand why so many Christians adhere to such a strict and literal interpretation of the Holy Bible.

Sola Scriptura
During the Protestant Reformation, religious leaders like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox and many others revolted against the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church, which had maintained a virtual monopoly over Christianity for centuries. Due to a number of factors (church corruption, disagreements over doctrine, church hierarchy, etc.) these "reformers" essentially sought to improve the conditions and direction of Christianity in their day. As a result, the Protestant Reformation brought to life different interpretations for what it meant to be a Christian.

One of the key arguments that arose from the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone). As mentioned above, one of the key problems that reformers had with the Catholic Church was the emphasis it placed on the supremacy of the Pope and other hierarchical leaders. The emerging Protestants had little tolerance for such practices and sought to place ultimate ecclesiastical authority in a source other than a Pope. In consequence, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura became extremely appealing.

At its core, Sola Scriptura suggests that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, and the only source for Christian doctrine. As a result, the authority of all ecclesiastical leaders became subordinate and inferior to the ultimate authority of the Bible. In short the Protestant Reformation taught the defenders of Sola Scriptura that no single person (i.e. the Pope) could ever claim superior status or authority over the Holy Bible.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Sola Scriptura caught on very fast with the emerging Protestant congregations. As the Bible became more prevalent in the lives of ordinary believers (thanks to the printing press), more and more people were able to study for themselves the doctrines found in scripture. This essentially placed the burden of salvation back into the hands of the individual, since ultimately Protestants rejected the need to follow a Pope. By studying and then applying the teachings of the Holy Bible, one would be able to find all the needed guidance in order to gain salvation.

And as one would expect, any attack on the sovereignty and infallibility of the Bible was met with severe scorn. In Puritan America, for example, Roger Williams' ideas were met with such scorn that he was eventually forced to flee. Williams suggested that the anti-Christ was the Catholic Church (a common belief at the time) and that its distortions of true Christianity were so severe that a restoration of the holy apostleship was needed in order to know God's true will:

If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe

. (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).In other words, Williams was stating that Christianity needed further guidance and understanding in addition to what the Bible taught. Needless to say, this didn't sit well with those who embraced Sola Scriptura.

Fast forward to today. Scientific discovery has completely changed many of our traditional views of the universe, and in the process, has contradicted (heck, completely refuted) many of the teachings found in the Bible. As a result, those who defend Sola Scriptura are constantly attempting to explain (in a futile effort mind you) why the Bible is still the superior source of knowledge. Take for example this ridiculous debate over dinosaurs. If we take the Bible as literal truth, we must accept that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old (see 2 Peter 3:8). Faced with this Biblical teaching, defenders of Sola Scriptura must then attempt to explain why science insists that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Here is an example of their futile attempt to reconcile this dilemma:

Needless to say, this willful rejection of scientific fact combined with blind allegiance to ancient scripture, has become the main catalyst for today's religion/science debates. Men like pseudo-scientist Ken Ham (shown in the video above) have gone to such ridiculous and futile lengths to prove the Bible's validity that it comes as no surprise to see that 4 in 10 Americans believe in the literal Bible account of creation.

So how are we to reckon the realities of scientific discovery with the biblical accounts of creation? Perhaps we will never fully be able to. With that said, there are ways that we can see the truth of both arguments.

The "Seven Days" of Creation

The Book of Genesis opens with a very general overview of God's creation of humanity, the Earth and the universe in general. Needless to say, this vague creation story has become the topic of ridicule in the scientific community. After all, science has proven that the earth is much older than a few thousand years and life took millions of years not days (or 1000 years for each day) to develop.

But is the Genesis story of creation completely worthless? Should we discard it right out of the gate for its apparent flaws? If you accept Sola Scriptura my answer would be, yes. Of course the creation story in Genesis isn't literal truth as so many suggest. But if you believe that the Bible is ancient man's attempt to explain his origins, then some incredible truths can be found. If we take each day and juxtapose it to what science teaches, we can see that there are some striking similarities.

Genesis 1:2-5: 2.) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3.) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4.) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5.) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to astrophysicists, the universe began when a singularity of light, heat and matter suddenly exploded roughly 14 billion years ago, sending an immense amount of heat, matter and gases into the expanses that became space. As the matter and gasses cooled, it eventually coalesced into giant galaxies, stars, nebulas, planets and other celestial bodies.

Genesis 1:9-10: 9.)And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10.) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Geologists have shown how during the Archean Eon the Earth experienced incredible tectonic activity. As the Earth's core continued to form, the planet experienced a huge jump in temperature. Volcanic activity spewed molten rock across the surface of the planet. During this era, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which protected it from the immense solar winds of the time (winds that were 100 times greater than what we see today). This protected the infant planet's atmosphere from being stripped away, unlike the atmosphere of Mars which was completely annihilated during this era. During the later parts of the Archean Eon and the beginning of the Proterozoic Eon, water began to form on the newly cooled planet's surface.

Genesis 1:11-1211.) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12.) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

At this point, life is introduced to the world. Some have suggested that these verses are in complete opposition to evolution since they employ the phrase "after his kind." Geologist and theologian Greg Neyman suggests otherwise. He writes:

Notice that God did not say, "Let there be grass," and there was grass. God told the land to produce the vegetation! It was the land doing the producing, not God. God told the earth to bring forth grass, and in verse 12, "the earth brought forth grass..." In essence, God let the land "do its thing" on its own. Instead of flat, out of nothing creation, the text for Genesis actually supports evolution better!

And when speaking of verses 20-21 (which also have to do with the creation of life) Neyman writes:

In this passage where God creates ocean life, He tells the ocean to bring forth the creatures. He does not say, "Let there be whales;" or "let there be sharks." Verse 21 shows the result, that "God created great whales." Verse 20 gives the process God used to create..."Let the waters bring forth..." Again, this seems to support evolution better than flat, out of nothing creation.

This is an important and often ignored distinction. The Bible does not say that God simply snapped his fingers and created all forms of life. Instead, it says that "the water brought forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). And as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, life on earth began in the sea. As evolutionary biologist Steven Faux (who happens to be a distant relative of mine) states:

Animal life developed in the sea before reaching dry land. The first fishes were evident about 500 million years ago. Land tetrapods (four-footed land animals) evolved from sarcopt fishes (lobe-finned) about 400 million years ago.

By 300 million years ago the first reptiles were found.

The first mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) were evident by 200 million years ago. True mammals probably arose about 100 million years ago (see also: Bininda-Emonds).

The first birds (like Archaeopteryx) were evident about 150 million years ago, and they derived from dinosaurs.

So does the Bible support evolution? That probably depends on how you interpret the "Good Book." As I have stated before, any literal interpretation of scripture makes it extremely difficult to accept and embrace the realities of scientific discovery. It's just one of those unfortunate side effects of Sola Scriptura. With that said, I do not see any problem with embracing evolution and the general Genesis story. One can imagine those early biblical prophets, who lacked the current understandings of science, trying to explain the origins of the universe within the context of their time and understanding. From their perspective, breaking the creation into a week-long event seems to make sense, and all things considered, they didn't do as bad of a job as some seem to think.

***Part III: Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden***

"Let There Be Light": The Big Bang, Evolution, God and Creation, Part I

2011-08-26T14:44:00.006-06:00

Part I: An Introduction Into
The Pretended War Between
Religion and Science

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

This short sentence has caused more controversy than perhaps any other sentence in Western literature. The natural questions which have arisen over centuries of debate on this passage have obviously centered on how God actually went about creating the heaven and the earth. Did he magically snap is fingers and say, "It is well"? Or were the natural laws of science the primary conductors of creation?

Of course, these questions force us down the road to where the intersection between religion and science regularly collide in a violent head-on crash. Ever since Nicolaus Copernicus looked into his telescope back in 1609 and discovered that the earth was not at the center of the universe (a discovery that greatly angered the church and cost Copernicus his freedom), religion and science have been engaged in a tug-o-war for exclusive rights to the ultimate origins of man and the universe. Even 400 years after Copernicus, despite all of our advancement and discovery, mankind is still engaged in this same tug-o-war which has spread into our schools, communities and even our politics.

But this supposed tug-o-war is, in reality, an illusion.

Though I am not a scientist (far from it actually) I recognize that there are some basic facts that cannot be refuted no matter how much we want to believe otherwise. For example, our earth is a spherical object (7,926.41 miles in diameter) that orbits the sun at approximately 67,062 miles per hour. Of course, these are facts that almost nobody debates. But 400 years ago, such a claim could land a person in prison and even end with their excommunication and death. Today no religious figure would be so foolish as to suggest that the earth is flat or at the center of the universe, nor would they suggest imprisonment and death for those who believed otherwise. We have moved past such trivial debates.

But other trivial debates still remain.

First off, I fully recognize that my take on this topic could be construed as offensive to some, but I hope you will believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect. Every man/woman is entitled to believe as he/she sees fit. Religion is a personal endeavor of faith; and faith, as Jesus said, can move mountains. With that said, I also believe the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan who stated that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Regardless of what we believe, some scientific facts are undeniable.

Such is the case with evolution. Ever since the days of Charles Darwin, scientists have been putting together the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle, and their work has yielded incredible fruit. Today, scientists have been able to map the human genome, illustrate our development via fossil records, calculate the age of rocks and bones with advanced atomic testing methods, explain the natural functions of the universe, etc., etc., etc. Simply put, the debate over the reality of evolution is closed. Yet despite these fantastic discoveries some still maintain that science is wrong, while a literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago is right.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a hater of the Bible. In fact, I believe that the Bible has brought more people happiness and joy than any other book in human history. Those who knock the Bible usually are the same people who have never read it or attempted to understand it. With that said, my original statement stands: I cannot, in good conscience, accept a literal interpretation of scripture (scripture that was written by those of late antiquity and translated over and over again) as the exclusive authority on matters that are scientifically proven to be false. At the same time, I refuse to accept the belief of many within the scientific community which suggests that scripture (and even religion as a whole) is somehow outdated, irrelevant and thus unworthy of our devotion. Such a conclusion seems, in my view, to actually be quite UN-scientific and downright arrogant.

This is why I stated that this "tug-o-war" between religion and science is an illusion. In reality, we require both to help us understand who we are and where we came from. Though religion and science may appear different on the surface, the fact of the matter is that they were made for each other. There is no REAL debate between religion and science because God is the author of science. The natural laws which created the universe and humanity are His laws. The Big Bang was His doing and Evolution is His handiwork.

Of course, this probably isn't going to sit well with many devout scientists and religious zealots but I don't care. These are my views and I am sticking to them. I for one am sick and tired of hearing people on both sides insist that they alone are right, while the other side is wrong. It's time we quit throwing the baby out with the bathwater and accept that both sides have much to offer. As Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Science needs to learn that despite all it has proven, it cannot observe faith in a petri dish. It will never be able to explain the intangible truths of the universe or the infinite strivings of the human spirit. In short, science's biggest hurdle is accepting the fact that observable facts are not the only facts that can be observed.

On the flip side, religion must accept the fact that the stories found in scripture are ancient man's attempt to explain his origins. Obviously, ancient man didn't have the scientific understanding we possess today. As a result, his stories explaining mankind's origins (chiefly those from the Book of Genesis) are founded in innocent ignorance. After all, how could those of late antiquity possibly understand the Big Bang, natural selection, DNA, etc.? But this does not give today's devout believer a pass. In our modern era we have been given (thanks to God) and incredible amount of knowledge that no other society could even dream of. We know with 100% certainty that the earth isn't 6,000 years old (more like 4.5 billion), that snakes can't talk and that modern Homo Sapiens have their origins not in a garden but on the African plains roughly 200,000 years ago.

If our goal is truly to come to a better understanding of who we are and why we are here (the ultimate question that both religion and science tries to answer) we need not turn a blind eye to the beauty of religious faith and the discovery of scientific research. To do so is to see the world only in black and white. And unfortunately it is the extremists on both ends, who insist on this black and white view of the world, who are causing all of the controversy. We will only see the amazing tapestry of colors that is the creation of humanity and the universe when we reject the all-or-nothing nonsense of the secular scientist and the religious radical.

To my ultra-religious friends I say this: It is time to do away with the childish understandings of ancient man and to accept the knowledge of our present day. As 1 Corinthians 13: 11 states:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Stop and ask yourself why you believe evolution to be such an affront to your faith. Is your belief in God so dependant on literal interpretation of ancient works that you are rendered incapable of accepting and understanding the truths of evolution and science? How is your belief in a God, who simply snaps his fingers, creates the world in six days, takes a nap on the seventh (because nothing says omnipotent like needing to check out for a day or so), and introduces evil to the world via a talking snake and a naughty apple, any less relevant than a belief in a God who brings about the beauty of the world via evolution and natural law?

To my secular scientific friends, who rely exclusively on the merits of "rational" thought and "observable" facts I would ask this: Why does your "reasonable" understanding of things entitle you to belittle those of faith? Are you so arrogant as to think that those who believe in God are simply delusional by choice, since they believe in that which is intangible to the scientific method? By what scientific data are you able to justify your mockery of those who claim a deep, intimate spiritual connection with the divine? Can you offer up anything of substance other than "it's just an emotional reaction"? The reality is that in your quest to disprove that which cannot be seen with a microscope or tested in a laboratory, you have actually added credence to faith. You have proven that we cannot discredit any theory until it has been thoroughly tested. And for the believer, the theory of God is tested (and proved) on a daily basis. It is proven in the answer to a simple prayer. It is proven in the acts of charity of a neighbor. It is proven in the hope for a life after death. In short, the faithful have been using your methods long before science came on the scene. Or as NASA Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow stated:

The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

In conclusion, let us quit buying into the stupid rhetoric brought on by the zealots and the culture warriors who insist upon the myth that religion and science are somehow opposing forces. Instead, let us think of religion and science as peanut butter and jelly. Though on the surface they look, taste, smell and feel completely different, nobody will debate that peanut butter and jelly are made for one another. I leave you with the words of Pope John Paul II:

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish...We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.

***This is the first post in a new series on science, religion, God and creation. In part II I will address how the different religious and scientific interpretations of the creation of the world (the Genesis story) can help us develop a better understanding of things when they are taken together as opposed to at odds with one another.***

James Otis: Abolitionist

2011-08-21T12:55:00.009-06:00

When we think of our nation's Founding Fathers, we usually remember only the "key" participants (i.e. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin & Co.). Unfortunately, the contributions of lesser known participants take a back seat and regularly go unnoticed.

Such is the case with one James Otis. I have written about James Otis before in a post explaining his views on the laws of nature and rebellion to authority, but today I want to focus on his views regarding race; views which were, in many respects, very ahead of their time.

Though not a common citizen, Otis' legacy is often shrouded by the contributions of those that fought in the ranks of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Otis was not a warrior. He never fought for independence (in fact, Otis was quite reluctant to break from Great Britain). Yet Otis was undoubtedly one of the first influential voices of the American Revolution. Aside from his protests against the British early on, Otis was also a powerful voice against slavery. Throughout his life, Otis wrote some of the most stirring arguments against "the peculiar institution", most of which were very unpopular in 18th century America. For example, in a 1764 pamphlet Otis wrote:

Does it follow that 'tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair like wool instead of Christian hair, as tis called by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face? Nothing better can be said in favor of a trade that is the most shocking violation of the law of nature, has a direct tendency to diminish the idea of the inestimable value of liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company to the petty chapman in needles and pins on the unhappy coast. It is a clear truth that those who every day barter away other men's liberty will soon care little for their own.

John Adams recalled Otis speaking against slavery even earlier, during his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761. Adams recalled the occasion this way:

He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor Negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia or Mr. Jefferson in Virginia ever asserted the rights of Negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught...

In other words, none of the great "key" founders could speak as brilliantly on the issue of slavery as James Otis...probably because none of them wanted to bother. Keeping Blacks in their place was an easier task than to recognize their God-given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Remembering Otis as a pioneer for the later abolitionists who would follow in his footsteps should not be forgotten. When dressed in this light, Otis' legacy and contributions become every bit as important as those of the men that fought on the battlefield. Though not considered a "key" founder, I find Otis' views regarding abolition to be pretty much "in key" with the ideology of the American founding.

The Religious Symbolism of Rainbows

2011-08-20T14:00:00.012-06:00

A few weeks ago, my family and I had dinner at the Golden Corral near my house. We should have known better because the dinner was CRAP (as is often the case with Golden Corral). But while leaving, my wife captured the following video of the most impressive rainbow we have ever seen. It was so impressive that a bunch of people came out of the restaurant to see it for themselves. Sadly, the video doesn't due this justice. It was an incredible sight to behold:

As simple and "routine" as rainbows may seem to us after a rainstorm, there is something almost magical about seeing colors forming an arc in the middle of the air. Of course, science has fully explained this phenomenon. In reality, rainbows are not magic but are the result of the sun's light reflecting off of droplets of moisture in the atmosphere. The arc of course is the result of the sun's positioning in the sky v. the angle of the observer (usually a 40-42 degree angle), thus creating the visible arc.

But what did people of antiquity think of rainbows? How did they explain the "magical" colors appearing before them after a rainstorm?

Of course, the most famous tale of rainbows in the ancient world comes to us from the Book of Genesis. In chapter 9, we read of God's promise to Noah and how he vows to never again destroy the world with a global flood:

11.) And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12.) And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13.) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14.) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15.) And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16.) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Of course I recognize that much of how one views this story depends on how you view the Bible. If you esteem the "Good Book" as literal truth, then the rainbow carries an extremely special significance. Pseudo-scientist Ken Ham, advocate of creation science and founder of the extremely controversial group "Answers in Genesis" and the "Creation Museum" states the following with respect to rainbows:

The next time you see a rainbow, remember that God judges sin. But He is also merciful, and He made a covenant of grace with Noah and the animals—He will never again judge with a worldwide Flood

But Christians are far from the only religious group to find a special providential purpose for rainbows. In Greek mythology Iris, Goddess of sea and sky (and who is the personification of the rainbow) is commanded by Zeus to serve as the link between the Gods and humanity. As a result, the rainbow serves as a bridge between heaven and earth. The ancient Chinese and Hindu cultures believed that the rainbow was a slit in the sky, which divided humanity from the Gods. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the rainbow is the jewelry of the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, who holds it into the sky after the rain as a promise that she will never again kill humanity with a flood. And, of course, no ancient rainbow tale would be complete without everyone's favorite: the leprechaun's pot of gold!

The rainbow even has some important symbolism in more modern times. In 1950 The World Fellowship of Buddhists adopted a rainbow flag as a symbol of peace. In 1921 the International Co-operative Alliance adopted a rainbow flag as a symbol of "unity in diversity." Each color of the rainbow came to stand for a specific goal for the organization and the flag is still largely accepted today. And in recent decades, the rainbow has been adopted by both the peace movement of the 1960s and the LGBT movement of today.

So how do I see the rainbow? Perhaps I should simply see it as Sir Isaac Newton did: a light prism reflecting off of water. And though on the surface, the rainbow can be completely understood through scientific study, I believe (as I believe with all nature) that there is a deeper connection to the divine. As the 18th century scientist/theologian, Emanuel Swedenborg stated when writing about rainbows:

It may be wondered that the bow in the cloud, or the rainbow, should be taken as the token of the covenant in the word -- when the rainbow is nothing more than a certain appearance arising from the modification of the rays of light from the sun then falling upon the drops of rain; and -- unlike the other signs of the covenant in the church just referred to -- only a natural phenomenon. But that the bow in the cloud represents regeneration, and signifies the state of the regenerate spiritual man, no one can known unless it be given him to see and therefore to know how it is.

[...]

It is because natural things correspond to spiritual that when what is around the regenerate spiritual man is thus presented to view it appears like a bow in the cloud; which bow is a representation of spiritual things in his natural. The regenerate spiritual man has a proprium of the understanding into which the Lord insinuates innocence, charity, and mercy; and according to the reception of these gifts by a man is the appearance of his rainbow when it is presented to view -- more beautiful the more the proprium of the man's will is removed, subdued and reduced to obedience.

In other words, to separate the spiritual from the scientific is a fool's errand. To see things exclusively through the prism of religion or science is to see the world with one eye. The two should go hand-in-hand to help better explain the true nature of things, and the rainbow is perhaps one of God's greatest illustrations of this fact. The more mankind purifies himself/herself from the vices of the world and embraces goodness, the more truth comes to light.

Of course I don't believe that rainbows never existed before Noah, nor do I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such an approach is childish. At the same time, it is equally childish to allow science the exclusive rights to an explanation of how nature operates. God and nature are like peanut butter and jelly: they were meant for each other. The rainbow, though a simple reflection, is also a reflection of God and his goodness...

... As is all of nature.

Take us home, Judy Garland:

Summer Roundup

2011-08-20T12:37:00.011-06:00

Summer is almost officially over so I decided to take this weekend and try to compile some of the "highlight" pictures/videos from our family's past few months. Of course, not everything made it in (there's simply too much material to put on this blog) but here are some of the pictures I liked:

The lazy days of summer.

And, of course, no summer is complete without bike-riding.

One of our family's favorite activities has always been the AMAZING Colorado Springs Zoo.

And what would summer be without ICE CREAM!!!

And indoor camping...
This summer we visited a number of cool museums, including the Colorado Dinosaur Museum.

And some days we were just lazy around the house.

Summer isn't complete without baseball.

A "Mom Sandwich"

Grandma and Grandpa Jones even paid us a visit this summer.

And one of the highlights of this summer: The Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

But alas, all good things must come to an end, and sooner than we could blink, Jaxson was back in school.

See ya next summer!

And, of course, some videos. The first two are from our trip to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the last one is from the Colorado Springs Zoo birdcage: