Lost in the Shuffle: Sikhism and the Partition of India

On a warm June day in 1984, a large military force made up of Indian soldiers under the command of Sikh General Kuldip Singh Brar, made their way through the Punjab Region to the city of Amristar. Their goal: the removal of Sikh militants loyal to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a religious and political revolutionary who had been a vehement advocate for Sikh sovereignty. In what became known as Operation Blue Star, the Indian military swiftly and violently attacked Sikhs throughout the city. The military operation even saw soldiers forcibly attacking Sikh leaders located inside of the Harmandir Sahib (the Golden Temple), the holiest of Sikh edifices. In total, the carnage brought on by Operation Blue Star ended the lives of at least 500 Sikh civilians, and subsequently ignited the fires of further anti-Sikh riots. In the end, it would be considered one of the greatest massacres of Sikhs since the Sikh Holocaust of 1762 (Deol 101-103).

 India’s violent opposition made manifest through Operation Blue Star is far from the only occasion in which Sikhs have found themselves in the crosshairs of their enemies. Dating all the way back to the early critical formative years of the Partition of India (and even earlier), Sikhs have been engaged in a virtual tug-o-war with their Muslim and Hindu neighbors. It was during the formation of both modern day Pakistan and India that Sikhs found themselves desperately trying to pick up any and all scraps of what little remaining sovereignty they could, but for the most part, their efforts proved futile and even paved the way for future hostilities.

To better understand why Sikhs have experienced such vicious animosity from their neighbors, we must endeavor to uncover the nucleus of where and how hostilities began. First, it is important to recognize that Sikhs have a long and proud history in the Punjab Region dating back to the early 15th century. As historian Eleanor Nesbitt points out in her book, Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction: Sikhs’ sense of community is not just a matter of interacting with, and feeling distinct from, the other major religious constituencies of North India. It also has strong regional roots. The family origins of almost all Sikhs, wherever in the world they now live, are in Punjab…Any exposition of ‘Sikhism’ that omits the significance of Punjab for Sikhs is incomplete, especially as Punjab has come to be regarded as the spiritual homeland for Sikhs everywhere (8).

It is of paramount importance that we recognize the special place Punjab carries in the hearts of Sikhs the world over. As a Sikh Mecca of sorts, Punjab serves as both the historical and religious homeland for Sikhs. Without it, the religion and its adherents would have a difficult time establishing their unique heritage and culture.

When Partition became a reality, the natural concern for Sikhs centered on the fate of their native land and the place they would have in it. It is no mystery that the Punjab Region played a center stage in the drama of Indian partition. Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus all boasted the right to govern the region. In his article, “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab 1947,” Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: Muslims and Sikhs had both been ruling communities of the Punjab, therefore both were confident to claim their political inheritance when the British decided to depart from India…Islam came from Arabia and many Muslims from other countries had settled in the Punjab, while Sikhism was an indigenous religion and its followers were purely local people, which convinced them to claim the region as Sikh homeland (215). And though Sikh claims to the Punjab on the basis of it being their native soil were legit, they did not pacify Muslim or Hindu assertions for control of the Punjab Region. Both India and Pakistan laid claim to the area and fought vehemently for control over it. Historian Yasmin Khan alludes to this fact in her book, The Great Partition, when she writes: “Punjab…was the bloody battlefield of Partition where by far the greatest number of massacres of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims occurred" (Khan, Introduction).

Though having made strong initial claims for their right to control the Punjab Region, Sikhs were finding themselves increasingly on the fringe of the Partition debate. A lack of cohesiveness throughout their ranks, coupled with poor leadership stymied any hope Sikhs might have had of advancing their hopes and desires. As Akhtar Hussain Sandhu states: The land of the five rivers could not produce a leader of national caliber in all the communities, and this resulted in havoc at the critical juncture of history. The Punjabi leadership seemed satiated with their personal benefits in the domains of the Punjab. The Sikh leadership also became victim of this traditional weakness. Moreover, they had to deal with the competent leadership of M. A. Jinnah, M. K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, which put them in a defensive position (227).

This general lack of leadership and direction on the part of Sikh authorities made any push for sovereignty a futile enterprise. Sikh officials, who spent more time arguing with one another as opposed to asserting any push for actual sovereignty, saw their chances at shaping Partition in their favor slip right through their fingers.

Instead of using the Partition debate as a platform to assert Sikh sovereignty, Sikh leaders began jockeying for position between the emerging Pakistani and Indian players in an effort to determine which nation would better support Sikh interests. Extreme skepticism of Muslim intentions, particularly those of the Muslim League, sparked contentions between Sikh leaders and Muslim leadership. As a result, Sikhs felt more comfortable in supporting Indian claims and advocated for a division of the Punjab Region that would include Indian control. Simply put, Indian interests were far more in harmony with Sikh desires (Sandhu 224).

It therefore comes as no surprise to discover that tensions between Sikhs and Muslims in Punjab became contentious and downright violent in the wake of Partition negotiations. And while the majority of the violence manifested itself as a Hindu/Muslim dispute, Sikhs were far from exempt from the brutality. In fact, this tragic tale of violence is very much at the “core of any history of Partition” (Khan, Chapter 7). Countless scores of refugees fell victim to the killings, rapes and mutilations that will forever stain the history of Partition. The rape accounts alone are hideous enough to make even the coldest blood boil. Stories of women’s corpses, their genitalia dismembered with teeth marks buried deep into their skin are more common than one would expect (Khan, Chapter 7).

And though they were regular recipients of this kind of aforementioned violence, Sikhs were far from having their own hands clean. Violence was a regular tool on both sides, and many Sikhs resorted to using aggressive measures against their Muslim neighbors “on an unprecedented scale” that could only be rivaled by the violence of the 18th century (Nesbitt 122). Sikh violence would continue even into the post-Partition era, and transition from Muslim to Hindu foes. A good example of Sikh violence would be the retaliation for Operation Blue Star which came in the form of the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards (Deol 91).

For Sikhs, what emerges from this long history of violence during Partition is a sense of lost opportunity. Not only did Sikh leadership fail to take a more active role during the Partition debates, but they failed to unify Sikhs themselves. It would take several more years before Sikhs became galvanized to a collective cause under newer, more inspired leadership. But by then India (and Pakistan) had emerged as the dominant players, while Sikhs were little more than a decent sized minority group. Nevertheless, Sikhs had evolved “from an ethnic community into a nation” by the latter years of the 20th century (Deol 4). By the time of Operation Blue Star, Indian authorities were well aware that Sikhs were beginning to assert their desire for greater sovereignty.

But the question remaining is, has the ship already sailed on the issue of Sikh sovereignty? Did Sikhs miss their opportunity when Britain pulled out of its former colonies and relinquished control to local communities? The relatively recent push for greater sovereignty seems to suggest that at the very least Sikhs recognize that they squandered a golden opportunity to have better secured their interests. The question now is, will Sikhs seize the opportunities afforded them in the here and now to bolster support for their cause? If anything is certain from the history of Indian Partition it is this: the matter seems far from resolved. Only time will tell how future generations of Sikhs seek to protect their interests in their land of the five rivers.

Works Cited:

Deol, Harnik. Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab. New York: Routledge Press, 2000. Print.

Khan, Yasmin. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. London: Yale University Press, 2007. Amazon Kindle edition.

Nesbitt, Eleanor. Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Sandhu, Akhtar Hussain. “Sikh Failure on the Partition of Punjab in 1947.” Journal of Punjab Studies vol. 19, no. 2. (2013): Pp. 215-232. Web. . Accessed 15 August, 2015.

My Review of "Meet the Mormons"

Last night, my family and I loaded up in our Honda CRV and made our way to the local Regal Cinemas, where we watched "Meet the Mormons," a film produced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Along with several other Mormon families in attendance, we too acted as any good and well correlated Mormon family should by using this Family Home Evening activity as an opportunity to bask in the heavenly ambiance of cinematic wonder, mingled with scripture.  =)

To be completely honest, it wasn't just my family that came with me to the theater last night.  In addition, I (and my wife as well) brought with me a good deal of skepticism.  After all, I had read only negative reviews from all the "worldly" critics (at the time of this blog's posting, Rotten Tomatoes registers only "rotten" reviews of the film).   My fear was that this film was yet another cheesy, popcorn-popping-on-the-apricot-tree-loving production that would reinforce all the South Park stereotypes about who and what Mormons are.

And I wasn't without good reason for feeling this way.  The film opens with a stereotypical young, uber-sweet, naive Mormon woman acting as narrator.  Initially my thoughts were, "Great!  Here we go again!  Could somebody PLEASE save Mormonism from itself!"  The cheesy, sweeter-than-sugar approach of the narrator was just too much to bear.  She came off looking like the offspring of Donnie Osmond and a Care Bear!  My wife and I exchanged "WTF?" glances that communicated the mutual sentiment of "why in the hell did we decide to watch this?"

But to our amazement, "Meet the Mormons" made quite the comeback!  The initial 10 minutes (which completely suck) are saved by the story of Ken Niumatalo, head coach of the Navy football team.  The Niumatalo family, which is like any good American football-loving family, is insanely competitive, completely sports-oriented and...oh yeah,..Mormon.  Their story wasn't portrayed like an infomercial either.  It was genuine, exciting and not cut from the typical Mormon cloth.

And that is what I loved most about this movie: the stories are NOT those you would find from mainstream Mormonism.  Instead of portraying more of the same "white and delightsome" ilk that has made me loathe Mormon films for decades, "Meet the Mormons" gives us the exceptions to the Utah rule.  All six stories portrayed in the film are of people that I would love to get to know and could see myself inviting over for a barbecue.  They seem like the kind of people who know how to cut loose and live an authentic life that is free from uber-orthodoxy and blind conformity.

The six stories portrayed are (in the order shown in the film) that of a young Black bishop living in the Atlanta area, the head football coach of Navy football, a young kickboxing mother in Costa Rica, a World War II pilot who dropped candy to children when flying over Berlin, a man from Nepal who embraces both Mormonism and the Hindu culture of his native country, and a single convert mother who sends her son off on a mission.  Each story is a testament to the fact that Mormons are, in reality, cut from many different cloths.  For all of its emphasis on conformity, I have long been convinced that to be a good Mormon means being an individual, and the stories portrayed in "Meet the Mormons" seems to confirm that notion.

Of course, the movie is far from perfect.  As has been pointed out in several reviews, "Meet the Mormons" does tend to showcase a sanitized version of the Mormon narrative.  The families portrayed are always loving towards one another, their Sacrament meetings are harmonious and free of noise/distraction and EVERYBODY seems just soooooo darn happy to be attending three hours of church (nobody is ever bored in Sunday School and everyone brings their scriptures and is eager to participate).

In addition, "Meet the Mormons" offers little in terms of theology.  There is no discussion of the basic tenants of the faith, nor is there any attempt to address some of the more controversial history of the church.  Instead, "Meet the Mormons" reinforces the Mormon tradition that religion is more about day-to-day acts of kindness and service than it is about pontificating over the "nitty-gritty" aspects of theology.  And make no mistake, Mormons filter their religion primarily through the lens of actions, not theology.  As Mormon scholar and author Terryl Givens has stated:

In the modern era, Mormons have considered the very enterprise of theology to be largely a secular enterprise, a sign of true religion's failure, and not an activity worth pursuing with any energy. 

Instead of becoming proficient on the topic of theology (and I have long believed that Mormons are exceptionally illiterate when it comes to basic theology...of their own faith and that of others), "Meet the Mormons" is another example of how emphasis is placed on living as Christ-like of a life as possible.

And is this a bad thing?  Certainly not.  For as small as Mormonism may be on a global scale (and yes, we are small), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made quite a name for itself. "Meet the Mormons" is proof of this fact.  In addition to these six stories, Mormonism can boast that is has produced two major candidates for the U.S. Presidency (Mitt Romney and John Huntsman), a globally recognized author (Stephanie Mayer of Twilight fame), Generals in command of American troops, tycoons of the business world (Marriott Hotels, Jet Blue, Nu Skin, etc.), several members of Congress (in both parties), and much more.  Heck, we even have our outlaws and serial killers!

In short, despite its emphasis on communal white shirts and ties, Mormonism is a vast cornucopia of diversity that includes all shapes, sizes and colors.  "Meet the Mormons" is a perfect example that to be a good Mormon means to be an individual.  It is for these reasons that I believe "Meet the Mormons" is good for all audiences, but particularly of worth for actual Mormons.  The film was made to "bring greater understanding" for those not of the faith, but to be honest, I believe it holds greater value for current members of the faith, especially those who are of the orthodox, black and white, all or nothing bend.  This film should prove to every Mormon prude out there that members of the church are valued for who they are, not for how they conform.  Every person has their own story to tell, and I for one LOVED the stories found in "Meet the Mormons" (particularly the story of the man from Nepal and the single mom).

So, in conclusion, I was pleasantly surprised by "Meet the Mormons."  Contrary to what I have read from critics, the film is not an infomercial, nor is it a glorified "I'm a Mormon" commercial.  It's a serious and valuable look into what Mormonism can and should be.  For those reasons, I give the movie high marks.

My grade for "Meet the Mormons": A-

Go and see this film!  You will enjoy it thoroughly.

Excommunication: A Purifying Fire

"When you complain, you make yourself a victim.  Leave the situation, change the situation, or accept it.  All else is madness." -Eckhart Tolle

This past week, I have watched as many of my Facebook friends (mostly Mormon) have expressed their feelings on the Kate Kelly/John Dehlin excommunication saga.  For those who are not familiar with these names let me offer you a very brief introduction. Kate Kelly is the founder of Ordain Women: a group that is dedicated to bringing about gender equality by seeking ordination to the priesthood. John Dehin is the creator of numerous websites (most notably Mormon Stories) that are dedicated to discussing some of the more difficult aspects of Mormon history.

To make a very long story short, both Kelly and Dehlin have come under fire as of late, even being issued letters of warning from their local church leaders that included the possibility of excommunication.  For Kate Kelly, the threat became a reality as she was excommunicated from the Mormon church early yesterday morning.

Excommunication is nothing new to Mormonism or to the whole of Christianity.  Jesus himself even prescribed the appropriate situation in which to remove a fellow Christian from among the masses. In Matthew 18: 15-20 we read:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The bolded text above has been used by many a Christian sect to justify the practice of excommunication.  In other Bible translations, the word heathen is translated as gentile. In other words, he/she who will not heed the counsel of the church is to be cut off from that church.

What I find most interesting about this particular Bible passage is the fact that it is sandwiched between two other important teachings that Jesus emphasized regarding forgiveness.  In verses 12-14 Jesus references the 99 and 1 sheep and the commandment to go to the one lost sheep.  In verses 21-23 Jesus tells Peter that we are commanded to forgive "seventy times seven."  In short, the guidelines for excommunication are neatly placed between Jesus' admonition to succor the one wayward sheep and his commandment to forgive as often as needed.  Coincidence?  I think not.

As far as Kate Kelly's excommunication is concerned, I know that feelings on both sides of the isle are quite tender.  Kelly has had a great deal of support for her cause and many of her supporters see this action as an insult not only to Kelly, but to them as well.  The following video clip from Kate Kelly's rally illustrates just how intense feelings have become over this issue:

 

It isn't my place or my intent to weigh in on whether or not Mormon women deserve to have the priesthood. Besides, what I have to say on the matter isn't going to change anyone's opinion. Instead, what I do hope will happen from all of this is people on both sides will come to a better understanding of how excommunication can be a great equalizing force for good.

First, let me say that I support the right of the Mormon Church (or any church for that matter) to implement disciplinary standards as they see fit.  It is their right to do so.  And to those who believe that Jesus' love would prevent him from ever excommunicating anyone, I simply say remember the Bible verses mentioned above, along with other verses such as:

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matt. 5: 29-30).

Jesus wasn't some hippie who accepted the beliefs, behaviors and ideas of everyone.  Instead he was a revolutionary who believed in unconditional love and preached repentance.

Regardless of what we may think, excommunication is, in many cases, an act of love.  It releases a person from further liability and condemnation.  I realize that this interpretation of excommunication may come off offensive to some so let me explain:

When I was on my mission (in Antofagasta, Chile) I met a bishop who unfortunately lost his wife in an accident.  It was a tragic event for his family and it completely rocked their world.  In an effort to ease his burdens, the church immediately released him from his calling.  He was very grateful for that.  As he later told me, there was no way he could meet up to those responsibilities any longer.

And so it is with excommunication (at least in some instances).  The person has had a life-changing event in which he/she needs to be released from their responsibilities as a Christian.  They cannot live up to those responsibilities any longer and as a result, excommunication is a tool that can help them in the long run.

I am fully aware of the fact that this is easy for me to say.  After all, I have never been a part of, nor have I witnessed a church disciplinary proceeding.  I also recognize that my above description doesn't apply to all cases either. As hard as it may be to admit, there are good and bad cases of excommunication in all faiths, but in the end I believe they almost always lead to positive things.

Just this past week, Pope Francis (my favorite Pope ever) excommunicated members of the Italian Mafia for their lengthy and extensive history in committing a variety of crimes.  I think most of us would applaud Pope Francis for this brave and bold move.  But nearly 500 years ago, another pope made the terrible decision to excommunicate a young radical named Martin Luther, who opposed a number of teachings of the Catholic Church.  And though most everyone would agree that the decision to excommunicate Luther was the wrong one, I also think that a great deal of good came from it.  After all, Luther's excommunication became a galvanizing force for many of his followers and helped to pave the way for the Protestant Reformation.

And the same can be said of my own faith.  During its early years, Mormon leaders excommunicated dozens of members who opposed the doctrine of polygamy.  Some of those members were later reinstated following the 1890 manifesto that officially abolished polygamy in the church.  There are even better examples in recent years.  In 1942, a young 17-year-old German by the name of Helmuth Hübener was excommunicated for opposing the ideas of one Adolf Hitler.  Hübener was later reinstated as a member, but only after being put to death for opposing Nazi tyranny.  He never lived to see his reinstatement.  And then there's the case of Douglas Wallace and Byron Merchant, who were excommunicated in 1976 and 1977 respectively for opposing the church's ban on Blacks not being able to receive the priesthood.  It was only a year later that the priesthood ban on Black members was to be lifted for good.

So how does all of this apply to Kate Kelly?  To be honest I have no clue.  Maybe the day will come when Kelly will be hailed as a hero for having stood upon her principles.  Maybe those responsible will one day eat their words and feel remorse for the role they played in her excommunication.  Or maybe the day will come when Ordain Women simply loses support and those involved come to regret their involvement.  If so, hopefully they will be reconciled to the church and be welcomed back into the fold. Either way, I do believe that Kate Kelly's excommunication has the potential to bring about a great deal of good.

Regardless of how this all plays out, I hope that we will all be able to glean some important lessons from this week's events.  Here are a few lessons that come to mind for me personally:

1.) There are no winners here. Kelly's excommunication does not vindicate anyone. It is a sad day. Even if you disagree with her and her movement we should all agree that our job is to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who need comfort (Mosiah 18: 9).

2.) Jesus really was all about love, but that doesn't mean he was about accepting everyone and everything.  There's enough in that statement to keep us humbly pondering for guidance for the rest of our lives.

3.) Excommunication really can be a good thing, so long as the individual or institution is humble enough to admit that change is necessary.

4.) Even though Jesus prescribed the manner in which to excommunicate, he sandwiched that teaching in between his commandments to care for the one lost sheep and to forgive as often as is necessary.  

In conclusion, I can think of no better way to help us all come to terms with these difficult discussions than to appeal to the Serenity Prayer, which next the the Lord's Prayer and the Jesus Prayer is my all-time favorite prayer.  It's wisdom is endless:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can,And the wisdom to know the difference."

Amen, and Amen.

Mormonism: The Third Most Hated Religion in America???

In a recent post on her website, Mormon author and blogger Jana Reiss references research conducted by Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, who reveal data in their book, American Grace regarding which religions are the most disliked in American society.  To almost nobody's surprise, Islam tops the list, followed (surprisingly) by Buddhism, while Mormonism took home the bronze medal.

To be honest, I believe that what this research reveals (for the most part) is the fact that Americans are, by and large, astoundingly ignorant when it comes to the topic of religion.  Our hatred for Islam, for example, is chiefly driven by misguided prejudice and extreme paranoia.  And Buddhism!?!  I fail to see how anyone could esteem that religious group as one of the more "undesirable" sects to have around.

Again, I believe that this survey illustrates the fact that Americans are completely illiterate when it comes to religion.  In a recent article in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof notes recent data that I believe supports my general thesis. He writes:

Secular Americans are largely ignorant about religion, but, in surveys, religious Americans turn out to be scarcely more knowledgeable.

“Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion,” Stephen Prothero noted in his book, “Religious Literacy.” “Atheists may be as rare in America as Jesus-loving politicians are in Europe, but here faith is almost entirely devoid of content. One of the most religious countries on earth is also a nation of religious illiterates.” 

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe that the Bible holds the answer to all or most of life’s basic questions. Yet only one-third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and 10 percent think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. 
Many Americans know even less about other faiths, from Islam to Hinduism. Several days after 9/11, a vigilante shot and killed an Indian-American Sikh because of the assumption that a turban must mean a Muslim: Ignorance and murderous bigotry joined in one. 

All this goes to the larger question of the relevance of the humanities. Literature, philosophy and the arts have come to be seen as effete and irrelevant, but if we want to understand the world around us and think deeply about it, it helps to have exposure to Shakespeare and Kant, Mozart and Confucius — and, yes, Jesus, Moses and the Prophet Muhammad.

As for the extreme disdain that many Americans have towards my own faith (Mormonism), I believe this data reveals at least part of the answer but not all.

Throughout most of its history, Mormonism has been a recipient of bigotry and persecution on the part of the American populace.  Everything from the Haun's Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith and the eventual expulsion to Western territories in its early years, to more recent events like the Reed Smoot hearings and even questions about Mitt Romney's possible church allegiances during his presidential bids, Mormonism has had the proverbial target on its back for some time now.  And though these (and many other) events demonstrate just how deep anti-Mormon sentiment can go, I believe there is another mitigating factor that explains why Mormons are one of the most disliked religions in America.

In short, it's OUR fault...and by our fault I mean us Mormons.

As mentioned above, blogger Jana Reiss references a study by Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, which reveals that Mormons are the third most disliked religion in America.  In addition to this finding, the study also revealed what members of each faith thought about their own respective religions.  To their surprise, Mormons came out on top:

Mormons ranked highest in “in-group attachment,” a finding the researchers felt was surprising, especially since three of the other groups that made the top five–Jews, Catholics, and Black Protestants–have their bonds cemented by a shared ethnicity. About 85% of Mormons say they feel a great warmth toward their own tribe. 

In short, Mormons really, really think highly of themselves.

So what do we make of a study that finds Mormons as one of the most hated religions in America, while at the same time emerging as the religion that loves itself the most?  I believe Jana Reiss (a devout Mormon herself) provides the best answer possible:

It would help if we stopped regarding ourselves as the finest people on the planet. We ought to take a long, hard look at the fact that we voted our own group tops in this research. It’s one thing to be proud of our religious group and its teachings, but it’s another thing entirely to communicate, as many Mormons seem to, that we feel we have a monopoly on religious truth and strong families. A dose of humility is in order here.

I couldn't agree more.  I for one have grown tired of the old Mormon rhetoric which suggests that we alone are the guardians of all that is right and good in the world.  We Mormons pride ourselves on our own delusions of grandeur.  We prove more than willing to dismiss or belittle the beliefs of others by clothing ourselves in the blanket of pious superiority.  Only our families are eternal, only our baptism counts, and only our priesthood heals.

Don't get me wrong here, I love my faith and I am proud of it.  In my estimation, Mormonism is an awesome life choice and it has brought me a tremendous amount of happiness.  With that being said, I must also admit that I have seen how we as a faith tend to ignore reality on too many occasions.  We prefer the "hear no evil, see no evil" mantra as a way to reassure ourselves that "all is well in Zion."  After all, the "church is perfect" isn't it!?!

Sorry, but it isn't that simple.  We as members of the Mormon faith need to quit seeing ourselves as a people who are separate and apart from the evils of the world, or as having some sort of preferred status in the eyes of God.  We would do well to remember the words of Christ, who reminded the Jews that God could raise up seed unto Abraham from mere stones (Matt. 3: 9). Instead of standing tall on our personal or communal "Rameumptoms" and thanking God for giving us "more truth," "more love," or "more righteousness" like the Zoramites of old (Book of Mormon reference for those not of my faith), perhaps we should first follow the advise of Will Rogers, who reminds us to "never miss a great opportunity to shut up."

***On a side note, have any of my fellow Mormons ever wondered why the Zoramite/Rameumtom story is in the Book of Mormon to begin with?  Maybe it was meant for us?***

In addition, there is another reason that we as a faith need to be willing to not think so highly of ourselves and return to earth.  Too often, members of the LDS faith suffer from the tremendous burden of having to "be perfect."  We succumb to the false portrayals of what a "good Mormon" is supposed to look like, act like, feel like, etc.  As a result, we become far too critical of ourselves and of others.  We use the excuse of "righteous rebuking" to justify gossip and other forms of trash talk.  In so doing, we make life VERY hard on anyone who doesn't fit the Mormon mold.  It's no wonder why Utah leads the nation in the use of anti-depressants.

And shame on us!  It's time that we as a faith recognize the FACT that not everyone is content in Zion.  Popcorn doesn't pop on everyone's apricot tree, some families are not so glad when daddy comes home, there are some houses where love is not spoken there and some people find it too hard to turn their "frowny face" into a smile.  And newsflash: IT'S NOT ALWAYS THEIR FAULT!!!  Try as they might, they cannot pray away, fast away or obey away all the pain.

There has been many a member who has done a great deal of harm with the best of intentions.  We may proudly sing of families being together forever but ignore the fact that some in our respective wards struggle with part member families or "wayward" children.  We may give thanks to God during our testimony meetings for our awesome spouses or for heavenly healings granted to sick loved ones, while at the same time ignoring the single mother/father in the audience or the widow whose husband didn't receive divine intervention.  Like it or not, maybe there are some instances when it is better for us to guard our tongues than to sing God's praises.

I don't mean to be too critical here.  Mormonism is an AWESOME faith!  I love it.  In my estimation, we do more for one another than virtually any other faith.  We care for one another, we pray for one another, we fast for one another, we serve one another, we bond with one another. But do we only do these things for those who "fit the mold?"  Unfortunately, I think that sometimes the answer to this question is: yes.  Mormonism is awesome when you are one of the 99 sheep, but it's not so awesome when you're the lone black sheep.  It is my hope that we as a faith can be less critical of one another, more accepting of those not of our faith (along with their beliefs) and more willing to show Christ-like humility as opposed to ecclesiastical arrogance.  When we learn this lesson, I think you will see us give up that unwanted bronze medal for most disliked faith in America.

Some awards just aren't worth having on your wall.

Review of the Mitt Romney Netflix Documentary

Last night I finally had the opportunity to take advantage of some of the insomnia that I've been experiencing as of late by watching the Netflix original documentary, "Mitt," which highlights the ups and downs of the Mitt Romney presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012.

The documentary, which chronicles the personal moments of the Romney circle, attempts to provide audiences with a "rare intimate look" into how Romney and his family balanced their political aspirations with their personal convictions.  We see Mitt and family kneeling together in prayer, thanking God for the blessings they have been given.  We see Mitt and family huddled together in various hotel rooms, critiquing speeches and preparing for debates.  We see Mitt and family dealing with the realities of lost campaigns.  In short, we see Mitt and family face the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

But the main point is this: we see MITT AND FAMILY!

If one thing is clear from this documentary, it is the fact that Mitt Romney is a family man.  For good or for bad, Mitt placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on what his family thought and felt about his running for president, along with their advise during the campaign.  There is a very real and genuine bond between family members that doesn't feel forced or simply for show.  The genuine love and devotion of the Romney family is, without question, the most striking aspect (at least for me) of this documentary.

Second only to his devotion to family, it is the authenticity of Mitt Romney the man that comes across most in this film.  The public image that is Mitt Romney is replete with examples of him as a "flip-flopper" and a "detached white man" who doesn't understand the needs of the masses. Whether or not you believe these stereotypes is irrelevant because what this documentary enforces is the fact that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  I was struck by the fact that Mitt's public character was, in many respects, identical to his private persona.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe what he said during his campaigns.  To some, this will serve as proof that Romney is a man of good character; for others it is another reason to be glad he lost the election.

And though Mitt Romney seems to genuinely believe and stand by his moral and political opinions, he doesn't do so without a sense of reservation.  The documentary presents a number of occasions in which Mitt and family doubt their chances of winning, and even seem happy at the prospect of returning to "normal life."  On at least two occasions in the film, Mitt refers to himself as a "flawed candidate" who "cannot win."  In addition, Mitt and family seem to lack the killer mentality that is so necessary in a national campaign.  They do not support the "win at all costs" mentality and even seem mortified when they discover the back door dealings of other candidates (when former Florida Governor Charlie Crist breaks his word and endorses John McCain you see the Romney family's collective stomach begin to churn at the alleged betrayal).

The film also highlights the fact that Mitt Romney and family were both impressed and intimidated of Senator/President Barack Obama.  Time and time again, Romney comments on how Obama had "changed the game" and that he was "clearly a step ahead of everyone else."  When John McCain insists that the strategy to beating Obama would be to highlight his inexperience with foreign policy, Romney accurately decried such a strategy as a surefire way to lose.  During the 2012 campaign, Romney and family seem awestruck at the prospect of sharing the debate stage with the President, even though they sincerely believed that Obama's policies were bad for America.  

Through all of the campaigning, speeches, debates, etc., Mitt reveals a man who is torn between two worlds: his desire to serve his country in its highest office v. his desire to serve his family and his God. This introspective tug-o-war creates both confidence and hesitance for the Romney campaign. They detest Obama's politics but cannot help but admire and even be intimidated of the President. They see the problems within the GOP but cannot break free of them.  As a result, Mitt Romney finds himself in the middle of a war he cannot win.

The film concludes with the Romney family, huddled together in a hotel room, once again facing the realities of another lost campaign.  They do so with remarkable poise and even gratitude.  One can only wonder if a part of them was glad they had lost the election.  Mitt and Ann Romney then return home, together, refusing the aid of Secret Service agents.  The final scene also feels as though Mitt and Ann had never campaigned in the first place, as they sit next to one another in their living room, reflecting on what had transpired and on the uncertainty that lies ahead.

In short, the Netflix documentary, Mitt is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of the man.  If you loved him before, you will love him even more.  If you disliked Mitt during the campaign, you will probably find more reasons to continue disliking him.  But what the film does do is prove once and for all that Mitt Romney really is who he says he is.  Love him or hate him, Mitt Romney is not a pretender.  He's a genuine family man who loves his God, his country, his heritage and his posterity.  Mitt Romney was probably right when he called himself a "flawed candidate" but I believe he is also an honorable man, and this is coming from somebody who wasn't a fan of the "flawed candidate."

My final grade for Netflix's Mitt: B+.  It is worth the time to watch it.

David Barton as a U.S. Senator???

Yeah, you heard me right. America's favorite pseudo-historian and Glenn Beck's nearest and dearest doomsday buddy is seriously considering making a run for the U.S. Senate.

According to insiders close to Barton, Tea Party officials met with the Texas Looney Tune to discuss a potential run against John Cornyn in the Texas Republican Primary. A Facebook group with nearly 1,500 supporters has also been created to help convince Barton to take up the challenge.

If you have followed my humble little blog at all, you are more than aware of the fact that I strongly detest Barton's work as a self-proclaimed American "historian."  Simply put, David Barton is to history what Tim Tebow is to being a quarterback: nice guys with good morals who suck at their respective jobs.

Let me be clear on one thing: I do not think that David Barton is a bad man.  From everything I have seen and learned about him I believe that Barton is probably a very good man.  The problem, however, is that Barton is woefully ignorant of the basic realities of American history.  Barton has made a career out of twisting the truth for political reasons, and as a result, I believe he would be a serious liability as a U.S. Senator.

Historian John Fea sums up the problem of Barton becoming a U.S. Senator best at his personal blog. Fea quotes from the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Gordon Wood, who stated, "If someone wants to use the past to change the world, he should forego a career as a historian and run for public office."  Amen to that!  Perhaps Barton is a better fit for the fiasco that is Congress than I originally thought!  If you want a man who can twist the truth without batting an eye then Barton is your man!

The following are a few of the many David Barton (and Glenn Beck) "highlights" that I have commented on over the past few years:

Barton on why the Lincoln movie was a fraud...even though he never actually saw it: Link
Barton lying about George Washington and the history of the Valley Forge prayer story: Link
Barton's nonsense about the "Black Robe Regiment" (which, incidentally, went nowhere): Link
Barton's idiotic belief that Thomas Jefferson supported prayer in public schools: Link
Barton confronted and destroyed by Chris Rodda: Link

Stay tuned, I'm sure there will be many more "hits" to come!

Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an

A new book by historian Denise Spellberg explores the possible influence that the Qur'an had on shaping the mind of one of America's most important Founding Fathers.

Roughly eleven years before penning the words to the Declaration of Independence, the always curious Thomas Jefferson purchased a copy of the Holy Qur'an and began at least a casual study of the Muslim religion (Jefferson's Qur'an still survives in the Library of Congress).  Jefferson's curiosity about the Muslim religion was originally inspired by one of his heroes, John Locke, who also maintained an interest in studying what was a very mysterious and misunderstood faith for most Europeans of the 18th century.

Spellberg's book does not necessarily suggest that Islam's doctrine helped to establish the American republic, but it does suggest that Islam served as a litmus test of sorts in determining religious freedom in the infant nation.  Spellberg writes:

Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government.

In my opinion, this is an appropriate estimation of how Islam influenced the founding of America. Anything more than this would be a gross overestimation of Islam's nominal impact on a founding that was largely secular in nature.
 

This isn't to say that other historians haven't tried (and failed in my opinion) to connect America's founding doctrines with the Muslim faith.  I've written in the past about a few such attempts that fortunately have not gained any traction in the historical community.  All religions have, at one time or another, tried to connect their faith to the founding of the United States, and Islam is no exception.

As far as Jefferson was concerned, his study of the Qur'an and Islam was not an endeavor to glean pearls of wisdom to help establish a new nation, but rather was a quest to gain understanding. Jefferson never read the Qur'an in order to learn how to create a republic; he was reading it to learn how to defend a republic.  If Islam could become a tolerated and appreciated faith in America, then the religious test of the republic would be a resounding success.  Again from Spellberg:

What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job.

Should be an interesting read.  Only $11 on Kindle!!!

"A Land Choice Above All Other Lands."

The Mormon Perspective 
on American Providentialism

***Cross-posted at American Creation***


Over the years, one of my favorite topics in all of history has been the ongoing debate over America's founding heritage. Was America founded as a "Christian" nation? And if so, what does that mean? Whose brand of Christianity is the American Christianity? Where does its influence start and end in relation to government? And what exactly is the American "nation?" These are just a few of the many questions that I have had over the course of my studies on the matter, all of which have led me to the conclusion that America's "Christian nation" debate is mostly a debate over semantics. After all, the term "Christian nation" would mean something very different depending on who we are talking to, and how they define "Christianity." A congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, would present a very different perspective on the matter than would a congregation of American Evangelicals. Heck, even American Evangelicals would differ on this question depending on where and when in America they live(d).

And when it comes to Christian Nationalism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) makes for a unique case study to say the least.  Since its inception, the Mormon Faith has held the American founding in higher esteem than arguably any other religion on the planet. It's very origins (in the heartland of the "burned-over District" of New York and at the peak of the Second Great Awakening) essentially demanded that Mormonism wed itself with the idea American providentialism.

One need not find a greater illustration of Mormonism's deep allegiance with American providentialism than the Book of Mormon.  As Mormonism's holiest book of Scripture, the Book of Mormon (in a nutshell) is essentially a story of God bringing a select group of people (Israelites) to a select land (America) in order to establish a select faith (the true gospel of Jesus Christ).  In so doing, the narrative of The Book of Mormon is saturated with references to America being a "choice land" that God himself esteemed "above all other lands."  A few examples:

And inasmuch as ye shall keel my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; a land which is choice above all other lands. (1 Nephi 2:20) my emphasis.

And:

Notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed...and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. (2 Nephi 1:5) my emphasis.

And:

And never could be a people more blessed that were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord. And they were in a land that was choice above all lands, for the Lord had spoken it. (Ether 10:28) my emphasis.

Unlike the Hebrews of the Bible, the "Promised Land" of Mormonism is not so much Jerusalem or Israel but America.  Of course, that isn't to say that Mormons don't revere the Holy Land (the contrary is actually the case.  Mormons have a deep love for Jerusalem, as evidenced by their commitment to the BYU Jerusalem Center). But there can be no doubt that America holds the pole position when it comes to being a "choice land...above all lands."  From a few former Mormon Presidents:

"The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun." -Joseph Smith 

"I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for." -Brigham Young 

"Those who laid the foundations of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth.  They were choice and noble spirits before God." -Wilford Woodruff 

And from The Doctrine and Covenants (another canonized book of scripture of the Mormon faith):

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I [God] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood (Section 101:79-80).

And if this isn't enough proof of Mormonism's deep roots in American providentialism, let us return to the Book of Mormon. In the First Book of Nephi (Chapter 13), we read of a remarkable vision that Nephi (one of the first BoM prophets) experiences. Nephi, who allegedly lived in 600 B.C., is shown by an angel the discovery of the New World, the migration of the European nations to the "promised land," and the establishment of the United States:

12. And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations (1 Nephi 13:12-19).

The Book of Mormon goes on to relate how these chosen people, once established on the chosen land, went on to establish a government that, on the surface, appears to resemble the one established by America's founders.  This connection, however, is superficial and does not take into account many of the nuanced references made in the story itself.  As Mormon Historian and acclaimed Joseph Smith Biographer, Richard Bushman states:

The Book of Mormon can be read as a nationalistic text.  The book gives the United States a deep past, reaching back centuries beyond any known history of the continent to 600 BCE and through the Jaredites even further back to the Tower of Babel, millenia before Christ.  Embedding America in the Bible necessarily hallowed the nation, but The Book of Mormon also created a subversive competitor to the standard national history. 

[...] 

But the American story does not control the narrative.  The Book of Mormon allots just nine verses to the deliverance of the Gentiles, and the rest of the book concentrates on the deliverance of Israel.  The impending American republic is barely visible...Book of Mormon governments are monarchies and judgeships, Old Testament governments, not democratic legislatures and elected presidents (Rough Stone Rolling, Chapter 4).

Regardless of how the Book of Mormon narrative is interpreted by both skeptics and believers, what is clear is that Mormons of virtually every generation have adopted the aforementioned references (and many others like them) as evidence for America being the supreme stage in God's human drama (***I have even written in the past about one generation of Mormons who went so far as to "convert" America's founders to Mormonism via the doctrine of vicarious baptism***).

And today's generation of Mormons is no different.  Current Latter-day Saint leadership has made the doctrine of American providentialism and religious freedom a top priority.  Here is a short clip from Mormon Apostle L. Tom Perry:




And a video on religious freedom released just last month by the church:


So how do Mormons feel when it comes to the question of America being established as a Christian Nation?  Heck, there is no more Christian nation in the world!  Even the Garden of Eden was in America.  As a result, how could there be a more Christian nation than the good ol' U.S. of A....at least according to most Mormons (though I tend to object).

Born out of America, with doctrinal roots in America (both modern and believed to be ancient), there can be NO DOUBT that Mormons make the strongest claim for American Providentialism. Nobody else even comes close.

Nobody!!!

The Glenn Beck Check: Part VII, Book Review of "Being George Washington"

Glenn Beck has written yet another book, but this time he isn't passing himself off as an expert on climate change or trying to conduct yet another "progressive" witch hunt. Instead, Beck is trying to be George Washington. Much like his ridiculous 2009 attempt at trying to become the next Thomas Paine (a hysterical notion due to the fact that Paine had almost nothing in common with Beck), Beck has now moved on to bigger and better things (like moving from the #1 cable news network to nothing more than a glorified Youtube program). Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You've Never Seen Him, the title of Beck's newest and greatest laugh-u-mentary, is essentially the attempt of a desperate man to stay relevant by hijacking the legacy of the father of our nation.

Unfortunately for Beck, most have caught on to his smoke and mirrors circus act and now accept the fact that he is not a historian. With that said, I don't want to completely toss the baby Beck out with the bath water. Even if his newest book is little more than an attempt to make George Washington look like a modern day conservative who hates progressives, loves talk radio, attends Tea Party rallies, wants Obama dead, buys gold from Goldline and is a Glenn Beck "insider", the work does do one thing very well: it illustrates how the legacy of Washington has become bigger than the man himself. George Washington, the man, was like any other: flawed, prone to rash decisions, arrogant and worldly. But George Washington, the legend, has reached a Herculean level of prestige. No American has, or likely will, reach the level of fame that Washington has achieved, and make no mistake, George Washington is certainly deserving of the accolades. In this respect, Glenn Beck's work excels. He treats Washington as a religious object worthy of our adoration and devotion. But again, as a work of history, the book is exactly like his earlier attempts at uncovering the past: piss-poor.

Beck's book opens by suggesting to the reader that each and every one of us, as Americans, are modern day George Washington's. Beck writes:

The news of my self-elevation to national fatherhood will likely spread from blog to blog, then to news sources and pundits, all of whom will be more than happy to spread the news that Glenn Beck's messianic complex can no longer be contained. None of them, of course, will take the time to realize the irony of the situation: they are literally judging a book by its cover.

So what's the truth?

Simple, I do believe I am George Washington.

But I also believe that you are too.

I don't believe this because I have an extraordinarily high opinion of myself. I believe it because I have a real understanding of who George Washington was.

And though I have no problem with Beck's suggestion that we all are capable of doing great and noble things, the political undertones are reminiscent of those employed by earlier politicians who also hijacked the Founding Fathers to legitimize their political goals.  By declaring "I am George Washington," Beck is essentially trying to say that all of our Founding Fathers were cut from the same cloth as him.  This is beyond ridiculous to anyone with even an elementary understanding of early American history.

But what is even worse about Beck's "book" is the fact that it twists facts to fit his strange and twisted agenda.  Beck argues that Washington was a "devout Christian" but then provides zero evidence to support this claim (probably because all of the evidence supports the contrary).  Beck also tries to argue that Washington saw "progressivism" as the greatest threat to American prosperity.  A funny notion since "progressivism" doesn't come along for quite some time.  Of course, Beck offers not a single shred of anything resembling evidence to support strange assertions that have nothing to do with anything.

In short, Beck's book is a textbook example of how somebody who knows little about history can completely derail any attempt at true and objective research into the past.  Beck wants the Founding Fathers to be like him so much that he sacrifices any true historical pursuits upon an altar of psycho partisan politics.  In so doing, Beck has once again rendered his work to be of little to no value.  I would offer up a more detailed review of Beck's "book" but it simply became too painful to wade through all of his B.S.  Yeah, it really was that bad.

Perhaps it would be best for him (and his most devout followers) to go off into their compound of "freedom" and leave the rest of us alone for good.

God and the Presidential Inauguration

When it comes to pomp and circumstance in the United States, there are few ceremonies that can surpass the one we call the Presidential Inauguration.  The peaceful transfer of power from one executive head to the other is a matter of national pride for most Americans and serves to highlight what is best about American democracy.

In light of President Obama's swearing in last week, I thought it might be fun to review the Inaugural ceremonies (particularly the Inaugural Addresses) of presidents past, and see what sort of similarities and differences might exist.  After all, a president's Inauguration has, traditionally, served as a "coming attractions" of sorts for what a president hopes to achieve.  Studying these ceremonies can help us to understand what each of the 44 American Presidencies held to be most dear.

Right out of the gate, the first thing I noticed when reviewing Presidential Inaugurations is the emphasis that each President placed on God, albeit in different ways.  From Washington to Obama, no Inaugural Address omits invoking some sort of special reference to deity.  But as I stated, the manner in which the particular invocation is made is quite different, and reveals a great deal about the President's (and society's) view of  God and his relationship to the American republic.

From George Washington's first Inaugural Address we see his typical flavor of Providential neutrality, in which his "god talk" could apply to virtually any creed in any era. He stated:

It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency (my emphasis).

Washington's first successors followed suit in invoking a generic providential figure instead of a specific deity as the divine overseer of the infant American republic.  John Adams petitioned the "Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty" to bless America, while James Madison asked for the blessings of "that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations."  Even the Great Thomas Jefferson, who has been erroneously claimed as one of their own by the modern atheists, made reference in his now infamous Inaugural Address ("We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists") when he petitioned the "Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe" to "lead our councils to what is best."  And, somewhat surprisingly, even Andrew Jackson, the "President of the People" only went so far as to invoke the blessings of "Providence" and the "Almighty Being" to assist him in his Presidential endeavors.  

It is safe to say that America's first eight presidents (with a possible exception for John Q. Adams who briefly paraphrased Psalms 127 when he stated "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain"), intentionally invoked a warm, generic providence as being the source of America's blessings as opposed to any specifically defined god from any particular creed.  

It wasn't until 1841 and the Inauguration of William Henry Harrison that a president paid homage to a specific god:

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness (My emphasis). 

But even after this precedent, many subsequent presidents returned to the standard of thanking, "that Divine Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy" (James K. Polk) and "Divine" or "Kind Providence" (Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce).

A specific reference to Christianity isn't made again until 1861 when the Legendary Abraham Lincoln, while facing what would become America's greatest crisis, proudly declared that "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty."  Lincoln would again reference the Christian God in his Second Inaugural Address, but would do so with less confidence that this God was on their side:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.

Lincoln went on to quote several Bible passages including, "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" (Matthew 18:7) and "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Psalms 19:9). In so doing, Abraham Lincoln became the first president to make dramatic, substantial and blatant references to the Christian God in his Inaugural Address.  

Those presidents who followed Lincoln would invoke both the general divine providence of Washington, Jefferson, etc. (to include Presidents Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Cleveland, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft, Hoover, FDR, L. Johnson and Clinton), while others paid homage to the Christian God of W.H. Harrison and Abraham Lincoln (including Garfield, Harding, Coolidge, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush and Obama), depending on their own individual feelings and beliefs.  Eisenhower went far enough to lead the nation in prayer as his first act of his presidency:



Regardless of which deity served to be the ultimate source of blessings and providential protection, the fact remains that ALL American presidents have, as a component of their Inaugural "coming attractions" petitioned the heavens as a source for further prosperity and as an object of communal gratitude.  The name of this god has taken on many different shapes and colors (everything from Divine Creator, Almighty Providence, to Jesus Christ himself) but the point is that a god of some kind is beseeched to go before us all, as the avant garde of American society.  This reminds me a great deal of Benjamin Franklin's admonition for a "public religion" as being the glue that would bind the American republic.  In this regard, the American experiment has worked wonders and continues to amaze even to this day.

Jon McNaughton: Bringing Hate to a Canvas Near You

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are probably well aware of just how polarized American politics has become. It seems that you can't look anywhere these days without seeing some sort of a political spin applied to even the most mundane of daily activities. Everything from Dr. Seuss movies to Christmas trees has become fodder in the never-ending, supercharged, back-and-forth drama that is American politics. The 24/7 media blitz of talk radio and cable news seems to have only exacerbated the problem, as pundits spew hateful rhetoric that depends less on journalistic integrity and more on sensationalized entertainment and doomsday predictions. We have become a society where we prefer to listen to the man/woman yelling at us the loudest through their microphone instead of considering the quiet, steady reflections of level-headed and thorough thinkers.

But this rhetoric isn't limited exclusively to the spoken word. Though political rhetoric does depend greatly on the vocalization of a particular viewpoint, artwork too has an important seat at the table. Whether taking the form of cartoons, posters or campaign ads, the visual image is arguably the most effective and important arrow in the quiver of both partisan and politician. An inspiring painting, a poignant photo, a stirring motif, all have the ability to rouse the soul to higher (or lower) levels of thinking than almost any discourse or poem could hope to accomplish. As the saying goes, a picture really is worth a thousand words!

And sadly, some “artists” have embraced this reality to the point of virtual insanity. Case in point: Jon McNaughton. My Mormon friends are probably more familiar with McNaughton's ilk...er..."art" than are others. As a devout Mormon, his "art" is often a feature in stores like Deseret Book and (until recently) the BYU Bookstore (that is, until BYU became too "liberal" for the uber-sophisticated McNaughton and banned his crap). To put things as simple as I possibly can, Jon McNaughton is a troubled individual. He has taken what I would consider to be a truly remarkable gift (painting) and used it for nothing more than to make a series of cheap, lame, classless, tasteless, mindless, heartless, pointless, idiotic, rude, obscene, hateful and downright pathetic pieces of political propaganda. See for yourself:


Of course, for some, this "art" probably seems like an appropriate summation of "reality." To those of such sentiment I will simply say this: I don't begrudge you your right to your own political views, nor to I deny the fact that Mr. McNaughton has some real talent, but please, for the love of Karl Marx, QUIT BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE DAMN RADIO!!! For once in your life, set your political beliefs aside and consider the following: 1.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" uplifting in any way, shape or form? 2.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" the type of stuff that invokes peace and harmony? Or does it breed anger and contention? 3.) Would Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi, Mother Theresa or any other remarkable person of great character choose to hang Jon McNaughton's "art" in their home? Or would they not even give it the time of day? If you can answer "yes" to any of these three questions, then chances are you probably hate my humble little blog for its "socialist" leanings and have already de-friended me from Facebook for being an evil fascist. That's ok, no hard feelings. Chances are you haven't even read this far into my post anyway, so you won't have the chance to hear me say, "I just won the Mega Millions jackpot and want to buy you a new car!"

The truth of the matter is this: Jon McNaughton is not the problem, but is the SYMPTOM of the problem. McNut...er...McNaughton is the end result of a society that has diluted its political discourse to little more than short, apocalyptic soundbites bent on spreading fear and hate for the "other guy." McNaughton's "art" is essentially a fancy political bumper sticker that tells the world, "My political views are better than yours. Na-na nana boo-boo" Simple-minded men like McNaughton are easy prey for all of the Limbaugh's Hannity's and Beck's of the world. They feel the "call" and begin their "quest" to "save" America from all that is evil in society, which, coincidentally, just happens to be everything found on the other side of the political isle. This is how they can justify creating "scary" pictures of evil, liberal Black presidents burning the Constitution, destroying our freedoms, and receiving the heavenly rebukings of Jesus Christ and our Founding Fathers (while, of course, those of conservative leanings are showered with the gifts of eternal life and always being right). American politics at its best!

We live in a world where religious fervor and political passion are virtually synonymous, so much so that it can be difficult work to separate the partisan politicians, priestly pastors, and philosophical professors from one another. And this convoluted mess has created a labyrinth of confusion that makes almost any sincere political discourse virtually impossible. Any rational or thoughtful inquiry is rendered completely helpless to the impenetrable wall of the prideful partisan mob mentality. This is precisely where Jon McNaughton resides. He is not a critical thinker. He is not a valiant voice crying in the wilderness. He is a bitter, hateful, silly little man. This may sound too harsh or hard but that's ok. I'm sure that Mr. McNaughton is familiar with the verse from the Book of Mormon which states: "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." Besides, most hate-mongers rarely if ever realize that they are hate-mongers. They see themselves as brave voices of change who are misunderstood by the "evil" majority of their day. In addition, they usually rationalize their hate by appealing to religion as a justification for their actions (i.e. the KKK, Civil Rights opponents, etc.) But these weak appeals to religion serve as nothing more than temporary salves for their cankered souls. Hate, no matter how it is camouflaged, will always be hate.

In conclusion, if given the chance to meet him face-to-face, I would simply say to Jon McNaughton's the following: Don't give up on your passion for politics. Don't give up your religion. Don't give up on your amazing artistic talent. But please...PLEASE spare us this pointless nonsense. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain with the "art" you have produced as of late. As a professional artist, I am guessing that you are probably familiar with the RIDICULOUS work of one Andres Serrano. If not, let me introduce you to him. He is the IDIOT "artist" who created the "Piss Christ." The "Piss Christ" is a picture of a crucifix that was submersed in the artist's urine. According to Serrano, the purpose of the "Piss Christ" was to "get people thinking" and to "question what we believe." Shockingly, this pile of nonsense was even sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. Not shockingly, the public saw the "Piss Christ" for what it really was: cheap shock value nonsense masquerading as sophisticated "art."

And though you haven't urinated in any of your own art (more like vomit than urine), isn't your political "art" essentially the same thing, Mr. McNaughton? Like Serrano, didn't you also say that the purpose of your "art" was to "get people thinking." Aren't you just wielding your brush as a weapon of mass DISTRACTION that does nothing but piss people off? You may have avoided urinating on your art itself, but you have certainly pissed all over President Obama. Again, I don't begrudge you the right to your political views. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But is that really what you want to call the fruits of your amazing talent? If so, I pity you. But, if not, I look forward to your other art...your REAL art. The good stuff that I would be more than happy to display in my home:


“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” -Thomas Jefferson