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.

Why Noah Matters

On March 28th, movie (and I suppose Bible) fans across the world will get their first glimpse at Darren Aronofsky's Noah, starring Russel Crow, Anthony Hopkins, Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson.  According to the film's website, Noah is the "epic story of courage, sacrifice and hope" and this film "brings to light an untold story" (I'm assuming the cast has uncovered new ancient documents about the Noah flood because I was under the impression that this story was quite familiar to almost everyone) of the Noah that nobody has seen before (you gotta love that Russell Crowe guy. Noah was in desperate need of a makeover!).

To be honest, I am actually pretty excited to see this movie, even if it ends up being historically and/or theologically bogus.  The story of Noah has always been one of my favorites of the Old Testament.  Besides, the preview looks pretty good.  See for yourself:

 

The story of Noah, as found in the Book of Genesis, is arguably the most controversial tale of the entire Bible. The notion that a global flood, just a few thousand years ago, killed every living thing with the exception of the animals and people Noah brought with him on his magical Ark, has spawned debate for centuries. Scientists, historians, geologists, physicists, etc. have (at least in my book) closed the case when it comes to Noah being a literal and absolutely factual history.  It is not.

Despite this fact (and yes, it is a FACT), the story of Noah is not without merit, and that merit goes far beyond a simple bedtime tale or a cool Hollywood movie. The Noah story matters. It has deep theological and moral value that should be recognized, regardless of whether you esteem it as infallible history or a cool ancient myth.

To understand why the Noah story matters, we must first take a brief look (and I do emphasize brief) at how this story came to be.  Most people with even a relatively limited understanding of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) recognize that the Noah story has its origins in even older tales outside of the Hebrew tradition. Whether it be the Sumerian tale of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim or the Hindu tale of Manu and Matsya, deluge myths are common motifs of the ancient world.  The reasons for this are somewhat complex, but as Yale University Professor of Religion Christine Hayes points out:

The ancients placed creation within the primordial soup of water. In the Babylonian creation myth, it is the blood of the slain Tiamat that sprays forth from the firmament as rain and from the earth as lakes and oceans. Water is the breeding ground for the gods who use this soup to give life to the earth, the plants, the animals and finally to mankind himself. But water is also what takes life away, allowing the gods to start anew their creative process. 

Keeping this idea of water as the primordial soup of creation and destruction, we can better understand the significance of certain verses of scripture found in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis:

2.) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit (translated as "wind") of God moved upon the face of the waters.

6.) And God said, Let the there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let ut divide the waters from the waters (a verse obviously influenced from the Babylonian epic of Marduk and Tiamat).

7.) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters (much as Marduk spliced open Tiamat) which were under the firmament from the waters which wee above the firmament: and it was so.

8.) And God called the firmament Heaven.

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 (just as Marduk called one half of Tiamat the heavens and the other half the earth).

It is through the vehicle of water that the Hebrew God (not to mention the Babylonian and even earlier Sumerian God) is able to bring about creation.  Ironically enough, evolutionists would agree (in a roundabout way) with this claim, since they too maintain that much of life came from the primordial soup that is earth's oceans.

As for the Noah story, the flood becomes more than just a destructive force.  It is the life-giving "soup" that brings about a new beginning.  As a result, the Noah flood saga is less about a vindictive god bent on destroying man and more about a loving creator trying to breathe new life into a corrupt and dying world. The Noah story is a shared motif that early Hebrews borrowed from their neighbors and not a unique creation they came up with on their own. As historians Victor Matthews and James Moyer point out in their book, The Old Testament: Text and Context:

The Israelites shared much of the worldview of ancient Mesopitamia. As a result, a great deal of the material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region. This is what makes the study of nonbiblical epics so valuable. By making comparisons and by seeing the general religious and literary environment of the ancient Near East, it is possible to understand more fully how the Israelites perceived their world and their place in it.

Regardless of its origins, Noah presents to both the ancient and modern reader a lesson on how important and precious life really is. The primordial waters that give life can also take it away, but from terrible destruction and devastation comes new life. As Utnapishtim (Noah) teaches the great hero Gilgamesh (ancient Sumeria's version of George Washington):

"Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man."

From Utnapishtim, Gilgamesh learns the important lesson that life should be cherished because it is not going to last forever.  For the Biblical Noah, mankind's ultimate zoologist, sailor and colonizer, the importance of cherishing life...all forms of life...is a lesson he knew all too well.  Caring for plants, animals and humans became the central purpose of Noah's existence, and is the principal lesson he teaches us today. We are, whether we want to admit it or not, responsible for how we treat not only our fellow humans, but how we treat the earth and its abundant plant and animal life. Yes, we need to devour plant and animal life in order to sustain our own, but this is an intimate relationship that binds all life as opposed to dividing it.  Noah honors his sacrifice of a "clean beast" and a "clean fowl" upon his altar, and God accepts it with a "sweet savor" (Gen. 8:20-21). God honors the sacrifice of all His creations. After all, His covenant isn't just made with man.  As we learn from Genesis chapter 9, verses 5, 12 and 13:

5.) And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

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. 

In short, God's love for His creations includes far more than just us. It is human arrogance that we think God cares only for the Homo Sapiens.  Just as God saved the male and female Adam and Eve from the mistakes made in the Garden of Eden, so did God save the male and female versions of all animal life from the corruption of a degraded world.  The ark was meant for the lion, tiger, bear and rabbit every bit as much as it was meant for man.  

Noah's legacy is far more than just a tale of a great shipbuilder or divinely inspired zookeeper. It is a lesson on how to appreciate life on all levels. Tragedies of all kinds (floods, fires, earthquakes, famines, etc.) will always abound.  Such is the state of our existence in mortality. Whether you believe that God caused/causes these tragedies is irrelevant. Death and destruction is here to stay. Our job is simply to enjoy the ride on our own arks of life, regardless of whether the waves take us out or not. We, like the animals or Noah himself, enter our arks, side-by-side with those who are embarking with us on the journey of life.  As Morgan Freeman put it in the film Evan Almighty:


For me, the story of Noah is not one in which death and destruction come from an evil and sadistic god who could care less about giving humanity a second chance.  Instead, it is the story of how God helps man deal with the inevitable tragedies of mortality. From death and destruction comes new life and happiness. Our job is to recognize the rainbow in the tempest by changing our attitude. In so doing, perhaps we too will be able to sing with Gilgamesh the song of joy in the face of tragedy:

"The dream was marvelous but the terror was great; we must treasure the dream whatever the terror; for the dream has shown that misery comes at last to the healthy man, the end of his life is sorrow. But from death comes new life, but its days are numbered, whatever he might do, it is but a wind."

Amazing Grace: Fact and Fiction

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 Top 10 Documentaries of All-Time

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

Edmund Genet and the "Conspiracy" to Destroy America

One of the few consistent truths throughout the course of United States history has been that Americans of all generations have believed that conspiracies to thwart their freedom lurk around every corner and under every rock. Whether it takes the form of Catholic incursion or McCarthy communist witch hunts, Americans have always been on the lookout for the next big threat to our seemingly fragile republic.

And our founding generation was no different.

During the early years of the new American republic, scandals and conspiracies against the infant republic were a regular fixture in the halls of government. Divisions between those who supported a strong federal government (the Federalists) and those for limited centralized power (the Democratic-Republicans) created a rift in the political arena that seemed to grow with each passing day. Issues such as the Jay Treaty, which created an economic alliance with Britain over France, had caused an uproar amongst Democratic-republicans that only intensified with the later election of Federalist John Adams. For Democratic-republican leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the cause of France was the cause of America. They passionately believed that America needed to throw its weight behind the French cause, which was rapidly moving toward revolution itself. In their minds, to deny the French would be treasonous against the very ideals of the American Revolution itself. And as war between England and France continued to become more of a reality, America's economic and political preference with the British made relations with the French extremely tense.

The arrival of Edmond Genet as French ambassador to the United States in 1793 only intensified the ongoing political battle. Genet had been sent to America in an effort to garner support for the French cause. Democratic-republicans like Jefferson were initially ecstatic over Genet's arrival. As Gordon Wood points out in his book, Empire of Liberty:

He [Genet] landed in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1793, and in his month long journey north to Philadelphia he was everywhere greeted with warmth and enthusiasm. Americans sang "Marseillaise," waved the French revolutionary flag, and passed liberty caps around. Some Federalists thought the French Revolution was being brought to America. Later in his life John Adams still vividly recalled the frenzied atmosphere of "Terrorism, excited by Genet," that ran through the nation's capital in the late spring of 1793. "Ten thousand People in the Streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his office and effect Revolution in the Government, or compel it to declare War in favour of the French Revolution, and against England" (185-186).

Perhaps nobody was as excited to see Edmund Genet as was Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson attacked President Washington's quest for neutrality, stating that Genet's intentions (and the larger French intentions) were as pure as the driven snow:

"It is impossible for anything to be more affectionate, more magnanimous, than the purpose of Genet's mission. He [Genet] wishes to do nothing but what is for our own good and we should do all in our power to promote it." (Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793).

For Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Genet's arrival was not met with the pomp and circumstance afforded it by the Democratic-republicans by instead with a deep sense of concern. As Ron Chernow points out in his autobiography on Hamilton:

Where others saw camaraderie and high spirits, Hamilton detected an embryonic plot to subvert American foreign policy. The organizers of Genet's reception "were the same men who have been uniformly the enemies and the disturbers of the government of the U[nited] States."

[...]

In private talks with George Hammond, Hamilton promised that he would vigorously contest efforts to lure America into war alongside France. He also predicted that the United States would extend no large advances to the revolutionary government, and he delayed debt payments owed to France. In a dispatch to London, Hammond noted that Hamilton would defend American nutrality because "any event which might endanger the external tranquility of the United States would be as fatal to the systems he has formed for the benefit of his country as to his...personal reputation and...his...ambition." (Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 439).

And Hamilton wasn't alone in his disdain for the French ambassador. After observing Genet's antics, President George Washington commented:

"Is the Minister of the French Republic to set the Acts of his Government at defiance, with impunity? and then threaten the Executive with an appeal to the People? What must the world think of such conduct, and the Government of the U. States in submitting to it?"(Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism, 351).

For the Federalists, Genet's arrival was seen as a precursor to an even deeper plot to undermine the sovereignty of the new American republic. In a very real sense, Hamilton (and other fellow Federalists) saw Genet's presence in America as a possible foreshadowing of the French guillotine, which would sever not only the heads of Federalist leaders, but would destroy everything the revolution had created. As historian Paul Newman, author of the book, Fries's Rebellion points out:

"The Republican leadership, men like Jefferson and Madison, were not the Hamiltonians’ greatest fear. What frightened them most was the popular following the two Virginians and their newfound French ally attracted, and the fact that citizens had begun to publicly criticize and directly oppose Federalist policies" (52).

The following clip from HBO's John Adams miniseries helps to illustrate some of the tensions that Genet's arrival had caused:


In the end, it would be Genet's arrogance and lack of foresight that would be his undoing. The harsh tone in both his letters and speeches against the American government ended up costing Genet not only his American allies but his French support back home as well. Instead of coming off as the great "citizen of world liberty", Ambassador Genet became a liability. In addition, the American populace was beginning to see that the French Revolution was not as similar to their own as they had once thought. And as the French Jacobins seized power in 1794 (and demanded the return of Genet to France to face execution) the former French ambassador was forced to plea for asylum from the very government officials he had once opposed. Coincidentally, it was Hamilton, Genet's fiercest opponent, who advocated for Genet's asylum in the U.S. Genet lived out the rest of his life as a humble New York farmer.

And the republic, despite all of the threats to its security, lived on...happily ever after.

The Top 5 Movies (so far) of 2010

So maybe it's just me but 2010 feels like an "off year" for movies. There just hasn't been much out there to strike my interest. With that said, there still have been a few movies that have been solid and are worth seeing. Here are my top 5 (thus far) for the year:

#5: Iron Man 2

So I will be the first to admit that I am not a big Iron Man fan but in a year of semi-good movies, I think this one makes the list. It's still worth seeing.

#4: Dinner for Schmucks

Though it's not as good as the previews, "Dinner for Schmucks" is still, in my opinion, the best comedy of the year. Steve Carrel is on his game all the way through. If it wasn't for him, the movie would probably suck.

#3: Toy Story 3

No doubt that this is the best cartoon of the year...and the best Toy Story of the three. Definitely worth your time!

#2: The Book of Eli

I'm a big Denzel fan, and this is one of his best. In a world where people seem to look down more and more on faith and religion, this is a great reminder of the good that religion brings about. Yeah, it's got a lot of violence (which might turn some off) but I still love it.

#1: Inception

There's no doubt here, "Inception" is the best movie of the year. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or has terrible taste in movies. Simply amazing. It gets a 6 out of 5 stars. Rarely if ever do I go to a movie twice in the theaters but I did for this one, and would consider a third trip! Yeah, it's that good.

Doc Holliday's Grave ("I'm your Huckleberry")

"You're no daisy...you're no daisy at all"

This weekend, my family took a brief trip to my home town (Grand Junction, Co) to see friends and family. During that trip, we decided to stop off in Glenwood Springs to pay a visit to a legend.

In the late 1800s, renowned gunman/gambler/dentist/scholar/drinker John "Doc" Holliday traveled to Glenwood Springs, Co. in the hopes that the air and hot springs would help to alleviate his severe case of tuberculosis. Sadly, Mr. Holliday did not find the relief he was looking for. He died and was buried on November 8, 1887.

Doc Holliday, who was originally born and raised in Georgia, was a southern gentleman who benefited greatly from both a generous family and a keen intellect. As a young boy, Holliday was given a strong classical education that centered on math, philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, Latin, French and literature. In addition, Holliday studied dentistry in Philadelphia, after which he returned to Georgia to begin a short but successful practice. With his education and family name behind him, Holliday was, by all accounts, the quintessential post-Civil War southern gentleman of his era. In fact, his cousin, Margaret Mitchell, allegedly used Doc Holliday as the inspiration for the character Ashley Wilkes in her little, tiny book she called Gone With the Wind.

Sadly (or perhaps thankfully depending upon your persuasion), fate would have a different path for the "good doctor." After contracting tuberculosis, Holliday found it hard to continue his dental practice. After all, who wants a sick doctor coughing into their mouth! In addition, Holliday discovered that he had both a gift and a love for a completely different art form: GAMBLING!

Of course Holliday is better known for his friendship with Wyatt Earp and his alleged prowess with a firearm. Legend (and I emphasize the word LEGEND) has it that Holliday was as fast, if not faster, than Wild Bill Hickok with a gun. And then of course there's the story of the OK Corral, where Holliday shot and killed Tom McLaury (one of his small handful of confirmed kills...and no, Holliday did NOT kill Johnny Ringo).

Anyway, years after his escapades with his buddy Wyatt Earp (though they were not as good of friends as many make them out to be) Holliday succumbed to his tuberculosis and died at the age of 36. Here are a few pics of our trip to his grave:

As you can see from this stone, this site is a MEMORIAL and not Holliday's actual grave. This will be discussed in more detail a little bit later.

Here you see that some guests have placed a few deck of cards (a royal flush no less) on Holliday's grave...an obvious tribute to his love of gambling.

As I mentioned before, the publicized memorial is NOT the actual resting place of Doc Holliday. In fact, there has been some speculation over the years as to the exact place where Holliday was buried. Some state that the ground was too frozen in November of 1887 to bury him at all and that he was placed in either a temporary grave and later moved, or that he wasn't buried at all, but later transported to Georgia where he was buried by family. Both theories hold very little water, as it has been proven that several burials took place around the same time as Doc's death. In addition, no record (or story) exists to support the allegation that Holliday was taken home to Georgia and buried there. In fact, most evidence suggests that Holliday was buried at the location of the following picture (located just a few feet from the memorial):

It is believed that this stone, which bears the marks "XXX" is the actual grave of Doc Holliday. Not only does the stone sit close to the location of his memorial but it also at one time carried an attached stone (that fit into the hole at the top) with an inscription that read "Died in his bed" and the exact dates of Holliday's birth and death. The "XXX" stone was meant to be a temporary marker, which was obviously never replaced. In addition, local spectators at the burial have long claimed that Holliday was buried at this location.

Here is a short video of our trip to Holliday's grave:


And finally, for your viewing pleasure, one of my favorite Doc Holliday clips from the movie Tombstone:



And yes, Doc Holliday really did use the expression "I'm your Huckleberry", which in his day meant, "I'll be your dance partner", but obviously was used by Holliday to signify that he'd be more than willing to fight.

The Decline of Jefferson and Rise of Adams

Over the past few years, I can't help but take note of the fact that there seems to have been a major shift in the way both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are perceived by the general public. In a nutshell, John Adams has surged in popularity while Jefferson is being left in the dust. Obviously the hit HBO drama on the life of John Adams has done much to bolster this one time self-defeating founder (as Adams himself put it, "History will remember very little of me...I will have no monuments.") while Jefferson is being removed from textbooks because he "wasn't Christian enough."

While it is true that John Adams was once considered a "lesser" of the Founding Fathers, recent events and research have propelled Adams to a higher level of recognition and appreciation. On the flip side, the once prominent Thomas Jefferson (personally speaking, my favorite Founding Father) has witnessed a decrease in his popularity. The man who was once hailed as the greatest political mind of his era is now being remembered more for his views on religion and slavery. Jefferson's lack of Christian orthodoxy, combined with his views on slavery (not to mention the huge impact of the Sally Hemmings affair) have caused Jefferson to slip a little.

Is this fair? Should we promote Adams at the expense of Jefferson?

If there is one thing I have learned from studying Jefferson and Adams it is that their legacies are joined at the hip. Their on again, off again, on again friendship is a highlight of the revolutionary era. Like Batman needs the Joker, Jefferson and Adams often needed each other. The fact that they were polar opposites on virtually every political (and sometimes religious) issue serves as a template for later social and political struggles the United States would face. When we compare Adams and Jefferson, we are often comparing North v. South, Puritan v. Anglican, Federalist v. Republican, aristocrat v. farmer, passionate v. reserved, tall v. short, sophisticated v. crass. As a result, I guess it would only be natural for one man's stock to go down as the other's went up. As the American political/social pendulum swings from left to right, so does the general public's approval of Jefferson v. Adams. As historian Joseph Ellis states, Jefferson and Adams really were "the head and the heart of the Revolution...a brotherhood that illustrates America's diversity of thought." As a result, it is only natural that Americans today will, from time to time, see Jefferson and Adams in different ways...as representations of America's continually shifting pendulum.

In conclusion, I couldn't help but include my all-time favorite Jefferson quote. In one of his final letters to John Adams (who had earlier written Jefferson to complain about the current course of American politics in the typical Adams doomsday style) Jefferson responded with this. Enjoy:

"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not bigotry. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the returns of ignorance and barbarism. Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders and hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests and kings."

The True Origins and History of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Like almost everyone on this planet, I am a big fan of Disney cartoons. With my two little boys, I enjoy watching the latest and greatest animated feature that the miracle workers at Disney and Dreamworks are able to throw together with such brilliance. It never ceases to amaze me how these producers, animators, etc. are able to continually push the creative envelope further and further. Whether it's Toy Story, Shrek or Cars, these animators have created a massive assortment of instant classics that are sure to delight generations of fans.

With that said, I must admit that despite the obvious brilliance and technological superiority of newer animations, one "old school" cartoon stands supreme in the pantheon of animated film: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Ever since I saw it for the first time as a little boy, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has remained my all-time favorite cartoon, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Aside from being a personal favorite, Snow White has also played a unique role in the history of animated film that literally transformed animation forever and launched Walt Disney into immortality. That's right, it wasn't Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck that made Disney the worldwide brand we all recognize today, but rather a pale, dark-haired damsel and her seven vertically-challenged roommates!

The Origins of the Snow White Story

Contrary to what some may think, Snow White was not the brainchild of Walt Disney or any of his colleagues. In fact, the original story of Snow White is much older than America itself. The first known accounts of the Snow White story come to us from the Brothers Grimm, who, during the early years of the 19th century, collected and published a number of old European folktales, many of which dated back to the Middle Ages (Snow White possibly being one of them). The original Snow White story (known in German as Schneewittchen) has several different twists that make it unique from the Disney tale we all know and love. Here are just a few:

- In the Grimm tale, Snow White is but a 16-year-old girl.

- The dwarfs (more than 7) DEMAND that Snow White work and cook for them in order for her to have their protection.

-The evil queen step-mother actually tries to kill Snow White on three different occasions. First she ties Snow White up and leaves her for dead, only to discover that the dwarfs have freed her just in time. Second, she disguises herself as a poor peddler and combs Snow White's hair with a poisoned brush but is again unsuccessful when the dwarfs come to save her. And finally, the part we all recognize, Snow White is poisoned by an apple.

-The "handsome prince" does not meet Snow White prior to her fleeing into the woods. Instead, he stumbles upon her in her coffin and pays the dwarfs to take her and the coffin with him on his journey home. While in route to his kingdom, the coffin shakes open and a piece of the poisoned apple is released from Snow White's throat causing her to regain consciousness. The "handsome prince" and Snow White then (after vomiting the apple, not embracing in a romantic kiss) ride off into the sunset to live "happily ever after."

-The evil queen stepmother, who is shocked to see Snow White alive at the wedding of her and the prince, is hunted down by the dwarfs and is forced to dance for hours on end while wearing a pair of heated iron shoes, which eventually burn her to death.

This original version of the Snow White tale (which most experts agree probably dates back to at least the 16th century) may seem strange at first to those of us in the modern era, but it was a huge hit for those who heard it first hand. In fact, the Snow White tale was not confined to Germanic lands. In Italy, the tales of Bella Venezia and The Young Slave contain many parallels, as does the Greek story of Myrsina and the Scottish tale Gold-Tree and Silver-Tree However, the non-German tales usually depict the dwarfs as rough thugs who steal, murder, plunder, etc. but are eventually cured of their evil deeds upon seeing Snow White's beauty (even though in an Albanian version the dwarfs basically gang rape her).

What is important to remember about these versions of the Snow White tale is that they provide an interesting glimpse into the late Middle Ages. With the rise of the Renaissance and Reformation, the role of women faced a strict dichotomy: on the one hand, you had the beauty, purity and ignorance of Snow White; on the other, you had the conspiring, vindictive and hateful nature of the evil stepmother. Such was the case for women of this era. Women were seen as unpredictable creatures who were in great need of "control" and "stability" that only a male partner (the "handsome prince" and dwarfs) could provide. Women were to be as Snow White: pure, innocent and helpless. All of this could, of course, be achieved by her acceptance of her new role in society. Without such a system, women were sure to become like the evil stepmother.

The Case of Margarete von Waldeck

Aside from these traditional folktale stories of old, there is another possible explanation for the origin of the Snow White story. In 1994, the German scholar, Eckhard Sander, published Schneewittchen: Marchen oder Wahrheit? (Snow White: Is It a Fairy Tale?). In his book, Sander alleges that many of the traditional components to the Snow White tale can be found in the real life story of Margarete von Waldeck (1533-1554), who was a countess and the alleged lover of Philip II of Spain. As was the case with almost all royal marriages, political aspirations were more important than love. And as was the case with Philip II (who was destined at the time to inherit the kingdom from Charles V) almost everyone of royal blood had a vested interest in his love life. And though Margarete was a countess, the relationship held no real political clout. Nothing could have been gained politically from their union and as a result, many have argued that Margarete was poisoned to get her out of the way. Her death at a young age, coupled with the fact that many of her contemporaries believed she had been poisoned (there is an obvious tremor in the handwriting of Margarete's final will) have convinced many that her death was in fact from poisoning. And as was the case with Snow White, Margarete allegedly had a terrible relationship with her stepmother (though it should be noted that the stepmother was already dead prior to Margarete's alleged poisoning so there is no way she could have been responsible). Nevertheless, the family dynamics between Margarete and her stepmother were such that many believed she had reached out from the grave (possibly possessing the body of a vagrant old woman) to poison Margarete. In addition, a wild madman of the time had been trying to kill a number of children by poisoning apples and many believed that the spirit of Margarete's stepmother was "coaching" the madman in an effort to kill Margarete von Waldeck.

In addition, it is worth noting that Margarete was forced to leave her home and live in Brussels at the age of 16 (allegedly due to problems with her stepmother). Also, the town in which she grew up (Wildungen) employed a countless number of young children to work in the copper mines as quasi-slaves. The poor conditions there caused most to die before age 20 while the rest faced severe malnutrition, which attributed to a severe stunt in their growth during puberty. As a result, these workers were often ridiculed for being "poor dwarfs" who were only good for human chattel in the mines. Margarete would have certainly been aware of them since it was primarily members of her family that "employed" the "dwarfs."

Walt Disney's Snow White

As pointed out above, it is obvious that Walt Disney did not create the Snow White story. Even so, this does not mean that his role is irrelevant in promoting and preserving this classic European folktale. Quite the contrary. Without Disney, it's likely that few people would know anything about the Snow White tale or the other Brothers Grimm tales (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.) that he brought to the big screen.

But the role of Snow White, as it applies to Walt Disney, was much more than the mere preservation of a folktale. It was, in every sense of the word, the single most important and influential decision of his career. It was Snow White (not Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, a cool theme park ride, etc.) that launched Disney to greatness.

During its earliest years, the Disney brand confined itself to making small 5-10 minute animated "shorts" which usually preceded full-length feature films. Of course it was Mickey Mouse that became Disney's "golden child" during these years. The creation of the "Silly Symphonies," a running series of animated shorts that were distributed by Columbia Pictures, helped to lift the likes of Mickey, Donald and Goofy past Betty Boop and other rivals.

Despite his early success, Disney quickly saw his monopoly on animated "shorts" disappear with the emergence of Popeye the Sailor Man and Bugs Bunny. Animated shorts were becoming increasingly more expensive to make and were bringing in less and less money. Simply put, the competition was beginning to slowly squeeze the Disney franchise to death.

It was under these circumstances that Walt Disney suggested a new and radical idea for animation: create a full-length feature film. And while the notion of a full-length animated movie sounds standard to the modern movie buff, the idea of such an undertaking was seen as both crazy and suicidal in the 1930s. After all, animation was nothing more than a side show event to precede the "real" movies. Surely nobody would pay to see an hour long cartoon!

Nevertheless, Disney could not be dissuaded, even when his own wife told him that "nobody will go to see your stupid dwarf cartoon" and the New York Times labeled Snow White as "Disney's Folly." After convincing other like-minded animators to join his project, Disney was able to raise the $250,000 needed to begin production on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the amount eventually climbed to over $1 million). In addition, Disney was forced to mortgage his home and studio as collateral. In every sense, this was an "all or nothing" gamble for Disney.

Finally, on December 21, 1937, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs debuted to sold out theaters across the country. In Los Angeles, the film received a standing ovation from a crowd that included Hollywood juggernauts like Clark Gable, Charlie Chaplin, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland, Jack Benny, Ed Sullivan, etc., many of whom were engulfed in tears. Audiences were stunned to discover that they could in fact develop an emotional attachment to animated characters. Charlie Chaplin and Gary Cooper went so far as to hail Snow White as "The greatest movie ever made." By May, Snow White had become the most successful film of all-time, a position it held for 4 years until finally beat out by Gone With the Wind. In a very real sense, Walt Disney had hit a home run...a grand slam.

The success of Snow White forced others to reevaluate their "game plan" for movie production. For rival MGM, it was the success of Snow White that convinced them to take a chance on a project that almost everyone was afraid to touch...a little project known as The Wizard of Oz. After Snow White Disney would go on to create Fantasia and other blockbuster films, all of which made Disney a worldwide success story.

But none of it would have happened without a silly, gullible maiden and her seven short sidekicks, who got the "snowball" rolling for Disney, which is why there can be no question that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the greatest cartoon ever made. In its rankings of all-time greatest movies, the American Film Institute ranks Snow White as the #41 greatest and most influential film ever made (the only cartoon to make the list). The "evil queen stepmother" ranks #10 as the all-time greatest movie villain and the film ranks #1 as the greatest animated film ever (eat that, Shrek, Donkey, Woodie, Buzz, etc.)

Oh, and let us not forget the music. The AFI also ranked "Someday My Prince Will Come" as the #19 greatest movie song of all-time. And for your listening pleasure, here is a modern twist performed by a young woman who happens to also be a member of my faith:

The Glenn Beck Check, Part I

For those of you who know me, you know that I LOATHE political parties. I cannot stand how some people are so willing to align themselves to one particular political ideology as if it is the sole guardian of all truth, justice and the American way. What I loathe more than political parties, however, are political pundits. You know, these "shock jock" talk radio and television personalities that have created a WWE style of entertainment by intertwining politics with apocalyptic doomsday prophecies and other emotionally-triggered nonsense.

Of all these political "shock jock" personalities, none disgusts me more than Glenn Beck. Now don't get me wrong here, I do not hate Glenn Beck the man nor do I disapprove of his conservative leanings. On some issues I agree with Beck 100%. What bugs me so much about Beck's radio and television programs are two things: first his almost complete reliance on apocalyptic, "doomsday" rhetoric, and second, his near complete historical illiteracy. Whether it's his bizarre rants on Thomas Paine, Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, or his strange description of the "evolution" of progressivism, Beck has -- time and time again -- demonstrated his woeful ignorance of American history. Now, only one of two possibilities are true: either Beck really is that historically illiterate or he is preying on the illiteracy of his audience. Either way it isn't a good thing.

Anyway, I have decided to install a new running series on my blog that will attempt to correct some of the "Beckisms" that are floating around out there on the internet. Now, I don't want people to think that I exclusively loathe Beck. On the contrary. No matter who the political "shock jock" is (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, NealBoortz, etc.) I believe they are all in the business of one thing: RATINGS! These people are NOT the guardians of true American patriotism, nor are they the exclusive gatekeepers of truth, justice and the American way. Instead, as I have stated before, they are the "WWE wrestlers" of politics. Nothing more.

But in this arena of WWE politics, it is Glenn Beck that is the "Hulk Hogan" of the ring. As a result -- and because of his many ridiculous and incorrect rants -- I have chosen to single him out. It has nothing to do with his party or political leanings but exclusively due to his incorrect and misleading material. In fact, I believe that many Republicans/Conservatives (and I know many personally) are annoyed with Beck and would like to see him either go away or tone it down. So, without further delay, here is my first installment to the "Glenn Beck Check:"

On November 25th, Beck gave his "Thanksgiving Special" on Fox News:


Ok, sounds pretty typical of Beck. The video is filled with heart-warming rhetoric that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, right?

Well, it's also ridden with quite a few historical errors. Let's point a few out shall we:

1.) Thanksgiving DID NOT begin on Clark Island. Beck is simply trying to give a pretty story (and yes, it is a beautiful story) of how some of the "pilgrims" on the Mayflower survived almost being shipwrecked. However, this WAS NOT the "first Thanksgiving." William Bradford, one of the original "Pilgrims" makes it clear in his account that the so-called first Thanksgiving was held during the Autumn of 1621...NOT 1620 like Beck states.

2.) Beck starts off by referring to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. And while it is true that the Mass. Constitution did state that it "was the duty" of its citizens to recognize God, Beck conveniently ignores the part which states that "No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion." In other words, a CLEAR guarantee of religious freedom (a.k.a. a SEPARATION of church and state). This is an important point because, for whatever reason, many pundits like Beck succumb to the stupid notion that a separation of church and state will somehow eliminate religion from American society entirely. This couldn't be further from the truth. As James Madison pointed out:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

And Thomas Jefferson:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802).

For the Founding Fathers, the idea of a separation between church and state was THE ONLY way of maintaining religious freedom for all. Apparently this lesson is a little to hard for Beck to grasp.

3.) Next, Beck points to the Washington Monument, but he forgets that construction on the monument didn't even begin until 1832, thus the founders had NOTHING to do with it.

4.) Beck keeps pushing this "Moses" thing throughout the video. His reason for doing so it to somehow show that America's destiny is tied to Biblical prophecy, or that the founders clung to Biblical teachings. In reality, Beck is grasping at straws. Take for example the following picture of the statue atop the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.:

At first glance, this elegant statue of Moses standing guard over the Judicial Branch of America's republic seems to support what Beck is saying. But this is only half the truth. A closer look will also reveal that Moses is accompanied by a statue of Confucius (the great Chinese philosopher) and Solon (the great Athenian poet, statesman and leader in early Greece). Inside the Supreme Court building you are also likely to see the pagan statues of Britannia and Mars. Often referred to as the "Temple of Justice," the Supreme Court building illustrates that the founders were fond of ALL ancient civilizations. Their incorporation of Roman, Greek and Egyptian ideas are NOT evidence of their exclusive love for Moses and the Bible, but instead of their interest in all ancient civilizations and ideas.

Now, Beck is right when he points out that Benjamin Franklin suggested a national symbol/emblem of Moses and the fire separating Pharaoh's chariots, but this was in reference to the impending war with Britain, and Franklin thought the comparison of the small Israelites being liberated by the hand of God from the mighty British...er...Egyptians appropriate (it's also worth nothing that the suggestion was soundly defeated by almost everyone).

5.) Perhaps the strangest of Beck's faux pas are his references to Thomas Jefferson. Sorry Glenn, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more staunch supporter of church/state separation than Jefferson. But don't believe me, here's what Jefferson said on the matter:

"I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government."

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Hmmmmm....sounds like a clear separation of church and state to me! But hey, he's Glenn Beck! He CAN'T be wrong because he's the TRUE voice of patriotism, justice and the American way, right?

I guess historical accuracy is overrated!

"So Help Me God"

Here's another fun question: Did George Washington add the words, "So help me God" to the conclusion of his Oath of Office? Pop culture and legend say yes. Bud did he? After all, no president is on record having said those words until Rutherford B. Hayes took the oath and insisted on adding, "So Help Me God" in 1876.

Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers did not put "So help me God" in the Constitution. In fact, here's what the Constitution says the president is supposed to say:

"I (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nothing more is required.

So where does this legend come from? Hard to say. There are no historical records affirming OR denying that Washington added, "So help me God" to his oath of office. Despite the lack of "smoking gun" evidence on the matter, Washington's alleged "So help me God" remark has caused quite a stir in recent years. Both secular and religious groups continue to lock horns on this issue hoping to convince others of the validity of their case. In fact, this issue was THE biggest source of conflict during the filming of the HBO John Adams miniseries that recently aired. Here's HBO's depiction of Washington's inauguration and oath of office. It was one of the more stirring scened of the whole miniseries. Place your bets now on Who won: the secularists or the religious? Let's find out:



Very stirring recreation! For the most part, it was pretty accurate. However, Washington did not raise his right hand. Instead, he placed it over his heart. It is true that the crowd was unable to hear him. Washington had a cold at the time and couldn't speak very loudly. And yes, he did kiss the Bible. Even the outfit is accurate, along with all the people on the podium. Robert Livingston, however, did not say, "God Bless George Washington" at the conclusion of the oath. Instead, he said, "Long live George Washington."

Now, here's the secularist interpretation of Washington's oath of office:



And then of course there is Chief Justice John Roberts completely and totally messing up the Oath of Office for Barack Obama. In fact, they had to redo it later that night:



Way to screw it up Roberts! You can see Obama's face thinking, "this guy is the CHIEF Justice???" Perhaps Justice Roberts was busy thinking, "hey, this is the guy who so vehemently opposed my nomination to the Supreme Court."

Either way, you gotta love presidential inaugurations!