One of the common cognitive practices of Homo Sapiens is to assign labels and symbols to different types of events, people, places etc. that we encounter throughout our day-to-day existence. It is through labels and symbols that we are able to better understand and process the world around us. Labels afford us the ability to compartmentalize large amounts of data into neat little bundles, thereby making better sense of the experiences we have. It is a simple and efficient process that has served our specie quite well.
But there is a dramatic drawback to labels and symbols. While "labeling" does provide us with a quick and proficient way of understanding things on the fly, it also makes us far too simple-minded in our overall perspective of life. Labeling makes us jump to premature conclusions by enforcing simplistic reasoning. By its very nature, labeling abhors critical thinking and complex problem-solving skills, both of which require more time and effort to employ effectively.
This isn't to say that labeling doesn't have it's place. For thousands of years, Homo Sapiens have needed to quickly classify the different experiences and stimuli of life as threats, dangers, friend, foe, etc. It is an important skill that we have mastered well. But in the 21st century world, labeling is more nuanced than it was for our ancestors. For us, labeling causes us to make hasty and impulsive judgments of one another. To illustrate my point, see what conclusions your mind will jump to when you hear these labels:
- "He/she is a Muslim."
- "He/She is a member of the NRA."
- "He/She is an ardent supporter of the ACLU."
- "He/She is a recovering alcoholic."
- "He/She is a registered Democrat."
All of these labels (and the countless others that we employ) have the capacity to form our base opinions and understanding of others, even when we have no additional information on the subject. For example, I bet your mind didn't picture these people in relation to the labels above:
- The NBA's all-time leader in scoring is a Muslim named Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
- Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg are members of the NRA.
- Helen Keller helped to found the ACLU in 1920.
- Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, is a recovering alcoholic.
- Country stars Faith Hill and Tim McGraw are registered Democrats.
As you can see, labels are a confusing cognitive tool that we humans need to be careful with. In our modern world, labels rarely if ever tell the entire story.
With this in mind, I want to take the concept of "labeling" and apply it to my faith. As an unorthodox Mormon (yes, that self-appointed label doesn't capture my entire story either), I have seen how different members of my religion, each with different opinions and outlooks on life, have been arbitrarily assigned different labels to better explain their views. For example, Mormons who rarely attend and violate certain codes of conduct (i.e. drink coffee, alcohol, etc.) are often called "Jack Mormons," while a Mormon who devoutly walks the line, adheres to all commandments and rarely misses a Sunday is called a "True Blue Mormon." Mormons who may questions basic points of doctrine and history are sometimes referred to as "New Age Mormons," while those who try to "make it work" but cannot embrace every tenant of Mormonism are called "Cafeteria Mormons."
Admittedly, each of these labels, and my corresponding explanations, are far too simplistic to tell the entire story, but THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT!!! Electing to arbitrarily assign labels to people based on their behavior, beliefs/lack of belief, etc. is about as effective and intelligent as trying to clean a loaded gun.
Humans are complex creatures, even if Lynyrd Skynyrd insists on calling us "Simple Men." A person who may appear to be a "Jack Mormon" may, in reality, have a far greater understanding of Mormon theology and history than any "True Blue Mormon" on the planet (I would actually argue that this is more true than people want to admit). A "Cafeteria Mormon," who struggles with some aspects of the faith, may have a greater testimony and devotion to the religion than any "Molly Mormon." In short, choosing to label flies in the face of what Jesus himself ardently preached at the Sermon on the Mount:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye (Matt. 7: 1-5).
But this advise also goes for the struggling and/or departed Mormon who has elected to either distance and/or remove himself/herself from the faith. Your newly "enlightened" path does not grant you the right to ridicule those who stay. You may have problems with the doctrine, history and culture of the Mormon church, but those aren't golden tickets of retribution.
The danger of labeling is not self-evident. It is hidden within layers of arrogance and pride. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor of the Mormon faith, states:
This sin has many faces. It leads some to revel in their own perceived self-worth, accomplishments, talents, wealth, or position. They count these blessings as evidence of being “chosen,” “superior,” or “more righteous” than others. This is the sin of “Thank God I am more special than you.” At its core is the desire to be admired or envied. It is the sin of self-glorification.
For others, pride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer.
[...]
Brethren, unfortunately we see today too often the same kind of attitude and behavior spill over into the public discourse of politics, ethnicity, and religion.
The old adage, "Don't judge a book by its cover" certainly comes to mind when we consider the appropriate way to wield the sword of labeling. And though we will never completely eradicate labeling from our cognitive tray of resources (and I don't think we should to begin with), hopefully humanity will evolve to the point where we can master the practice of labeling effectively...
A few weeks ago, whack-job extraordinaire Glenn Beck went on the air and said the following:
I LOVE it when Glenn Beck pretends to play the role of preacher man. He comes off looking like such an ass!
Of course, this isn't a new act for Crazy Man Beck. He has made a career (quite a lucrative career actually) of pretending to be a politician, historian, theologian, economist, etc. But in the end, he's a shameless fraud who does nothing more than prey upon the fear of his audience. And make no mistake; through the mechanisms of fear, ignorance and hate, Glenn Beck has profited to the extreme.
But quoting from the Book of Mormon is a new all-time low. It's low because Beck is twisting the words of his (and my) faith to make a lame political point. But, in true Beckonian fashion, Crazy Man has once again revealed to the world just how big of an idiot and fraud he truly is.
The following is taken from the Book of Mormon (yes, the same BoM that Beck tried to use as a political tool):
Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.
He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is clove. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish (2 Nephi 26:29).
So, the next time you want to wield religion as a political sword, Mr. Beck, try to first UNDERSTAND the message of that book!
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is an event that will forever be etched into the hearts of generations of Americans. His death not only marked the end to the legacy of a living legend, but also sparked one of the largest manhunts in American history, instantly making his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, the most infamous fugitive this country has ever seen.
But not long before his fateful rendezvous with Lincoln at Ford Theater, Booth had actually saved Lincoln's life. Yes, as crazy as it is to believe, Booth saved Lincoln from certain disaster.
Though it's not the Booth you're thinking of...or the Lincoln for that matter.
During the winter months of 1864, Robert Todd Lincoln, the eldest son of then President Lincoln, was boarding a train in Jersey City, New Jersey bound for Washington. It was dark, conditions were cold and the train was extraordinarily crowded. In his own words, Robert Lincoln recalled what happened next as follows:
The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.
Edwin Booth, brother of the notorious John Wilkes Booth, had been in the right place at the right time, rescuing the doomed Robert Lincoln from an untimely and ugly demise. Like his infamous brother, Edwin was one of the most well-known and respected Shakespearean actors of the 19th century. In fact, Edwin had been praised for his portrayal of Hamlet by President Lincoln, who was a self-proclaimed connoisseur of Shakespeare. It must have been quite the experience for young Robert Lincoln to be rescued by the Brad Pitt of his day!
Less than a year later, Edwin's brother took the life of the president, forever altering his family's fate from that of noteworthy actors to cold-blooded killers. Edwin, who didn't know at the time that he had saved the life of President Lincoln's son, received notification from Robert Lincoln himself, thanking him for his good deed on that fateful day. It is said that Edwin regularly pondered the incident, allowing to comfort him in the wake of his brother's horrific act.
Robert Lincoln went on to have a successful political career, eventually climbing the ranks to become Secretary of War (Defense) under Presidents Garfield and Arthur. Edwin Booth went on to continue his career as an actor, becoming one of the most influential Shakespearean actors in American history.
America's Favorite Pseudo-Historians Make Asses of Themselves...AGAIN!
My two favorite goofballs (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle DUMB) have managed to once again open their mouths and insert both feet. Yes, the always comical dynamic duo that is Glenn Beck and David Barton, the gift that just keeps on giving, have added another smash single to their already "stellar" greatest hits album. But instead of tackling the legacy of our nation's Founding Fathers (a topic they just can't seem to ever get right no matter how hard they try), their target this time was none other than Honest Abe Lincoln. Take a look:
This is absolutely PRICELESS! David "The Brain" Barton actually admits to writing a review for a movie he never saw! Are you kidding me!?! Well, Mr. Barton, with that sort of litmus test let's just pass blind judgement on whatever we don't like. What a buffoon!
But let us not get distracted and focus on Mr. Barton's bogus depiction of the passage of the 13th Amendment. Mr. Barton states that "there wasn't the wheeling, dealing kind of back room deals" and that the passage of the amendment was a "slam dunk, big time."
Ugh! I don't even know where to begin! It's almost as if these two idiots go against EVERYTHING that those in the know (in whatever field of expertise) have to say. Evolutionists point to fossils, carbon dating, etc. to claim that the world is billions of years old, these two quote Deuteronomy to say that is wrong. Climatologists overwhelmingly declare that the Earth's climate is changing, these two call it a progressive hoax to subjugate us all. Historians assert very obvious truths about our nation's founding, these two say that the exact opposite is true and that evil, socialist, progressive, fascist scary people are destroying our nation's heritage. In short, these nut-jobs have absolutely no clue what they are talking about!
But I digress. Mr. Barton's portrayal of the passage of the 13th Amendment couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is there was a great amount of back door "wheeling and dealing" taking place. Not only does Mr. Barton (and Beck) demonstrate his ignorance for how a Congressional Amendment is brought to pass, but he is apparently unaware that there was a plethora of drama surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment.
First off, prior the the commencement of the Civil War, Congress (which consisted of northern and southern representation at that point) had already passed a 13th Amendment (in Feb., 1861) which "guaranteed the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states." This was the latest in what had been a series of congressional bills that had sought to protect slavery for literally decades, and appease the Southern leadership (yet somehow the Civil War wasn't about slavery...yeah, right!). With the onset of the Civil War, the states were unable to ratify the newly-created 13th Amendment (a requirement for any Constitutional amendment), and thus it never became law.
With the obvious division of the nation brought on by war, northern abolitionists saw an opportunity to eradicate the "peculiar institution" once and for all. In December of 1863, Representative James Ashley of Ohio proposed a bill to support "A Constitutional Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery." For the most part, Ashley's petition fell on deaf ears (and eventually contributed to his failure to be reelected), but it did get the ball rolling. Other congressmen, including Lyman Trumball and Charles Sumner, would propose similar measures before Congress.
But there was still a great amount of tension (even without the Southern delegates) in Congress over the issue of slavery. It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln decided to include the passage of a Constitutional amendment on slavery as a part of his 1864 reelection that the matter started gaining steam. It took Lincoln and his supporters a full year to garner enough support for the measure. In fact, a number of deals were made to appease reluctant Republican voters and to sway the 4 needed Democrat votes in the House in order to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment. If the passage of the 13th Amendment was the "slam dunk" that Barton thinks it was, why did Lincoln and his supporters feel the need to make it the principal issue of their reelection campaign, especially when they already had passed the Emancipation Proclamation the year before? Why were abolitionist leaders, including prominent Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, campaigning so vigorously for this amendment if it was such an obvious "slam dunk?"
In addition to this, Mr. Barton's apparently doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119-56 vote in the House was anything but a "slam dunk." Heck, Barton's ignorance is so great that he states for all to hear that the amendment had "an 80 percent vote." Uh...not quite, sir. The measure barely passed the House with 68% support (just barely making the 2/3 cut), while the combined House and Senate support was 70% (the Senate voted 38-6 in favor). Again, this reveals the woeful ignorance that both Beck and Barton have when it comes to the Constitution; a document they claim to "revere."
Barton's failure to accurately describe the history surrounding the 13th Amendment, along with his obvious illiteracy of Constitutional practices, just proves how untrustworthy the man is when it comes to American history. David Barton is not a historian. Let me say that again: David Barton is NOT a historian. He's an activist for a radical agenda, nothing more. Much like Howard Zinn was to the left, David Barton is a errand boy for the right. What he writes isn't history, pure and simple.
But let's not let good ol' Glenn off the hook here either. Beck, who is always more than eager to suck up whatever ilk Barton spews at him, actually states at the beginning of this video that he found Spielberg's "Lincoln" film to be "a remarkable movie." But after hearing Barton's one-minute "rebuttal," Beck stated that he "wished he had un-seen that movie." Amazing...simply amazing. This clown, who claims to be a voice of "truth," does a complete 180 in a single minute.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, reveals just how simple-minded Glenn Beck truly is!
For anyone left (and I know there are very few and the numbers continue to decline) who still grant these two buffoons any level of credence I hope you will now see just how misplaced your trust really is. Please, will somebody save these two from themselves! Glenn Beck, who has fancied himself as the next Thomas Paine and then as the next George Washington (until he realized that both men would probably have hated his stupid guts), really does need to hurry up and complete his Utopian community so that he can just go away, drink the crazy Kool-Aid with all of his crazy followers, and never bother us again. How can anyone still buy into all of this blatant bullshit???
Meanwhile, Beck's sidekick, Pseudo-historian David Barton Extraordinaire, needs to face reality. David, you're not a historian, not even close. Everything from your foolish assertion that half of the signers of the DoI were ministers, to your indescribably stupid "Black Robe Regiment" argument, not to mention the fact that your Thomas Jefferson book was so horrific that not only was it recalled by your publisher, but even the most conservative of supporters called your work "a joke," prove that you don't know history. Mr. Barton, I think you need to join your pal Glenn at his heavenly new compound and just leave us all alone.
And for those of you thinking about joining Beck and Barton in "Independence, USA," consider this: Once upon a time, not that long ago, another leader decided to create a Utopian paradise for his followers where they could separate themselves from the evil, "progressive" world and teach one another according to their own values and beliefs. Click here to see how things worked out for them.
Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, Roger B. Chaffee, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith A. Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, S. Christa McAuliffe, Rick D. Husband, William C. McCool, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael P. Anderson, Laurel B. Clark, IIam Roman.
These seventeen (17) names are the forgotten heroes of America. The brave men and women on this list were not soldiers (though some had served in the Armed Forces), thus their legacy has nothing to do with war or dying in battle. They never stormed a beachhead or secured a strategic hill; they never triumphantly lead a force into combat or eliminated some foreign threat. Yet with all of that being said, these seventeen souls are the greatest of human heroes. Why? Because they dared to venture into the unknown for nothing more than the quest for greater knowledge and further exploration. And while the soldiers of war are certainly deserving of the honor they have dearly earned, these seventeen soldiers of curiosity, whose battlefield lies in the stars and whose enemy is the ignorant, dared to escape the bonds of Earth to dance with the gods on a stage far greater than anything our puny little planet has to offer, thus making them, in my opinion, the greatest of heroes.
For over 50 years, one organization has done more to wage this war for greater knowledge and exploration than any other in human history. Founded in 1958, NASA has given America (and the world at large) more opportunities for growth, more avenues for progress and more desires to dream that big dream than any other organization in the history of our species. And throughout its history, brave men and women have answered the call to breach our earthly atmosphere and to reach for the stars, and today provides us all with an opportunity to say thanks.
Ten years ago today, the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed while attempting to return to Earth, claiming the lives of seven brave astronauts. And though this day belongs primarily with their memory, I believe that this occasion also affords us the chance to recognize the sacrifice of all seventeen brave NASA astronauts who have died in the ultimate line of duty: the quest for greater human knowledge. The Apollo I, STS-51L (Challenger) and STS-107 (Columbia) missions all serve to remind us that our greatest possible quest, the human pursuit to explore, comes, at times, at a very high cost.
Ironically enough, all three NASA tragedies occurred on roughly the same dates (they are separated by 6 days on the calendar), so it's only natural for us to remember all of them when we honor one of them. Twenty-seven years ago (January 28, 1986) the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded during liftoff, while forty-six years ago (January 27, 1967), the astronauts of the Apollo I mission were burned to death in a cabin fire during a routine launch pad test. These two national tragedies, along with the Columbia disaster which we mark today, are hallowed anniversaries that should compel us to reflect upon that which we hold most dear. The natural human drive to explore, expand and soak in all the knowledge that we can is, by far, the single greatest characteristic that separates humans from all other known living things. We aspire. We dream of the impossible. We fantasize about becoming more than we are. In the words of Mark Twain, we humans dare to "Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in [our] sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
But sadly, this dream is dying a quick and painful death. The drive to continue our exploration of the heavens is running out of fuel faster than a rocket during liftoff. The public, by and large, has grown ignorant of the immensity of the challenge before us and has erroneously regarded space travel as "routine." This, coupled with the fact that incompetent leaders have lost sight of the vitality of space exploration to the human race, has mothballed NASA and placed its agenda on the back burner. Too often we hear national leaders and ignorant citizens foolishly proclaim that we have "nothing more to explore" or that there is "nothing out there worth our while" or that "other pressing matters take precedence." These idiotic statements, along with many others like them, would be laughable if the implications weren't so tragic. Space exploration is, without question, the most important, most galvanizing, most essential endeavor that we can hope to embark upon. There is absolutely zero justification for us to simply discard or downgrade the space program. As Gene Krantz, the former flight director for NASA during the Apollo program stated:
We have the young people, we have the talent, we have the imagination, we have the technology. But I don't believe we have the leadership and the willingness to accept risk, to achieve goals. I believe we need a long-term national commitment to explore the universe. And I believe this is an essential investment in the future of our nation.
No financial crisis, no global pandemic, no natural disaster, however severe, can serve to justify our wanton disregard for humanity's greatest challenge and adventure.
But that is EXACTLY what we have done. We have allowed economic pressures, global fears and partisan political paranoia to derail us from what is absolutely essential to our survival, and yes, space exploration is absolutely essential to our survival. I say that not because of the fact that eventually our species will be forced to migrate to another world, but because space exploration lies at the very heart of human exceptionalism. If we truly hope to become more than we are we must push ourselves towards the horizon. Space exploration is vital because of what it brings out in us as a society. It forces humanity to look past the pettiness of so much that we esteem to be of "value" in this world. It affords us the chance to discover new scientific, technological and medical breakthroughs. It inoculates our culture from becoming too complacent and too lazy. It makes us dream bigger, work harder, and think deeper. In short, space exploration is the "hard thing" that will make us all stronger. In the words of Kirk, Spock and Picard, space truly has become "the final frontier."
Now, you may be thinking to yourself that all of this is achievable without sending rockets and astronauts into space and you may be right...to a point. I suppose we could achieve much of this without landing a man on the moon or venturing to Mars and beyond but I maintain that NOTHING has forced us to dream bigger, think deeper or work harder than NASA and the manned space program. As a result, there is no more efficient manner in which we could improve conditions than by continuing to push the envelope of space. Yes, more astronauts will die and more multi-million dollar space vehicles will be destroyed, but the ends more than justify the means.
Consider for a moment what the Apollo program gave humanity. Aside from bringing home moon rocks and cool pictures, the Apollo astronauts (and NASA as a whole) gave society some very practical and important innovations such as:
Memory foam, freeze-dried food, hand vacuums, CAT scans, MRI scans, cordless power tools, ear thermometers, huge improvements in insulation, satellite television, GPS navigation, shoe insoles, scratch resistant lenses, smoke detectors, improved water filtration, fire resistant suits, solar panels, pacemakers, improved and simplified kidney dialysis, athletic equipment, physical therapy, cochlear implants, LED technology, artificial limbs, anti-icing for aircraft, radial tires, enriched baby food, powdered lubricants, Velcro, AED heart resuscitation, invisible braces and Tang!
And this doesn't even take into account all of the innovations that the Apollo program brought to computers. Everything from smaller and more reliable components to the development of micro-chip processors, digital watches, fibre optics, flat screen televisions (eventually), video games and much more can be directly linked to the great space race of the 1960s...that's right...the 1960s!!! One can only imagine what we could have achieved by now had we not simply chosen to give up on serious space exploration. For too long we have been content with doing circles around our own globe and putting satellites into space (which is all fine and good) when we could have been venturing out much deeper into the infinitude of space. By now Mars should even be in our rear view mirror. Pathetic that we haven't done more, isn't it! If there is a God in heaven, he must surely be disgusted with the fact that we have settled for the scraps when we could have had the stars.
But all of these technological advances pale in comparison to what the space program has done for American culture. The Apollo program not only gave birth to the next generation of scientists, but it also redefined American culture. In the following lecture, Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson illustrates, in great detail, just how dramatic the space program was on American culture, in ways most people don't even realize:
Too often we hear partisan political hacks on both sides complain about the erosion of American culture taking place before our very eyes. And though their assessment of the situation is accurate, their solutions for the problem are bogus. Having been hampered by the near-sighted vision of partisan bigotry, their remedies almost always consist of petitions for society to adhere to the narrow and one-sided view of their respective political leanings. In other words, as long as society accepts the tenants of their particular dogma all will be right with the world. But these proposals, unfortunately, fail to address the larger picture. American (and world) culture is eroding not because of political strife or religious apathy; it is eroding because we no longer dream the impossible dream.
Sure, we still have collective dreams as a society, but more times than not, those dreams consist of narcissistic ambitions based on the meaningless acquisition of personal wealth. We dream of "striking it big" by picking the right combination of numbers in the Lotto or winning a huge lawsuit. We define success as getting that job promotion or creating the next "big idea" that guarantees us a huge pay day. And though these dreams are, for the most part, acceptable, not a one is capable of delivering us the desired cultural change we seek.
The problem is that the "American Dream" is a self-serving dream. Sure, a white picket fence and a stable job is great and is a noble thing to work for, but it doesn't bring about cultural change. To truly change a culture we must shift our paradigm of thinking. We must dream the impossible dream. And I'm not talking about the impossible dream of becoming the next NFL or NBA star, or of becoming the next winner of American Idol or Next Top Model. I'm talking about those big dreams that come to us all as we gaze up at the night sky. Is it any wonder why so many children want to become astronauts or fantasize about traveling to new worlds? This isn't just science fiction taking over their minds. It is pure, raw, undisturbed imagination at work. The dream that we can shoot for the stars. This is what we need in order to change our culture. The LeBron James', Kim Kardaishian's and even the Barack Obama's and/or Ronald Reagan's of the world can only do so much. It takes a Neil Armstrong or a Christopher Columbus to truly expand our collective world view.
But the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to make the necessary change because we are now a culture that is based on fear. The collective paranoia of the masses has created a society that cannot embrace the needed change because we are too frightened by our own shadow. And I'm not just talking about a fear of terrorists or plots to destroy our democracy. The fear I speak of is far more subtle. It is the fear of letting go and embracing the unknown. Like the starving man who frantically scavenges for the scraps under the table, thus missing the feast above him, we as a culture cling to our iPod, cell phone, On Demand, flat screen, GPS society without realizing that we could have something even greater. Our frantic paranoia prevents us from embracing the unknown, which then reinforces the fear factor.
We are no longer the "Home of the Brave."
We are the home of the complacent. The lazy. The self-serving. The comfortable. But certainly NOT the "Home of the Brave." And yes, it takes much more than valiant soldiers and mighty armies to be considered a truly brave society. We've convinced ourselves that the pointless political and social matters that we obsess over today actually reveal our valor when in fact they reveal our cowardice, unwillingness to embrace the unknown and our lack of resolve to make any actual change in the way we perceive the world. There is nothing brave about our collective rejection of dreaming the big dream.
Case in point: as the clocks turned to February 1st, the top stories on all the major news websites were:
Fox News: More gun crap, an article on Obamacare, and a deadly explosion in Mexico.
In fact, not a SINGLE MAJOR NEWS OUTLET featured any leading story about the Columbia anniversary!
This is an obscenity! The collective lack of recognition for humanity's greatest achievement and most daunting quest, that being manned space flight, reveals just how warped we have truly become. We insult the memory of the crew of STS-107 (Columbia), along with all the others who have died for the cause of exploration by essentially blotting them from our collective memory and discourse. We have belittled their contributions to little more than a "special interest" or a novelty act.
But make no mistake, NASA and the manned space program is no special interest. In fact, it should be our MAIN interest. All other concerns and priorities pale in comparison. What could possibly be more important than exploring God's playground? We can either use our resources to uncover the mysteries of this tiny and relatively insignificant blue rock or we can use them to reveal the wonder of the cosmos.
How much would you be willing to pay for the universe?
As we remember the seven brave astronauts who perished on board Columbia, along with the ten others who died during other missions, let us recognize the fact that our ability to dream the big dream is what truly makes humanity special. Without it we might as well return to our caves and draw stick figures on the walls. If the legacies of Apollo I, STS-51L and STS-107 teach us anything it is that mankind can achieve just about anything it sets its mind to...so long as we dream big and act brave. As Christopher Columbus stated:
You cannot discover a new world unless you first have the courage to lose sight of the shore.
Thank you, brave astronauts for revealing to us the true nature of humanity and the correct perspective we should all embrace!
A brief video tribute to the seventeen brave astronauts of Apollo I, Challenger and Columbia:
Neil Degrasse Tyson on the importance of space exploration:
The "fall" of the Roman Empire not only marked the end of a powerful geo-political entity of stability for most of Europe, but it also ushered in the demise of an economy that had dominated the continent for centuries. With the dawn of the "Dark Ages," Europeans of all stripes were forced to start from scratch and to establish new rules to govern the newly emerging political, social and economic practices that were emerging in the post-Roman world.
Among the many issues dealt with at this time was the practice of usury (interest practices on monetary loans). During the height of the Roman Empire, usury had been, by and large, an approved practice, though it was almost exclusively a privatized enterprise. Wealthy citizens could, if they so chose, grant loans with fixed interest rates (though the empire did, at times, place certain restrictions on those rates), thereby allowing a quasi-privatized banking system to arise. With the rise of the Catholic church in the early 4th century, however, the practice of usury was met with stern disapproval by early Christian leaders. For these early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible itself, made the practice of usury not only undesirable but downright sinful. From the Book of Deuteronomy:
19.) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20.) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thous settest thine hand to in the land...
This clear commandment against the practice of usury (with the exception given in bold for a "stranger," a loophole that Medieval Jews found quite useful) served as more than sufficient ammunition to criminalize the practice for the majority of the Middle Ages. The elimination of Usury was unanimously accepted during the 325 Council of Nicea. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, usury was, under the law, considered to be a general criminal offence. In 1179, at the Third Council of the Latean, anyone found benefiting from the practice of usury was prohibited from taking the sacraments and could eventually be excommunicated entirely. Later, Pope Sixtus V would call the practice of usury, "most detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."
So, if the practice of usury was so deplorable to Medieval Christians, how did it eventually become standard operating procedure? And how are Christians today (along with capitalism in general) able to so gleefully support its continued existence?
The answer rests primarily with the rise of trade and (eventually) Mercantilism in Europe. As European society continued to progress through the Middle Ages, the growth of trade and finance forced change upon a society that was, for centuries, operating on a set of rules that issued divine punishment for certain practices (such as usury). But these divine punishments eventually had to give way to the sweeping tides of change.
Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialization, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow. Nobles and other elites of European society quickly discovered that the practice of usury was virtually a gold mine waiting to be tapped. As trade and commercialization began to spread its roots further out into the Middle East and the Orient, European powers saw greater opportunities to increase their wealth. Even holy religious orders like the famous Knights Templar got into the act by taking advantage of their complex network of members that were branched out all across the European countryside.
But not everyone was in favor of this new justification on an old sin. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with their followers, expressed severe disappointment with what was taking place, going so far as to claim that those who practice usury were carrying the "mark of the beast" mentioned of in the Book of Revelations. In many ways, this conflict between the pro and anti-usury crowds helped to spark much of the Antisemitism that began to permeate Europe at the latter portion of the Middle Ages.
In the end, the economic and social revolutions taking place throughout Europe, coupled with the eventual discovery of the "New World" made the conversion to an acceptance of usury a virtual guarantee. The new demands for goods from all across the globe created an environment that was simply too rich for the practice of usury not to flourish. This, of course, eventually contributed to the rise of market capitalism, which is essentially married to the practice of usury. As a result, the long-held prohibition on usury had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.
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.
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.
For students of Medieval Europe, the geopolitical entity known by historians as the Holy Roman Empire is a unique and fascinating topic to research. Speaking for myself on a personal level, studying the history of the Holy Roman Empire is a revealing and enlightening experience, because it shows just how much emphasis our Medieval forefathers placed on resurrecting the idea of Roma. Despite all of the social degradation cultural erosion and spiritual revolution that came as a result of the "fall" of Rome, Europeans, at least the elites of society, still embraced the belief in the glory of Rome, and tried to resurrect it with all of their might.
By nature, to study the history of the Holy Roman Empire is to take a nostalgic trip that inevitably leads you to the history of the Roman Empire itself. After all, the "Holy Romans" of the Holy Roman Empire considered themselves to be heirs to the glory of Rome itself. For them, Rome hadn't so much "fallen" as it had "transformed." It was their duty and blessing to carry on the sacred and glorious legacy of Rome. Rome may have undergone a "metamorphosis" but all of the ideology, power, glory and prestige that had been endowed upon the Caesars of old was theirs to cherish once again.
But in the end, this was all wishful thinking on their part; a pipe dream to help salve the Medieval world from this one painful and unavoidable truth: Rome, at least in the Western world, was gone. The "Dark Ages" had all but extinguished any flicker of hope in rekindling the true glory and power that was Rome, but this didn't stop our Medieval fathers from trying.
In reality, the Holy Roman Empire had very little in common with its namesake. It's title was little more than a relic to an extinct but still revered era. Yet despite its inability to resurrect the glory of one of mankind's greatest civilizations, The Holy Roman Empire did leave an indelible impression upon Europe; one that is unique and different from that of Rome itself, but still critical to the development of Europe.
Traditionally, the Holy Roman Empire's roots are dated back to either Charlemagne or Otto the Great (Otto I). Most Medieval historians are divided on whose reign it was that served as the true "starting point" for the HRE, but for me, it's Charlemagne all the way. First off, Charlemagne saw himself (much like his father) as the great "protector" of Christianity and the papacy. His campaigns against Muslims and "Christianization" (forced) of those he conquered, along with his coronation as Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas of 800, all illustrate Charlemagne's intent. He wasn't just a "conqueror" like Clovis or Charles Martel, who just happened to be "Christianized" along the way. Charlemagne was a believer all the way.
But Charlemagne's new found prestige wasn't enough. He needed to add more than just glorious victories in battle and spiritual religious endorsement to his legacy. And, naturally, the idea of being crowned Emperor or Caesar (Charlemagne was called both) had tremendous appeal. Essentially, this act would put him in the class of Augustus, Constantine and Marcus Aurelius. Charlemagne could become a legend.
But the Holy Roman Empire had little more than self-proclaimed titles to offer its chief leaders. Unlike the actual Roman Empire, with its vast territories, extensive infrastructure and complex social hierarchy, the Holy Roman Empire was brutish, limited and constantly infested with conflicts between the religious and secular worlds. For example, the Investiture Controversy, which primarily pitted the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV against Pope Gregory VII, revealed just how heated the divide between the religious and the secular world had become. Unlike Ancient Rome, which (at least until its later years) managed to maintain a monopoly of control, thus keeping religious zealots (for the most part) at check, the Holy Roman Empire was a constant fight between Emperors and Popes, men of glory v. men of God.
In addition to it's regular tussles with matters of religion, the Holy Roman Empire also lacked a cohesion between the reigns of its kings. Unlike Ancient Rome, which, though regularly beset by wars, coups and civil unrest from time to time, but was still able to maintain an intimidating and legitimate foothold on its empire, the Holy Roman Empire faced constant upheaval, never-ending turmoil and repeated revision of its borders. The Holy Roman Empire, depending on its leader, experienced every extreme on the political and social spectrum, at times emerging as the dominant power in Europe while at others appearing more like a laughable lame duck society.
Regardless of how it differed from its ancient counterpart, the compelling factor we must all remember is that the Holy Roman Empire, despite all of its imperfections and struggles, was, at heart, an attempt to rekindle the glory of the ancient world. We must never forget that for many of our Medieval ancestors the glory of Rome was still very much a Utopian dream that they sincerely believed could be resurrected. And though much of this rebirth came in the form of Catholic Christianity as opposed to civic collaboration, the Holy Roman Empire should be seen as its contemporaries saw it: a rekindling of the ideas of Ancient Rome with a major dose of Christianity as a twist.
