A new book by historian Denise Spellberg explores the possible influence that the Qur'an had on shaping the mind of one of America's most important Founding Fathers.
Roughly eleven years before penning the words to the Declaration of Independence, the always curious Thomas Jefferson purchased a copy of the Holy Qur'an and began at least a casual study of the Muslim religion (Jefferson's Qur'an still survives in the Library of Congress). Jefferson's curiosity about the Muslim religion was originally inspired by one of his heroes, John Locke, who also maintained an interest in studying what was a very mysterious and misunderstood faith for most Europeans of the 18th century.
Spellberg's book does not necessarily suggest that Islam's doctrine helped to establish the American republic, but it does suggest that Islam served as a litmus test of sorts in determining religious freedom in the infant nation. Spellberg writes:
Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government.
In my opinion, this is an appropriate estimation of how Islam influenced the founding of America. Anything more than this would be a gross overestimation of Islam's nominal impact on a founding that was largely secular in nature.
This isn't to say that other historians haven't tried (and failed in my opinion) to connect America's founding doctrines with the Muslim faith. I've written in the past about a few such attempts that fortunately have not gained any traction in the historical community. All religions have, at one time or another, tried to connect their faith to the founding of the United States, and Islam is no exception.
As far as Jefferson was concerned, his study of the Qur'an and Islam was not an endeavor to glean pearls of wisdom to help establish a new nation, but rather was a quest to gain understanding. Jefferson never read the Qur'an in order to learn how to create a republic; he was reading it to learn how to defend a republic. If Islam could become a tolerated and appreciated faith in America, then the religious test of the republic would be a resounding success. Again from Spellberg:
What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job.
Should be an interesting read. Only $11 on Kindle!!!
The Mormon Perspective on American Providentialism
***Cross-posted at American Creation***
Over the years, one of my favorite topics in all of history has been the ongoing debate over America's founding heritage. Was America founded as a "Christian" nation? And if so, what does that mean? Whose brand of Christianity is the American Christianity? Where does its influence start and end in relation to government? And what exactly is the American "nation?" These are just a few of the many questions that I have had over the course of my studies on the matter, all of which have led me to the conclusion that America's "Christian nation" debate is mostly a debate over semantics. After all, the term "Christian nation" would mean something very different depending on who we are talking to, and how they define "Christianity." A congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, would present a very different perspective on the matter than would a congregation of American Evangelicals. Heck, even American Evangelicals would differ on this question depending on where and when in America they live(d).
And when it comes to Christian Nationalism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) makes for a unique case study to say the least. Since its inception, the Mormon Faith has held the American founding in higher esteem than arguably any other religion on the planet. It's very origins (in the heartland of the "burned-over District" of New York and at the peak of the Second Great Awakening) essentially demanded that Mormonism wed itself with the idea American providentialism.
One need not find a greater illustration of Mormonism's deep allegiance with American providentialism than the Book of Mormon. As Mormonism's holiest book of Scripture, the Book of Mormon (in a nutshell) is essentially a story of God bringing a select group of people (Israelites) to a select land (America) in order to establish a select faith (the true gospel of Jesus Christ). In so doing, the narrative of The Book of Mormon is saturated with references to America being a "choice land" that God himself esteemed "above all other lands." A few examples:
And inasmuch as ye shall keel my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; a land which is choice above all other lands. (1 Nephi 2:20) my emphasis.
And:
Notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed...and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. (2 Nephi 1:5) my emphasis.
And:
And never could be a people more blessed that were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord. And they were in a land that was choice above all lands, for the Lord had spoken it. (Ether 10:28) my emphasis.
Unlike the Hebrews of the Bible, the "Promised Land" of Mormonism is not so much Jerusalem or Israel but America. Of course, that isn't to say that Mormons don't revere the Holy Land (the contrary is actually the case. Mormons have a deep love for Jerusalem, as evidenced by their commitment to the BYU Jerusalem Center). But there can be no doubt that America holds the pole position when it comes to being a "choice land...above all lands." From a few former Mormon Presidents:
"The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun." -Joseph Smith
"I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for." -Brigham Young
"Those who laid the foundations of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice and noble spirits before God." -Wilford Woodruff
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I [God] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood (Section 101:79-80).
And if this isn't enough proof of Mormonism's deep roots in American providentialism, let us return to the Book of Mormon. In the First Book of Nephi (Chapter 13), we read of a remarkable vision that Nephi (one of the first BoM prophets) experiences. Nephi, who allegedly lived in 600 B.C., is shown by an angel the discovery of the New World, the migration of the European nations to the "promised land," and the establishment of the United States:
12. And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. 13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. 14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. 15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. 17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. 18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. 19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations (1 Nephi 13:12-19).
The Book of Mormon goes on to relate how these chosen people, once established on the chosen land, went on to establish a government that, on the surface, appears to resemble the one established by America's founders. This connection, however, is superficial and does not take into account many of the nuanced references made in the story itself. As Mormon Historian and acclaimed Joseph Smith Biographer, Richard Bushman states:
The Book of Mormon can be read as a nationalistic text. The book gives the United States a deep past, reaching back centuries beyond any known history of the continent to 600 BCE and through the Jaredites even further back to the Tower of Babel, millenia before Christ. Embedding America in the Bible necessarily hallowed the nation, but The Book of Mormon also created a subversive competitor to the standard national history.
[...]
But the American story does not control the narrative. The Book of Mormon allots just nine verses to the deliverance of the Gentiles, and the rest of the book concentrates on the deliverance of Israel. The impending American republic is barely visible...Book of Mormon governments are monarchies and judgeships, Old Testament governments, not democratic legislatures and elected presidents (Rough Stone Rolling, Chapter 4).
Regardless of how the Book of Mormon narrative is interpreted by both skeptics and believers, what is clear is that Mormons of virtually every generation have adopted the aforementioned references (and many others like them) as evidence for America being the supreme stage in God's human drama (***I have even written in the past about one generation of Mormons who went so far as to "convert" America's founders to Mormonism via the doctrine of vicarious baptism***).
And a video on religious freedom released just last month by the church:
So how do Mormons feel when it comes to the question of America being established as a Christian Nation? Heck, there is no more Christian nation in the world! Even the Garden of Eden was in America. As a result, how could there be a more Christian nation than the good ol' U.S. of A....at least according to most Mormons (though I tend to object).
Born out of America, with doctrinal roots in America (both modern and believed to be ancient), there can be NO DOUBT that Mormons make the strongest claim for American Providentialism. Nobody else even comes close.
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.
