Mormons Are Christians Too

I am a big fan of the HBO series "Big Love", but the fact of the matter is that it rarely shows what life is like for the average 'Mormon' family in America or around the world. Led on by media depictions of fringe fundamentalists, 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' has gotten a bad name in some circles.

The fact is that the vast majority of the followers of this particular strand of Christianity are regular folks, including many famous people. Donny and Marie Osmond, stars of their own 1970's variety show as teens and now again thanks to recent appearances on the popular "Dancing With the Stars" program are part of perhaps the most famous American Mormon family.

Others who have either been raised in or converted to the faith include the man recently selected as the best 2nd baseman of the 2000's, Jeff Kent, who may one day be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. They also include the recent popular "American Idol' runner-up David Archuleta. And child actor turned adult drama TV star Rick Schroeder converted to the church of which his wife has been a lifelong member.

Perhaps the most important and influential member of the church is former Massachusetts Governor and leading Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. That importance comes from the fact of his legitimacy as a presidential candidate for a major political party. During the 2008 election cycle, Romney ran a year-long campaign during which he won the Michigan and Nevada primaries among the 11 state primaries and caucuses that he won before dropping out in February of '08.

There have been some who have criticized Romney's faith as 'fraud' and wondered how, if he truly believes in the LDS (Latter-Day Saints) tenets as a man he can be taken seriously as a candidate. That is ridiculous on it's face. It's not like he is worshiping an alien mother ship. And his faith should certainly be no more an obstacle than was that of John F. Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960 or any other Christian believer.

In running for the presidency and having his Catholicism brought up, Kennedy responded famously: "..if the time should ever come when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." Mitt Romney has taken up that challenge and said that he would "no more take orders from Salt Lake City than Kennedy would from Rome."

That should be the end of that story, unless of course you find something mainstream about Catholicism and crazy about the LDS faith. So what do you know about 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'? It's time to take a look at some of the key elements of that faith system, explore the legends and the fringe elements, and give you a more realistic picture than what you might have currently in mind.

Let's start with the word 'Mormon' itself, which is generally accepted to mean "more good" and which was described that way first by either Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS movement, or another early church leader. W.W. Phelps. It is also the name of the narrator of the 'Book of Mormon', the Bible-esque sacred text of the church first published by Smith in 1830.

The Book of Mormon is widely regarded within the church as not just sacred scripture, but also as a history of God's relationship with His church in the Americas going back over a 1,000 year period. Smith claims that he received the book from an angel in 1827. It was written on what were called 'golden plates', the originals of which Smith had to return to the angel after translation into English.

The main theme of both the book and the faith is described in it's title page: "convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." The book teaches at one point that after his resurrection, Jesus visited some of the early inhabitants of the Americas.

It goes on to teach that Jesus is: "God himself who shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people, being the Father and the Son — the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son — and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."

Along with solid Christian themes, the book delves into political and philosophical areas, especially in regards to the idea of American exceptionalism. It calls America a "land of promise", and perhaps in what could be a warning to our current time it teaches that "any righteous society possessing the land would be protected, whereas if they became wicked they would be destroyed and replaced with a more righteous civilization."

Joseph Smith himself was born in Vermont in 1805. In 1823 he claims to have been visited by the angel 'Moroni' who was the guardian of and who first revealed the 'golden plates' to Smith, and who eventually allowed Smith to dig them up and translate them. The translation was completed in 1830, and the Book of Mormon was then first published and the 'Church of Christ' was first formed.

The church in it's earliest days under Smith's leadership grew through periods of drama and scandal spreading from New York through to Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois among other stops. Many of it's early leaders who would go on to become legendary figures, such as Brigham Young, came to the church in these years. It was in Illinois in 1844 that Smith met his end, assassinated by an anti-Mormon group inspired in part by his embracing and teaching of polygamy.

One idea that had triggered much hatred towards the Mormons was this introduction of 'the Principle' of plural marriage, popularly known as the practice of polygamy. Smith claimed to be inspired to the practice himself, and it is thus still practiced today by fundamentalist Mormons who believe that they should practice the faith in the way that Smith did. The LDS church officially banned polygamy in 1890 after it was officially declared illegal, and any church member now caught practicing it is excommunicated.

While it is these fundamentalist sects that draw much attention from the government and the sensationalist headline-seeking news media, and while it also is the main story line of "Big Love", this relatively small segment does not represent mainstream modern day LDS beliefs. The bottom line is that the LDS church is a Christian church, it has over 13 million members worldwide, is the 2nd-fastest growing church in America, it believes in the divinity of and teachings of Christ, and is as 'mainstream' as any other Christian faith.

As most everyone who follows this little blog of mine knows, I am a Catholic through and through, and I would enthusiastically encourage every single member of the LDS church, any other Christian church, and any other faith system at all to closely explore and strongly consider joining what I believe to be God's one true church. Catholicism is where I believe the best interpretations of his Word can be found. But for all it's critics out there, the fact of the matter on the LDS church is that Mormons are Christians too.

Shameful Che Shirts

Do you own, or have you owned and worn, or know someone who owns and has worn one of those allegedly 'cool' Che Guevara t-shirts? Do you know the reason that the shirt was being worn? Does the image on the shirt actually stand for something? Do you even know who Che Guevara really was?

The 'Che Guevara' t-shirt and image has become a symbol of sorts for all that is 'counter-cultural'. It is often meant as a protest symbol for those who feel that the 'little man' is being intentionally repressed in some way by government and/or business.

Wanting to help those who are less fortunate than we are is a noble sentiment. So is wanting to effect positive changes on a government or on a society that has become repressive or abusive to it's citizens. So what exactly does that have to do with America, the most free country in the history of the world? And why on earth would this man be an appropriate symbol for such protests anyway?

Ernesto 'Che' Gevara was born in 1928 in the South American country of Argentina to parents of mixed Spanish and Irish heritage. He was brought up in a very political and intellectual environment, and became a reader of the works and teachings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin at an early age.

In 1951 he took a year off before entering medical school in order to travel around South America on a motorcycle. During this trip he experienced first-hand the poverty in much of the land, and as a result ultimately wrote 'The Motorcycle Diaries' in regards to the trip. The book was subsequently made into a major release film in 2004.

As Guevara matured into manhood his views became more and more radical, and he eventually established the stated viewpoint that Marxism achieved through armed struggle and defended by an armed populace was the only way to rectify what he believed had become 'American imperialism' in Latin America.

Of course the true facts were that in nearly the entirety of South America, poverty was endemic, and ruling regimes in nearly every country had for centuries failed to bring about positive change due to greed for power and controlled material wealth for the privileged few.

Any American efforts to change those conditions in order to ultimately help the people by establishing democracy and capitalism was seen as interference, or 'imperialism', trying to impose our ways on others. The motives of the American government and business were always painted as self-serving when the truth was that true capitalist democratic change would indeed be good for both North and South American peoples.

The fact is that Latin American people would indeed be freer and have a better chance at sustained economic growth under truly democratic forms of government that adopted capitalist economic systems. But the power-hungry South American rulers would not let that happen, in fact would consider such a statement as paternalistically insulting, and so used and still use propaganda to paint America as a big bully and themselves as poor peasants who just want to be left alone.

It was within this atmosphere that Guevara moved his family to Mexico City in 1954, and a year later he was introduced through some Cuban exile friends to a man by the name of Fidel Castro. He was immediately swayed by Castro's militant revolutionary ideas and began serious military training in guerrilla warfare tactics.

He went with Castro to participate in the violent overthrow of the Cuban government in the late 1950's, becoming an integral leader of the rebel army. He became feared for his brutality and ruthlessness, torturing or executing anyone whom he deemed a traitor, spy, or deserter. Finally the Castro forces were able to defeat and overthrow the Cuban government and took control of Havana in January of 1959.

On taking charge, Guevara was put in charge by Castro of sorting out and punishing all political enemies and 'war criminals'. In this role, Che Guevara oversaw and even participated in the killing of hundreds of people without due process. Guevara was then later put in charge of the economy, and began to install his beloved socialist values. As always happens with such socialist systems, his programs ended in the abject failure of decreased productivity and increased dependency on the government. The Cuban economy remains in shambles to this day.

During the 1960's he became the principle voice and actor in establishing and growing the Cuban-Soviet relationship that brought Soviet ballistic missiles to the island nation just a hundred miles from the Florida coast. As history tells us, this led to the single closest experience the world would ever come to all-out nuclear war.

When the Soviets finally backed down from the Kennedy administration and withdrew the missiles, Che became enraged at what he called their betrayal, and he turned against them. He stated that had the nuclear-armed missiles been under Cuban control, he would have fired them off against the Americans. During the course of his adult life, Guevara was possibly the most vocally anti-American individual in history.

Ultimately Guevara would travel all around the world trying to educate himself on Marxist, communist, socialist, and terrorist ideals and tactics. His trips would take him to places as disparate as China, Egypt, and Ireland. He would lend his hand to Marxist revolutionary efforts in the Congo in Africa and back in South America in Bolivia. It was there that he was finally captured and executed in October of 1967.

During his lifetime, Che Guevara was closely involved with or directly responsible for violent government overthrow, torture, execution and overall destruction to humanity on a massive scale. None of his efforts were ever successful at helping any group of citizens lead a safer, happier, more secure life. In fact, his policies and actions in Cuba and other parts of the world led to death and disillusionment for millions. In the end, like Mao and Lenin and numerous others, he was a failed socialist murderer.

So this is the man whose image the 'counter-culture' has deemed as 'cool' to wear on a t-shirt. At least in South America they are beginning to get it. A recent popular t-shirt worn by youth in Argentina mocked "I have a Che tshirt and I don't know why", capturing perfectly the question for any young American who would ever display his image. Why are you wearing that shameful Che shirt?

American Political Revolution

It might be a bit too premature and over dramatic to use such terms, but it is not very difficult to make the case that what happened yesterday in Massachusetts is not some isolated election anomaly, but part of a burgeoning nationwide American political revolution.

Since Republican Henry Cabot Lodge was defeated by a young, upstart politician named John F. Kennedy in November of 1952 and left office in January of '53, at least one of Massachusetts' two U.S. Senators has been a Democrat. Two years after JFK was elected to the Presidency in 1960, his brother Ted Kennedy assumed the seat and owned it until his death last year.

The other Massachusetts Senatorial spot was won by Paul Tsongas for the Democrats in 1979. He was succeeded in 1985 by ultra-liberal John Kerry, and so the Democrats have had solid control of both U.S. Senatorial seats from Massachusetts for a generation. In what has to be a stunning, bitter, ironic defeat for the Dems, the seat virtually owned by the Kennedy's and controlled by liberal interests for over a half century was lost yesterday.

In the special election held yesterday to replace the deceased 'Lion of the Senate', 50-year old Scott Brown was chosen by the previously reliable voters of Massachusetts to become the first Republican U.S. Senator to represent the commonwealth in three decades.

It is that very idea of previously 'reliable' voters rising up and throwing out the candidates presented by their political party, particularly the Democratic Party at this time, that leads to the notion that there is something more brewing here than simple dissatisfaction in local politics.

A year ago today, Barack Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. The first minority to hold the office, Obama was elected after a campaign that promised to "fundamentally change America" in his very own words.

It has become abundantly clear in the ensuing year that what Obama and his ultra-liberal congressional leaders, U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi from California and U.S. Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, consider 'Change' is very different from what the vast majority of those who elected him expected.

The majority of voters are generally 'centrists' who do not adhere to any political idealogy on a stringent basis in their daily lives. They may be generally conservative in nature, such as myself and most Republicans, or generally liberal, as most Democrats, but they begin to get very turned off when the far-end of either party begins to attempt to assert control over their lives.

The voters should have understood what Obama meant by his 'Change' because he was really no secret. By every measure he was the most far-left of the liberal Democratic U.S. Senators. His personal, educational, social, and political associations were all at least bordering on socialist and communist. He is certainly the single most politically progressive individual to ever hold the highest office in the land.

But the fact is that the majority of voters just didn't get it. They were wooed by Obama's dynamic public speaking ability and by a liberal-dominated mass media into buying into the notion that he would simply be a compassionate, intellectual alternative to lead a younger generation of Americans forward in a changing world.

Instead, what Obama did was almost immediately undertake a radical policy to have the federal government take over large swaths of American private industry. He and his political allies who are currently in control of Congress and the Senate have taken what was already huge public debt and driven it to irresponsible levels. This will undoubtedly lead to massive tax increases in the coming months and years.

Many people now believe this is an intentional attempt to collapse the American financial system and lead to complete government control of most or all sectors of public life including the financial, labor, health, educational, and media systems.

None of these actions are in compliance with the stated intent or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution or the traditional American precepts of self-reliance and independence. As the year has worn on, Americans finally began to sit up, take notice, and then stand up to be heard.

At what became known as 'Tea Parties' and at town hall meetings across the country, Americans let their elected officials and representatives of the Obama administration know that they were not happy with the direction in which the country was heading. Rather than pay heed to the obvious discontent fomenting among the people, the arrogant politicians plowed on with their plans, often publicly stating that they didn't care what the people want.

Then came the fall, and election season. In New Jersey, uber-rich, ultra-liberal incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell ousted liberal Tim Kaine from the Governor's seat held by the Dems for eight years. The issues and personalities were indeed local, but in both instances reflected national opinions and trends.

For months now, almost every single reliable poll taken across the country has shown great dissatisfaction among the electorate with the programs and the policies undertaken by Obama and being plowed through congress by his lock-step Democratic Party cohorts. The polls are showing that the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were akin to tremors preceding an earthquake. What happened yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election is the strongest in what is now a continuing series of these tremors.

What seems crystal clear at this point is that traditional American values are under attack, and Americans have had enough of both parties. Going forward, at least in the short term, it appears that no incumbent who ignores their electorate is safe. Americans don't want party politics as usual, they want people who will speak the truth to them, and who will respond to them. Either that, or the people will resort to the old political axiom of 'throw the bums out'.

This coming fall Americans will go to the polls all across the nation in what will be pivotal times for the future of the country. Will the United States continue to slide closer and closer to full-blown socialism by keeping the current liberals running the Democratic Party in control? Or will the American political revolution begun at the 2009 tea parties and town halls, carried into Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, lead to a reclaiming of traditional America?

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

At some point when I was a young boy, I learned that Bobby Kennedy and I had shared the same birthday. This was in the early 1970's, when I was about 11 or 12 years old. At that point I really had no idea who he was, or that he had an older brother who had been an American President who had also been assassinated.

I actually do have a childhood memory of the 1968 U.S. Presidential election. I have a memory of living on American Street in South Philly, and most of the families that lived around us rooting for the Democratic Party candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey, to win the election against Republican Party candidate Richard M. Nixon.

While I didn't understand politics on any level, I sensed a strong 'vibe' from the adults both in my own family and my friends' families that this was a big deal. It was important in some way. It mattered. And since my people were rooting for Humphrey, well then, so was little soon-to-be 7 years old Matt Veasey.

As history tells us, Humphrey lost. I actually remember having the feeling for the first time in my young life of disappointment. I had no clue how all of the people around me could possibly be rooting for someone and expecting them to win, and then having that person lose. It just did not compute in my young mind, and I was disheartened.

Of course, as I said, I was about to turn 7 years old in just a few weeks. Between my birthday coming up, then Christmas, and the early months of 2nd grade at Our Lady of Mount Carmel catholic school with the gorgeous Ms. Sarah Hillock as my teacher, there was plenty to distract me in short order and take my attention away from a silly election.

Despite having that impression of the 1968 election, I have no first-hand memory of the vital national events that had happened earlier that same year with first the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and then of Robert Kennedy. It was only by somehow randomly stumbling upon the fact of our shared birthday a few years later that I began my own infatuation with the Kennedy's that would last for decades.

I began by going to my local library, and taking out and reading a book on RFK's life. I honestly don't recall which book it was, just that the impression left on my pre-teen mind was that it was a substantial book, a 'hardcover', which I had not read many of to that point, with lots of pages and pictures.

That book was also the likely beginning of a love affair that continues to this day, one that I have with non-fiction books, especially histories and biographies. I read and learned about both Bobby and his life and assassination, but also about his brother John, who had actually been President, and John's own assassination

This initial reading of the Kennedy brothers led me to become interested and pursue reading about JFK, Jackie, and 'Camelot', the nickname given to his brief Presidential term. Much of what I read made heroes of the two men, and I took on a popular belief of the times that JFK had been the victim of a conspiracy. No way could a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, have pulled off the murder alone.

All of this pursuit of knowledge about the lives of JFK, RFK and their families and times came over the course of my later grade school years and through my high school years. I had also, of course, learned that they had a younger brother, Edward 'Ted' Kennedy who had followed his brother's paths into politics.

In November of 1979 I turned 18 years old, and so the following spring, in May of 1980, for the first time ever was allowed to vote in a Presidential election. I was a Democratic Party loyalist and socially liberal idealist in those days, and so I was registered with and would be voting in the primary for the Democratic Party candidate.

The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination was the current President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. A peanut farmer and former Governor of Georgia, Carter had a largely disappointing first term, and was being considerably weakened by a foreign affairs crisis in which radical Islamists had taken American citizens hostage in Iran.

Incredibly for me, especially considering my now fully developed admiration of the Kennedys, his leading opponent would be that younger Kennedy brother Ted. Just weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, Kennedy actually came to Philadelphia and made a downtown lunch-hour speech right near my workplace. I was able to slip out of my office at First Pennsylvania Bank and attend the speech in person, standing just feet from the stage.

When the date of April 22nd, 1980 rolled around, I slipped behind the curtain of my local polling booth where I was then living in suburban Prospect Park, PA and pulled the lever for Edward 'Ted' Kennedy. I remember being excited to have the opportunity to vote, but also of being completely satisfied by the experience thanks to the Kennedy factor.

On that day, Kennedy was indeed the winner, easily taking the Pennsylvania primary. He would also count wins in New York and California for his column. Unfortunately, it was Carter who would easily take the Dem Party nomination, eventually defeating Kennedy by a 51-38 margin in the popular vote and easily receiving the Party nomination at the convention.

Carter would go on to be crushed under the weight of a perceived weak response to the Iran-hostage crisis and by an economy crippled by oil shortages and inflation. Ronald Reagan swept into office and began what became known as the 'Reagan Revolution', with Republicans taking charge of Congress for the first time in decades.

As for me, I continued as a card-carrying liberal Democrat throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's, and even after fully transforming into a conservative Republican while riding the wave of the Newt Gingrich led 'Contract With America', I still held the view that the JFK assassination was likely a conspiracy.

The beginning of the end of my Kennedy fandom had come some years earlier when I first began to learn about and read up on the incident at Chappaquiddick island. On July 18th, 1969 in the so-called 'Summer of Love', Ted Kennedy attended a party held on the small island which was attached to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts.

The party was a reunion for some female members of his brother Bobby's campaign staff, including Mary Jo Kopechne who was just about a week shy of her 28th birthday. As the married Kennedy went to leave the party at around 11:15pm, he agreed to give Kopechne a ride back to her hotel. An off-duty sheriff saw them over an hour later stopped on a dark road. When he approached to see if they needed help, the car suddenly took off.

A short time later, Kennedy drove the car off a small wooden bridge and into Poucha Pond. He escaped the sinking vehicle and walked back to the party as Kopechne remained trapped inside, clawing at the inside of the roof of the sinking car. He later returned to his hotel room and went to sleep, never reporting the accident. A couple of fishermen discovered the submerged car the following day.

I had never heard of this incident as a child, and never researched it as a young adult. It was only further along in my adult life that I learned of all the details in what amounted to a drunk driving episode in which Kennedy's female passenger, with whom he was likely engaging in some type of extra-marital sexual conduct, had been killed.

His culpability in the incident was largely covered up by his family's wealth and power, though the incident did derail expected 1972 and 1976 runs for the Presidency. It wasn't just Chappaquiddick, but numerous other Teddy drunken transgressions that emerged in my consciousness. During the 1990's I also became aware of numerous chinks in the 'Camelot' armor as well, as sensational stories of John and Bobby involving Marilyn Monroe and others emerged.

When the motion picture 'JFK' was released in 1991, I saw the Kevin Costner vehicle as proving, at least reinforcing, all of my Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and beliefs. Those would be quickly dispelled as reports came out refuting much of the film's historicity. The final nail in the coffin of those conspiracy theories was my reading of the Gerald Posner book 'Case Closed', which completely dismantled all of those theories and leaves you understanding with no doubt that Oswald did indeed act alone.

The bottom line is that the Kennedy's had evolved, or perhaps devolved, in my consciousness. From childhood and adolescent heroes they had become political icons in the idealism of my young adulthood. Finally, my own political conversion and intellectual development had led me to see them for what they truly were: flawed men.

There is nothing wrong with being a flawed man. Heck, I'm one, and so is any man or woman who is reading this piece. But when Edward 'Ted' Kennedy passed away last week at the age of 77, I felt little remorse for the man for whom I had cast my first-ever Presidential vote. I did not share even a little in the remembrances and platitudes being publicly heaped upon him in the media.

To me, Teddy Kennedy at the time of his death had become a bloated, pompous, lying, cheating, drunken jerk who kept his political power due to his family's fortune and power and by cow-towing to every liberal group that came down the pike. Worse yet, one who had gotten away with drunk driving and negligent homicide. And even worse yet, the vast majority of those feting him knew it and still applauded his life.

I will never dance on another man's grave. But for me, Ted Kennedy is no loss. What I can look back on as a true loss is that vote that I gave him nearly three decades ago. A vote that he got because others led me to believe he was something that he was not, as well as because I was willing to listen to those talking heads and misleading journalists and scribes.

The man who had become known over the years as 'The Lion of the Senate' will roar no more. The 'Lion' sleeps tonight. RIP, Ted Kennedy. RIP also to my own personal political innocence and naivete.

Man on the Moon

Today is the 40th anniversary of what remains the greatest single technological feat that mankind has ever achieved. It was forty years ago today that American astronaut Neil Armstrong took that first step on to the surface of the moon, and uttered the iconic words: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!"

Armstrong had become the first human being to ever set foot on another world outside of the earth.

On July 20th, 1969, the crew of Apollo 11 orbited the moon, after having left behind their home planet Earth just four days earlier. They were on the verge of the most spectacular achievement in man's history. Since our creation, man has looked up at the glowing disc in the night sky and dreamed. At first those dreams involved the nature and the meaning of the object. Then the moon became an object of study, particularly as to it's relationship to Earth. Finally, it had become a destination.

Now, here were three Americans: Neil Armstrong, Ed 'Buzz' Aldrin, and Michael Collins, actually flying above that moon and preparing to land on it. Collins would draw the role of staying behind in order to pilot the command module 'Columbia', while Armstrong and Aldrin would actually descend in the 'Eagle' landing module to the moon's surface. They had the full resources of NASA, the National Aeronauticas and Space Administration, behind them, but they were very much on their own in so many ways.

The process to reach that point had been ongoing for decades. It began with the creation of rockets, and moved onward as those rockets were made larger and more powerful, capable of traveling further and further. Finally, man developed the technologies and the courage to enter outer space, that vast area outside of the protective atmosphere of the only planet we had ever known intimately.

President John F. Kennedy, slain by an assassin's bullet almost six years earlier, had set the ball in motion when on May 25th, 1961 he uttered the great challenge: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Six months later, I was born. Two and a half years later, Kennedy would lie dead. But his vision and goal of landing on the moon would become the passion of thousands.

I remember well the excitement leading up to the moon landing. I was just 7 years old in that summer of 1969, and far too young to understand most of the incredible changes that were happening to our country in those days. The inner city race riots as the Civil Rights movement marched forward, the murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, the Vietnam War. These things meant nothing to me at that age. But the moon landing, this was huge to the imagination of a young boy.

My parents allowed my brother Mike, who had just turned 6, and myself to stay awake past our usual bed times on that Sunday night to watch this historic event. I recall sitting mesmerized at the entire proceeding as it unfolded on the black and white television picture in our living room on American Street in South Philadelphia. There was a lot of language that was over my head, but I was getting the idea.

At a few minutes before 11:00pm our time, Armstrong took that final step down the ladder from the Eagle and spoke those words. And I joined over 600 million people around the world in viewing grainy black and white pictures of the exact moment that a man stepped on to another world, out on to that glowing night disc that we still look up at each night. We had fulfilled President Kennedy's great goal with a little more than five months to spare.

I remember following as much of the mission as I possibly could in the following weeks on both television and in the newspapers, culminating in the dramatic return home of the astronauts that was capped by their capsule splashing down into the Pacific Ocean on July 24th.

Over the next few years, following subsequent Apollo moon missions was something that I always anticipated with excitement and thoroughly enjoyed. There were five more after Apollo 11, all of which took groups of men to the moon and back, over the next three years. On December 14th, 1972, the Commander of Apollo 17, Eugene Cernan, lifted his foot off the surface of the moon. No human being has stepped foot on any celestial object in the ensuing 37 years.

I still to this day remember the excitement, the thrill, the wonder of those days in the summer of 1969, as I stood outside and looked up at the moon as billions of men, women and children had for mellenia before me done, and was able for the first time to know that other men were up there walking around, working, talking, living.

I hope that sometime before my time on the Earth is up, that I again get to see men travel to another world. There are already missions being planned for man to return to the moon in the next decade, and then in the early planning stages for a possible trip to the planet Mars within 2-3 decades. Those would be missions of wonder for my children and grandchildren to share.

May God bless mankind with the courage, the wisdom, the vision, the ability, the resources, the technology, and the determination to continue to reach out beyond our world, and to explore the vast greatness and the majestic wonders that He has created. As a wonderful, old television show of those Apollo days said: "To boldly go where no man has gone before!"

Tribute to America's War Heroes

More than most nations, America has been, from its start, a hero-loving place. Maybe part of the reason is that at our founding we were a Protestant nation and not a Catholic one, and so we made "saints" of civil and political figures.

George Washington was our first national hero, known everywhere, famous to children. When he died, we had our first true national mourning, with cities and states re-enacting his funeral. There was the genius cluster that surrounded him, and invented us—Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton.

Through much of the 20th century our famous heroes were in sports (Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, the Babe, Joltin' Joe) the arts (Clark Gable, Robert Frost) business and philanthropy (from Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates) and religion (Billy Graham). Nobody does fame like America, and they were famous.

The category of military hero—warrior—fell off a bit, in part because of the bad reputation of war. Some emerged of heroic size — Gens. Pershing and Patton, Eisenhower and Marshall. But somewhere in the 1960s I think we decided, or the makers of our culture decided, that to celebrate great warriors was to encourage war. And we always have too much of that. So they made a lot of movies depicting soldiers as victims and officers as brutish. This was especially true in the Vietnam era and the years that followed. Maybe a correction was in order: It's good to remember war is hell. But when we removed the warrior, we removed something intensely human, something ancestral and stirring, something celebrated naturally throughout the long history of man. Also it was ungrateful: They put themselves in harm's way for us.

For Memorial Day, then, three warriors, two previously celebrated but not so known now by the young.

Alvin York was born in 1887 into a Tennessee farming family that didn't have much, but nobody else did, so it wasn't so bad. He was the third of 11 children and had an average life for that time and place. Then World War I came. He experienced a crisis of conscience over whether to fight. His mother's Evangelical church tugged him toward more or less pacifist thinking, but he got a draft notice in 1917, joined the Army, went overseas, read and reread his Bible, and concluded that warfare was sometimes justified.

In the battle of the Argonne in October 1918, the allies were attempting to break German lines when York and his men came upon well-hidden machine guns on high ground. As he later put it, "The Germans got us, and they got us right smart . . . and I'm telling you they were shooting straight." American soldiers "just went down like the long grass before the mowing machine at home."

But Cpl. York and his men went behind the German lines, overran a unit, and captured the enemy. Suddenly there was new machine-gun fire from a ridge, and six Americans went down. York was in command, exposed but cool, and he began to shoot. "All I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting. . . . All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to." A German officer tried to empty his gun into York while York fired. He failed but York succeeded, the Germans surrendered, and York and his small band marched 132 German prisoners back to the American lines.

His Medal of Honor citation called him fearless, daring and heroic.

Warriors are funny people. They're often naturally peaceable, and often do great good when they return. York went home to Tennessee, married, founded an agricultural institute (it's still operating as an award-winning public high school) and a Bible school. They made a movie about him in 1941, the great Howard Hawks film "Sergeant York." If you are in Manhattan this week, you may walk down York Avenue on the Upper East Side. It was named for him. He died in Nashville in 1964 at 77.

Once, 25 years ago, my father (U.S. Army, replacement troops, Italy, 1945) visited Washington, a town he'd never been to. There was a lot to see: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial. But he just wanted to see one thing, Audie Murphy's grave.

Audie Leon Murphy was born in 1924 or 1926 (more on that in a moment) the sixth of 12 children of a Texas sharecropper. It was all hardscrabble for him: father left, mother died, no education, working in the fields from adolescence on. He was good with a hunting rifle: he said that when he wasn't, his family didn't eat, so yeah, he had to be good. He tried to join the Army after Pearl Harbor, was turned away as underage, came back the next year claiming to be 18 (he was probably 16) and went on to a busy war, seeing action as an infantryman in Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. Then came southern France, where the Germans made the mistake of shooting Audie Murphy's best friend, Lattie Tipton. Murphy wiped out the machine gun crew that did it.

On Jan. 26, 1945, Lt. Murphy was engaged in a battle in which his unit took heavy fire and he was wounded. He ordered his men back. From his Medal of Honor citation: "Behind him . . . one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back."

Murphy returned to Texas a legend. He was also 5-foot-7, having grown two inches while away. He became an actor (44 films, mostly Westerns) and businessman. He died in a plane crash in 1971 and was buried with full honors at Arlington, but he did a warrior-like thing. He asked that the gold leaf normally put on the gravestone of a Medal of Honor recipient not be used. He wanted a plain GI headstone. Some worried this might make his grave harder to find. My father found it, and he was not alone. Audie Murphy's grave is the most visited site at Arlington with the exception of John F. Kennedy's eternal flame.

I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century challenges. I mentioned that Chuck (pictured above) had been shot down over Vietnam on his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general.

When I said "2,488 days," a number of people in the audience went "Oh!" I heard it up on the podium. They didn't know because he doesn't talk about it, and when asked to, he treats it like nothing, a long night at a bad inn. Warriors always do that. They all deserve the "Oh!"

WRITTEN by Peggy Noonan originally as "Those Who Make Us Say 'Oh'!" for the Wall Street Journal on May 23rd, 2009