America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story

5 Responses to “America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story”

1. P. Benedek says:

   March 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm

   Never received the book. According to the info I received, USPS returned the book because it was damaged and there was no replacement available. The order was cancelled and my money was returned. I had no option to re-order…I would still like to get this book when it becomes available
   Rating: 1 / 5
2. Brian says:

   March 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm

   I read the book as I do most, by thumbing through the index. You can tell a lot by an index, yet you can tell a lot by a book with an introduction-or lack of one. Then of course there’s the chapters. The more I read, the more I hated the book. For someone who went Yale University and the University of Cambridge, Feiler should’ve known better to take advantage of his readers. The Title “America’s Prophet:Moses And the American Story” is just that, a title, I thought of great titles too, and yet community college taught me a good research paper has a good thesis statement. Then it should be developed using arguments. Feiler’s theoretical argument should’ve been in that missing introduction. That was the moment to throw every Book of the Bible and fill out a nice history of America and who exactly Moses was,-which his is severely lacking. Then of course the research. Mountains of mountains of research of America. Its not there. What emerges is the Autobiography of Bruce Feiler a stream of consciousness into American History. He has some awesome times at Thanksgiving, that’s in the beginning of the book, then he has some awesome times at Thanksgiving, that’s at the end of the book, I know his love of the Bible is great, but I do think that’s taking the passage “the last shall be first, and the first shall be last,” a bit much. In the Chapter “Let My People Go”, the Autobiography continues, as Feiler does the reenactment of the Underground Railroad. The title of the chapter is a quote attributed to Harriet Tubman and Negro Spirituals, yet Feiler puts his little slavery skit first, then like a river it breaks off into the retelling of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, so you never get to a realized chapter on How Tubman is called the “Moses of her People.” What’s the chapter for, then? I both laughed through that part and was angry that it wasn’t in the index. I was deeply offended by this chapter, that A. he thinks Stowe’s characters are real, B. That is was inspired by Moses-it wasn’t it was a response to the Fugitive Slave Act and Daniel Webster’s abdication of the slavery issue in the Compromise of 1850(see Webster-Hayne Debate), and C.like no one cared about slavery till Lincoln and Frederick Douglas showed up, when there’s able evidence from the Webster-Hayne Debate in 1830, John C. Calhoun’s career, the Wilmot Proviso and the Mexican War, J. Q. Adams opposing the gag rule,the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to the contrary, everything was dedicated to the balance of free vs. slave states and “liberty and union,” itself. Then there’s wordy parts on famous world leaders-er, demagogues, whatever, like Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Adolph Hitler, a German dictator, Karl Marx the philosopher, and only one page on them. Why are they even there, if its on America? Sticking with the Moses theme, the book talks about anecdotes without rhyme or reason, of Dr. King saying he’s going to die the same way as President Kennedy. Dr. King led the Exodus of his people to the promised land of civil rights, but I wish the author could’ve said a word or two about the Exodus of Black America before King, i.e., the Black Migration to the Northern cities. That would’ve been a good interlude between civil war and civil rights, and kept the pace going;other Exoduses like Mormons,Trail of Tears,Manifest Destiny get the axe.this is sad because America is God’s place on Earth,so it has been argued, and Manifest Destiny was about working God’s land and converting the Indians to Christianity, that could’ve led to a Moses theme had it been developed. There’s a lot of in passing references of major figures like Kennedy,William Penn,Woodrow Wilson,Andrew Jackson,Harvey Milk, that are given minor sentences, it reminded me of a college student needing to pass but okay if its a C. The fact that he’s trying to break new ground is another thing, we’re a religious nation too be sure, but a Moses led nation, where rugged individualism is its other signature,where we denied Catholics the presidency for a long time, and more recently Mormons, at least in the Republican primaries, I don’t think so. He may’ve walked the Bible, but I’ve walked the Freedom Trail,and Civil War battlefields, and America is so much more.
   
   
   Rating: 2 / 5
3. R. Riis says:

   March 16, 2010 at 7:18 pm

   I enjoyed this book, but the point that the story of Moses and the Exodus resonates throughout American history and symbology is made early on and basically repeated throughout. Feiler’s previous books stand up a bit better against this one.
   Rating: 3 / 5
4. Russell Sims says:

   March 16, 2010 at 9:20 pm

   While somewhat entertaining and interesting, the lack of honest research caused me to put the book away before finishing. The author first buys into the theory that the Bible has been mistranslated and that the Israelites crossed through the “Reed Sea” instead of the “Red Sea.” Obvioulsy, this is on the fringe of Biblical research. Then he discusses freemasonry and presents as fact ideas that he must have gotten from a two page flyer written by someone in Hollywood. Finally, he calls George Washington a “luke warm Episcopalian” who “never took communion” and a “quasi-deist” while discussing Washington’s belief in divine providence. The slightest understanding of what a deist is would rule out any discussion of divine providence and the smallest amount of research would enlighten the author as to Washington’s true leanings in regards to religion. The author makes some great comparisons between events in American history and the Exodus, but the fact that he fumbles such easily uncovered historical truths, leads me to question the remainder of his research.
   Rating: 2 / 5
5. David M. Dougherty says:

   March 16, 2010 at 9:55 pm

   I am very conflicted over this book which is a good indication of its power to stimulate thought and discussion. For that reason I gave it four stars. Otherwise the book is repetitive, and hammers away at a theme that is certainly true in part, but not all-emcompassing as the author makes out.

   Simply put, the theme is that Moses and his actions, relation with God, and the conflict between deliverance and redemption define America.

   Well, it is simply true that the Protestant movement from the six European nations that populated North America certainly was more oriented towards the Old Testament than the New. The Israelites moved into Canaan, slaughtering its inhabitants at will and fighting all those who opposed them. That, and the Old Testament’s treatment of slavery, gave justification to the colonists’ actions, and actually gave them divine authority to do what they did. Can’t get better than that. The New Testament preached love and forgiveness — something the colonists could not afford with the indigious Indians and black slaves.

   A problem arises with this when one considers the Law of God as given to Moses as a further defining force. Unfortunately for the author’s thesis, Common Law reigned supreme in the colonies — law developed upwards from the will of the people rather than Civil Law descending upon them from some god, king, emperor, or supreme religious authority. Hebrew Law is Civil Law, not Common Law, and here the theme falls into a bottomless pit. It must be remembered that government (and law) by definition restricts individual liberty. But is it God’s Law or the People’s Law. For Lincoln, everything came from the people following certain principles (e.g. the Ten Commandments) as modified by the people.

   Then comes redemption from passing through a time of troubles and punishment like the Civil War for slavery. The author contends the North followed Moses in freeing the slaves (leading them out of bondage), while the South followed Moses by leading its people out of a union that threatened it’s people’s rights. Sounds interesting, but is clearly overblown. It would seem that any change from the status quo can be defined as resulting from a movement attempting to lead the people out of a supposedly bad situation into one that is good by definition. Obama is now the new Moses leading the United States out of the straight-jacket of capitalism into the promised land of socialism. Really? Does that make him a prophet like Moses? Is he just following Moses as his modern-day reincarnation?

   Freeing the slaves could also be another Mosaic movement. But like I said earlier, every change can be force-fitted to the Moses story. But wait, there is more. The author defines the 20th century in America as the Jewish century, a possibility that must be examined. Certainly the Protestant forces, principally the Scotch-Irish and Presbyterians that fought for freedom in the Revolutionary War and also established the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, are no longer the driving force in American politics. The author admits the nation was 100% Christian in 1776, and only 80% Christian in 2000, but with less than 3% Jewish in 2000, are they really the predominant culture? Roman Catholicism had become the dominant religious demonination by far (65 million) and might want to contest that.

   Consider this: the author starts with Thanksgiving and a seder in a Jewish household and ends on the same religious note. Hundreds of movies produced by Hollywood feature Jewish events like Bar Mitzvahs, but when has a moviegoier seen a Protestant confirmation or baptism and confirmation? Or on TV? All baptisms now shown to popular audiences are of infants, and the vast majority in Catholic churches. Maybe the author has a point. The “Melting Pot”, as the author states, was a Jewish idea. Superman was created by two Jewish boys. Gee, wasn’t Karl Marx Jewish? And the majority of the Old Bolsheviks were Jewish. Even DeMille had a Jewish mother so must be considered Jewish. Martin Luther King, Jr., (like Frederick Douglass, Marcus Garvey and others) was emulating Moses by leading the Civil Rights Movement. And now we have Obama as Moses and Rahm Emanuel (with his dual citizenship from Israel and the US) as Joshua. So has Judiasm become the defining religion in the United States? The author certainly appears to think so — the Protestants and blacks are simple treading in Moses’s footsteps. Somehow I don’t buy it.

   Although there have been no poor ratings to date, I believe the theme is interesting, but history has been cherry-picked to support it. The Statue of Liberty was French, regardless of its Mosaic inferences. Thanksgiving has a large number of pagan harvest festivals for forerunners. And Moses was not even the first character in history (assuming Moses was historical) to lead his people from one location to another in search of new land or to escape pressure from another tribe. What about the homo sapiens that crossed from Africa to Asia in the Great Population Emigration? Were they led by Moses? The story of Moses may be timeless, but is hardly something Judiasm can claim as unique. Somehow, I think if you are Jewish you will find this book thrilling and uplifting. Christians, Moslems, and others, possibly less so.

   The dichotomy between deliverance and redemption seems forced, and the author could have related how Roman Generals while riding in their triumphs were constantly being told by a slave that all fame was fleeting. Yep, fame and success are temporary, and it is always possible to construct something relating to deliverance and something else to redemption at the same time. All empires fall, and few (it can be argued “none”) have endured more than 275 years. So the US will fall, probably into some five of six states divided by race, religion, language and ethnicity. I guess that will be punishment in the Biblical sense as part of our redemption. Whether you believe that depends on what you already believe.

   All in all, I recommend this book, but read it skeptically. It is an interesting departure point for discussion.
   
   
   Rating: 4 / 5