dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

I agree that time is a factor, but so is impact. It's cool to only focus on the evils of Christians, but we benefit immensely from their accomplishments (like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists). I don't think LDS has achieved that, unless you count Franklin-Covey. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, from what I understand.

Not sure this line of argument holds up. Focusing on the Christians, I guess you could chalk up some of the accomplishments of people like Descartes and Newton to their religion because they (at least sort of) said as much--though it could also be said that for someone like Newton in his time, he could either be a professing Christian or never even get a hearing.

But, say, Edison was a Christian (I think); did his Christianity have anything to do with his accomplishments? Same with Einstein, Freud, and most other "Jewish achievers" who might have identified culturally as Jews but weren't primarily or even secondarily motivated by faith.

That said, my "Cult + Time" formulation did leave something out--as God once told Homer Simpson, 85 percent of new religions fail in their first year. I don't know exactly what that is, though--life relevancy? Mormonism must have something to offer all those new adherents, which could make my comparison to Scientology (the appeal of which seems to have to do with the putatively empty spiritual lives of celebrities) unfair.

mpmcgraw wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

I agree that time is a factor, but so is impact. It's cool to only focus on the evils of Christians, but we benefit immensely from their accomplishments (like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists). I don't think LDS has achieved that, unless you count Franklin-Covey. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, from what I understand.

Not sure this line of argument holds up. Focusing on the Christians, I guess you could chalk up some of the accomplishments of people like Descartes and Newton to their religion because they (at least sort of) said as much--though it could also be said that for someone like Newton in his time, he could either be a professing Christian or never even get a hearing.

But, say, Edison was a Christian (I think); did his Christianity have anything to do with his accomplishments? Same with Einstein, Freud, and most other "Jewish achievers" who might have identified culturally as Jews but weren't primarily or even secondarily motivated by faith.

That said, my "Cult + Time" formulation did leave something out--as God once told Homer Simpson, 85 percent of new religions fail in their first year. I don't know exactly what that is, though--life relevancy? Mormonism must have something to offer all those new adherents, which could make my comparison to Scientology (the appeal of which seems to have to do with the putatively empty spiritual lives of celebrities) unfair.

America and the Constitution were founded on christian priniciples. Not an individual to credit, but the framers.

Laexile wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Romney dropping out and asking his delegates to swing behind McCain. The absurdly small bit of rationale behind Mike Huckabee's bid has disappeared.

A week ago Romney hated McCain. Now he's... flip-flopping.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:New Mex finally announces their Dem caucus winner... Hillary Clinton.

mpmcgraw wrote:America and the Constitution were founded on christian priniciples. Not an individual to credit, but the framers.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
...
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:New Mex finally announces their Dem caucus winner... Hillary Clinton.

dajafi wrote:The rest of the article goes a little further than I would, arguing essentially that most of the Framers weren't even "Christians" in the sense by which we mean the term today. I'm agnostic (ha ha) on that one--the biographies I've read of Adams, certainly, and perhaps Franklin suggest that they saw themselves as such, though not in the "this is ours and you who don't agree are lesser people" sense of today's Christianist Dobson/DeLay types.

But there's really nothing to support the "Christian principles" argument. It's the Enlightenment, baby!

Disco Stu wrote:Makes no sense Romney would officially endorse McCain. If Romney wants to try to pick up the ashes if McCain loses in 4 years, he'd do best to say, "See, we lost with this guy, I would have won!"

Phan In Phlorida wrote:The right is starting to get on Obama. Guess since McCain basically has the nod, they now get to do what they enjoy best... turn their sights on the Dems

A couple of faux radio spots that aired on Limbaugh's radio show today...

faux Obama radio spot 1

faux Obama radio spot 2

jerseyhoya wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:The right is starting to get on Obama. Guess since McCain basically has the nod, they now get to do what they enjoy best... turn their sights on the Dems

A couple of faux radio spots that aired on Limbaugh's radio show today...

faux Obama radio spot 1

faux Obama radio spot 2

My roommate and I both LOLed.

Disco Stu wrote:Did you guys use massage oil or not?

The Red Tornado wrote:I just want to rip my hair out when I see the constitution get broken like this and it's all gonna get swept under the rug by both parties.

Bakestar wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:I just want to rip my hair out when I see the constitution get broken like this and it's all gonna get swept under the rug by both parties.

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
<tousles hair>