[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: As a Catholic, I want to tread carefully on the issue of Mormonism. I don’t think of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jews, or other Christian sects as wacky. I have an issue with Islam, but largely because it is a religion designed to be proselytized by the sword, and offers no equal accommodation with other faiths, especially where it is the dominant religion.

There is a demonstrable historicity to Jesus. One can find proof of his existence, as well as his teachings, and his torture and death at the hands of the Romans. Does this make him the Son of God? No, but I believe he is.

My main issue with the Mormons is how this religion came into being. An angel named Moroni brought a set of golden plates down to earth for Joseph Smith to read and transcribe. Transcription was achieved by using magic goggles (also provided by Moroni). The Book of Mormon is the result of this event. The Book of Mormon makes some pretty fantastical representations (Jesus coming to America after his resurrection is one), and these have been debunked by historians and scholars over the years. And not just Christian historians and scholars. BYU (Brigham Young University) has spent considerable time and money trying to prove that the representations made in the Book of Mormon did in fact happen, but has failed utterly.

Again, as a Catholic, I want to be very careful in using the word “cult” as that finger can justifiably be pointed right back at us. However, Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest prior to the Schism, and his issue with the Church was not theological, rather it centered on abuses (bastard children, sale of indulgences, land holdings and sales, etc) that were wholly earthly in nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: As a Catholic, I want to tread carefully on the issue of Mormonism. I don’t think of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jews, or other Christian sects as wacky. I have an issue with Islam, but largely because it is a religion designed to be proselytized by the sword, and offers no equal accommodation with other faiths, especially where it is the dominant religion.

There is a demonstrable historicity to Jesus. One can find proof of his existence, as well as his teachings, and his torture and death at the hands of the Romans. Does this make him the Son of God? No, but I believe he is.

My main issue with the Mormons is how this religion came into being. An angel named Moroni brought a set of golden plates down to earth for Joseph Smith to read and transcribe. Transcription was achieved by using magic goggles (also provided by Moroni). The Book of Mormon is the result of this event. The Book of Mormon makes some pretty fantastical representations (Jesus coming to America after his resurrection is one), and these have been debunked by historians and scholars over the years. And not just Christian historians and scholars. BYU (Brigham Young University) has spent considerable time and money trying to prove that the representations made in the Book of Mormon did in fact happen, but has failed utterly.

Again, as a Catholic, I want to be very careful in using the word “cult” as that finger can justifiably be pointed right back at us. However, Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest prior to the Schism, and his issue with the Church was not theological, rather it centered on abuses (bastard children, sale of indulgences, land holdings and sales, etc) that were wholly earthly in nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: As a Catholic, I want to tread carefully on the issue of Mormonism. I don’t think of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jews, or other Christian sects as wacky. I have an issue with Islam, but largely because it is a religion designed to be proselytized by the sword, and offers no equal accommodation with other faiths, especially where it is the dominant religion.

There is a demonstrable historicity to Jesus. One can find proof of his existence, as well as his teachings, and his torture and death at the hands of the Romans. Does this make him the Son of God? No, but I believe he is.

My main issue with the Mormons is how this religion came into being. An angel named Moroni brought a set of golden plates down to earth for Joseph Smith to read and transcribe. Transcription was achieved by using magic goggles (also provided by Moroni). The Book of Mormon is the result of this event. The Book of Mormon makes some pretty fantastical representations (Jesus coming to America after his resurrection is one), and these have been debunked by historians and scholars over the years. And not just Christian historians and scholars. BYU (Brigham Young University) has spent considerable time and money trying to prove that the representations made in the Book of Mormon did in fact happen, but has failed utterly.

Again, as a Catholic, I want to be very careful in using the word “cult” as that finger can justifiably be pointed right back at us. However, Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest prior to the Schism, and his issue with the Church was not theological, rather it centered on abuses (bastard children, sale of indulgences, land holdings and sales, etc) that were wholly earthly in nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: As a Catholic, I want to tread carefully on the issue of Mormonism. I don’t think of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jews, or other Christian sects as wacky. I have an issue with Islam, but largely because it is a religion designed to be proselytized by the sword, and offers no equal accommodation with other faiths, especially where it is the dominant religion.

There is a demonstrable historicity to Jesus. One can find proof of his existence, as well as his teachings, and his torture and death at the hands of the Romans. Does this make him the Son of God? No, but I believe he is.

My main issue with the Mormons is how this religion came into being. An angel named Moroni brought a set of golden plates down to earth for Joseph Smith to read and transcribe. Transcription was achieved by using magic goggles (also provided by Moroni). The Book of Mormon is the result of this event. The Book of Mormon makes some pretty fantastical representations (Jesus coming to America after his resurrection is one), and these have been debunked by historians and scholars over the years. And not just Christian historians and scholars. BYU (Brigham Young University) has spent considerable time and money trying to prove that the representations made in the Book of Mormon did in fact happen, but has failed utterly.

Again, as a Catholic, I want to be very careful in using the word “cult” as that finger can justifiably be pointed right back at us. However, Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest prior to the Schism, and his issue with the Church was not theological, rather it centered on abuses (bastard children, sale of indulgences, land holdings and sales, etc) that were wholly earthly in nature.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I would cheerfully attempt to defend Coulter’s scholarship, if I felt it existed. I made it clear that she is nothing other than entertainment value, and a shock jock used by the right as a lightning rod.

I would also point out that attempting a linkage between a professorship and a commensurate standard of care when discussing Naomi Wolf’s work is specious, at best. If an author is representing things as facts, then a responsibility exists as regards research, annotation and proper attribution. This is the same beef I have with Michael Moore and his “documentaries”. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, with a very loose grasp of timelines, facts, and supporting documentation. I would characterize Coulter, Wolf and Moore as all occupying the same ground: Churning out propaganda designed to inflame and incite, but not educate.

There is no way that I would even attempt to argue that Coulter is not a hate monger. As I just said, she is there to inflame and incite, not be the sweet voice of reason. She plays the role of Leni Riefenstahl to perfection, and let’s leave it at that.

As to Wolf attempting to make the world a better place, well, her history shows she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing publicity and attention hound, and also known for pushing a very aggressive, and somewhat hateful, post-feminist agenda.

On the German versus Japanese front: There is an excellent book called “War Without Mercy” that does a thorough job of discussing what the author calls the “two wars” (European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations). Rather than attempting to go into any depth, suffice it to say there is no way an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Personally, my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII, told me how the flight instructors said that Japanese pilots had poor eyesight (because of their slanted eyes), poor reflexes (too much rice in their diet) and lacked proper motor skills (apparently chalked up to being carried around on their mother’s backs for too long). Obviously, none of this was true (the Japanese were excellent pilots), but it goes to your theory as to how American servicemen perceived German and Japanese adversaries differently.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I would cheerfully attempt to defend Coulter’s scholarship, if I felt it existed. I made it clear that she is nothing other than entertainment value, and a shock jock used by the right as a lightning rod.

I would also point out that attempting a linkage between a professorship and a commensurate standard of care when discussing Naomi Wolf’s work is specious, at best. If an author is representing things as facts, then a responsibility exists as regards research, annotation and proper attribution. This is the same beef I have with Michael Moore and his “documentaries”. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, with a very loose grasp of timelines, facts, and supporting documentation. I would characterize Coulter, Wolf and Moore as all occupying the same ground: Churning out propaganda designed to inflame and incite, but not educate.

There is no way that I would even attempt to argue that Coulter is not a hate monger. As I just said, she is there to inflame and incite, not be the sweet voice of reason. She plays the role of Leni Riefenstahl to perfection, and let’s leave it at that.

As to Wolf attempting to make the world a better place, well, her history shows she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing publicity and attention hound, and also known for pushing a very aggressive, and somewhat hateful, post-feminist agenda.

On the German versus Japanese front: There is an excellent book called “War Without Mercy” that does a thorough job of discussing what the author calls the “two wars” (European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations). Rather than attempting to go into any depth, suffice it to say there is no way an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Personally, my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII, told me how the flight instructors said that Japanese pilots had poor eyesight (because of their slanted eyes), poor reflexes (too much rice in their diet) and lacked proper motor skills (apparently chalked up to being carried around on their mother’s backs for too long). Obviously, none of this was true (the Japanese were excellent pilots), but it goes to your theory as to how American servicemen perceived German and Japanese adversaries differently.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I would cheerfully attempt to defend Coulter’s scholarship, if I felt it existed. I made it clear that she is nothing other than entertainment value, and a shock jock used by the right as a lightning rod.

I would also point out that attempting a linkage between a professorship and a commensurate standard of care when discussing Naomi Wolf’s work is specious, at best. If an author is representing things as facts, then a responsibility exists as regards research, annotation and proper attribution. This is the same beef I have with Michael Moore and his “documentaries”. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, with a very loose grasp of timelines, facts, and supporting documentation. I would characterize Coulter, Wolf and Moore as all occupying the same ground: Churning out propaganda designed to inflame and incite, but not educate.

There is no way that I would even attempt to argue that Coulter is not a hate monger. As I just said, she is there to inflame and incite, not be the sweet voice of reason. She plays the role of Leni Riefenstahl to perfection, and let’s leave it at that.

As to Wolf attempting to make the world a better place, well, her history shows she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing publicity and attention hound, and also known for pushing a very aggressive, and somewhat hateful, post-feminist agenda.

On the German versus Japanese front: There is an excellent book called “War Without Mercy” that does a thorough job of discussing what the author calls the “two wars” (European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations). Rather than attempting to go into any depth, suffice it to say there is no way an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Personally, my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII, told me how the flight instructors said that Japanese pilots had poor eyesight (because of their slanted eyes), poor reflexes (too much rice in their diet) and lacked proper motor skills (apparently chalked up to being carried around on their mother’s backs for too long). Obviously, none of this was true (the Japanese were excellent pilots), but it goes to your theory as to how American servicemen perceived German and Japanese adversaries differently.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I would cheerfully attempt to defend Coulter’s scholarship, if I felt it existed. I made it clear that she is nothing other than entertainment value, and a shock jock used by the right as a lightning rod.

I would also point out that attempting a linkage between a professorship and a commensurate standard of care when discussing Naomi Wolf’s work is specious, at best. If an author is representing things as facts, then a responsibility exists as regards research, annotation and proper attribution. This is the same beef I have with Michael Moore and his “documentaries”. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, with a very loose grasp of timelines, facts, and supporting documentation. I would characterize Coulter, Wolf and Moore as all occupying the same ground: Churning out propaganda designed to inflame and incite, but not educate.

There is no way that I would even attempt to argue that Coulter is not a hate monger. As I just said, she is there to inflame and incite, not be the sweet voice of reason. She plays the role of Leni Riefenstahl to perfection, and let’s leave it at that.

As to Wolf attempting to make the world a better place, well, her history shows she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing publicity and attention hound, and also known for pushing a very aggressive, and somewhat hateful, post-feminist agenda.

On the German versus Japanese front: There is an excellent book called “War Without Mercy” that does a thorough job of discussing what the author calls the “two wars” (European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations). Rather than attempting to go into any depth, suffice it to say there is no way an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Personally, my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII, told me how the flight instructors said that Japanese pilots had poor eyesight (because of their slanted eyes), poor reflexes (too much rice in their diet) and lacked proper motor skills (apparently chalked up to being carried around on their mother’s backs for too long). Obviously, none of this was true (the Japanese were excellent pilots), but it goes to your theory as to how American servicemen perceived German and Japanese adversaries differently.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I would cheerfully attempt to defend Coulter’s scholarship, if I felt it existed. I made it clear that she is nothing other than entertainment value, and a shock jock used by the right as a lightning rod.

I would also point out that attempting a linkage between a professorship and a commensurate standard of care when discussing Naomi Wolf’s work is specious, at best. If an author is representing things as facts, then a responsibility exists as regards research, annotation and proper attribution. This is the same beef I have with Michael Moore and his “documentaries”. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, with a very loose grasp of timelines, facts, and supporting documentation. I would characterize Coulter, Wolf and Moore as all occupying the same ground: Churning out propaganda designed to inflame and incite, but not educate.

There is no way that I would even attempt to argue that Coulter is not a hate monger. As I just said, she is there to inflame and incite, not be the sweet voice of reason. She plays the role of Leni Riefenstahl to perfection, and let’s leave it at that.

As to Wolf attempting to make the world a better place, well, her history shows she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing publicity and attention hound, and also known for pushing a very aggressive, and somewhat hateful, post-feminist agenda.

On the German versus Japanese front: There is an excellent book called “War Without Mercy” that does a thorough job of discussing what the author calls the “two wars” (European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations). Rather than attempting to go into any depth, suffice it to say there is no way an atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Personally, my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII, told me how the flight instructors said that Japanese pilots had poor eyesight (because of their slanted eyes), poor reflexes (too much rice in their diet) and lacked proper motor skills (apparently chalked up to being carried around on their mother’s backs for too long). Obviously, none of this was true (the Japanese were excellent pilots), but it goes to your theory as to how American servicemen perceived German and Japanese adversaries differently.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

LA_Renter: Some of that same “old crap” is on display on the Naomi Wolf thread. Leftover vestiges of the ’60s “Kulturkampf”, with some good old Cold War paranoia thrown in.

I agree with your assertion note to underestimate Obama’s surge, and the underlying reason for it.

I’d just like to see the younger generation (in my case, that’s anyone under 30) get fired up and involved. If Obama’s the guy, happy days. I don’t personally agree with his politics either, but if it’s a choice between he and Hillary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

LA_Renter: Some of that same “old crap” is on display on the Naomi Wolf thread. Leftover vestiges of the ’60s “Kulturkampf”, with some good old Cold War paranoia thrown in.

I agree with your assertion note to underestimate Obama’s surge, and the underlying reason for it.

I’d just like to see the younger generation (in my case, that’s anyone under 30) get fired up and involved. If Obama’s the guy, happy days. I don’t personally agree with his politics either, but if it’s a choice between he and Hillary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

LA_Renter: Some of that same “old crap” is on display on the Naomi Wolf thread. Leftover vestiges of the ’60s “Kulturkampf”, with some good old Cold War paranoia thrown in.

I agree with your assertion note to underestimate Obama’s surge, and the underlying reason for it.

I’d just like to see the younger generation (in my case, that’s anyone under 30) get fired up and involved. If Obama’s the guy, happy days. I don’t personally agree with his politics either, but if it’s a choice between he and Hillary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

LA_Renter: Some of that same “old crap” is on display on the Naomi Wolf thread. Leftover vestiges of the ’60s “Kulturkampf”, with some good old Cold War paranoia thrown in.

I agree with your assertion note to underestimate Obama’s surge, and the underlying reason for it.

I’d just like to see the younger generation (in my case, that’s anyone under 30) get fired up and involved. If Obama’s the guy, happy days. I don’t personally agree with his politics either, but if it’s a choice between he and Hillary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

LA_Renter: Some of that same “old crap” is on display on the Naomi Wolf thread. Leftover vestiges of the ’60s “Kulturkampf”, with some good old Cold War paranoia thrown in.

I agree with your assertion note to underestimate Obama’s surge, and the underlying reason for it.

I’d just like to see the younger generation (in my case, that’s anyone under 30) get fired up and involved. If Obama’s the guy, happy days. I don’t personally agree with his politics either, but if it’s a choice between he and Hillary…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It sounds as Putin could learn a thing or two from you. You could always go for that Idi Amin kind of thing: President For Life. Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier had that going on in Haiti, too. Those three are probably not good examples, in that things didn’t turn out too well for any of them.

mixxalot: Romney and Huckabee are further proof of the GOP’s veer into Looneyville. One is LDS, the other doesn’t believe in evolution. Oy gevalt.

And don’t get me started on the LDS.

Or was it LSD?

[Author]

Posts