I recently came across a newspaper article which stated that-for the first time-Protestants make up less than half of the population of the USA. This is partly attributed to those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.

Posted by me elsewhere, at http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...231#msg3655231 (Leip's Election Atlas)

I can better use that site's graphics, and for that reason I refer you there. Note that Leip continues to show Republicans in blue and Democrats in red.

......

270towin.com has an analysis of several possible means of allocating electoral votes. As we all know, President Obama won 332 electoral votes and the election by winning enough of 48 states and the District of Columbia on a winner-take-all basis and the two states that allocate their electoral votes based on Congressional districts. (The results for Maine and Nebraska were the same as for winner-take-all).

Alternatives include:

1. The current hybrid in which Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by district with the winner of the plurality getting the other two electoral votes, and other states and DC go winner-take-all.

Obama 332, Romney 206.

2. Winner-take-all in all 50 states and DC. No change in 2012, but it would have prevented Barack Obama picking up a stray electoral vote from Nebraska in 2008 because Greater Omaha voted differently from the rest of Nebraska.

3. An interstate compact to allocate electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote irrespective of how the State votes on a winner-take-all system within such states. So long as states with at least 270 electoral votes so allocate their votes, President Obama would have won every state participating in the compact and won re-election no matter what other states did.

4. Near-proportional allocation of electoral votes. States allocate two electoral votes based upon winning the plurality of the vote within the State and the others proportionately. With this system the Presidential election would have gone

Obama 283 -- Romney 254 -- G. Johnson 1

(the libertarian nominee winning one electoral vote in California)

This is probably the allocation closest to the proportional distribution of the popular vote, which would have been

Obama 274 -- Romney 254 -- G. Johnson 5 -- Stein 2 -- others 3

5. Congressional District - Popular awards two electoral votes to the popular vote winner of the state, with one each allocated to the popular vote winner in each individual Congressional District. Due to gerrymandering, some states have ultra-strong Democratic districts concentrated in urban areas so that the remainder of the state can be split nearly at-large in the rest. Example: Michigan has five safe D districts in the Detroit-Ann Arbor-Bay City triangle but the other nine districts that effectively dilute Democratic votes in Grand Rapids, Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Battle Creek all went Republican in Congressional and the Presidential elections in 2012. Outside the Ann Arbor-Detroit-Bay City corridor Michigan as a whole votes much like Texas. See also Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Florida, where state legislatures obeying ALEC gerrymandered districts to maximal benefit to Republicans in Congress.

Here's the result:

264 Obama, 274 Romney

6. Congressional District - Majority (CDM) awards two electoral votes to the party winning the popular vote in a majority of the Congressional Districts, with one each allocated to the popular vote winner in each individual Congressional District.

This system would allot the two at-large seats associated with Senators on a majority of wins of Congressional districts. Based on gerrymandering, a state whose Congressional districts go largely to one Party would go to the winner of the most Congressional seats even if the state as a whole went nearly 10% for the other Presidential nominee. This would have been even more of a distortion of the popular vote:

252 Obama, 286 Romney

7. "Arranged hybrids". By selecting the method to give the greatest advantage to one of the Parties as is imaginable in any state, one could get results as severe as

389 Obama, 149 Romney -- or --

194 Obama, 343 Romney, 1 G. Johnson

Barack Obama was reasonably close to the optimum, suggesting that he ran as competent a campaign as possible. Tellingly the mean between those extremes of scenario indicate such a split as

291.5 Obama, 246 Romney, .5 G. Johnson

which is about 20 away from a proportional allocation of electoral votes to the popular vote.

http://www.270towin.com/alternative-...ation-methods/

....

(new material)

Doesn't "arranged hybrids" suggest the sort of elections that occurred under Commie regimes?

Need analysis by someone better with statistics than me...what if we retain counting of votes by state, but above a certain percentage (51% ?) of the aggregated, total, popular vote, the election goes to the candidate with larges number of popular votes? In which case, the Electoral College would be the back up.

A problem identified is that the Electoral College may discourage voters, if they live in an era where the EC always defeats their vote.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

A problem identified is that the Electoral College may discourage voters, if they live in an era where the EC always defeats their vote.

Split the vote on some proportional basis in most states (but not selectively!) and some people who consistently "vote wrong" by the standard of the 'reliable' majority of the state again become relevant. So it would be for blacks in most Southern states and Hispanics in Texas. So it would be for residents of greater Indianapolis, Louisville, and Nashville. On the other side -- rural Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin would again be relevant. If a nominee can win only by running up the vote total in California and New York (or Texas) he will do so.

The first justification for the electoral college is that it keeps a state from casting 50 million votes despite a population of 4 million because the Governor declares that the ants vote as he wants them to vote and messing things up for the rest of America. I can imagine some Governors who would do so if they got the suggestion. The second is that it provides a means of resolution in the event of a three-way election.

The faults of winner-take all include:

1. Large populations may be ignored in Presidential elections. As it is the large black populations of some Southern states cannot help a Democrat who intends to do good for them unless the white vote is close enough.

2. It is easy for political hacks to rig a close, critical state election. Florida in 2000 suggests the possibility of lingering doubts about a Presidential election. Maybe if Dubya had not been one of the worst Presidents in American history we might not have some continuing bitterness. There was plenty of funny stuff going on in Florida.

3. Relatively few States can reasonably decide the election. Going into the 2016 elections, 242 electoral votes as now constituted have not gone for a Republican nominee since at least 1992; 114 have not gone for any Democrat since 1964. 356 electoral votes will have not flipped in nearly a quarter-century before the 2016 election. Presidential nominees aren't campaigning in Orlando and ignoring El Paso just because El Paso lacks any big tourist attractions. We have extreme polarization between the states in part because Presidential nominees either assume (and win) or write off (and lose) states except for fundraising. In 2008 President Obama won about 250 electoral votes by 10% or more but lost most states that he lost by 10% or more. Note well that Barack Obama is a masterful strategist as a politician and is a superb rhetorician. Something is wrong in an election perceived to be close for most of the year when a small number of states with less than a quarter of the electoral vote decide the election. The system itself?

The fault with voting by Congressional districts is that many of the districts are artificial constructions -- often engineered by corporate lobbyists to ensure the election of people with certain beliefs by diluting certain concentrations of voters with others. One plan would split the state votes in accordance with (1) congressional districts and (2) the other two electoral votes assigned as a majority of Congressional districts in that State go. These states voted for Barack Obama, yet their electoral votes would have been distributed as such:

Florida 18-11 Republican
Michigan 11-5 Republican
Ohio 15-3 Republican
Pennsylvania 15-5 Republican
Virginia 9-4 Republican
Wisconsin 7-3 Republican

Government that grossly distorts the results of votes is not democracy. It might represent something else -- like wealth and bureaucratic power. Russia does that.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The fault with voting by Congressional districts is that many of the districts are artificial constructions -- often engineered by corporate lobbyists to ensure the election of people with certain beliefs by diluting certain concentrations of voters with others. One plan would split the state votes in accordance with (1) congressional districts and (2) the other two electoral votes assigned as a majority of Congressional districts in that State go. These states voted for Barack Obama, yet their electoral votes would have been distributed as such:

Florida 18-11 Republican
Michigan 11-5 Republican
Ohio 15-3 Republican
Pennsylvania 15-5 Republican
Virginia 9-4 Republican
Wisconsin 7-3 Republican

Government that grossly distorts the results of votes is not democracy. It might represent something else -- like wealth and bureaucratic power. Russia does that.

Such a scheme might work if the reform adopted recently by California, is adopted nationwide. Have districts drawn up by citizens' commissions, not by the politicians themselves as is now done.

A proportional distribution of electors might be the way to go, as is already done with delegates in many state primaries.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Such a scheme might work if the reform adopted recently by California, is adopted nationwide. Have districts drawn up by citizens' commissions, not by the politicians themselves as is now done.

A proportional distribution of electors might be the way to go, as is already done with delegates in many state primaries.

My preference would be for a proportional distribution of electors. But such would have to apply to all states with more than some threshold of electoral votes. Eight? I'd let Maine and Nebraska keep the systems that they have, and recognize that there would be no reasonable way to distribute the popular votes of such states as Delaware and Montana that have but three electoral votes other than winner-take-all. The Electoral College exists as a Constitutional institution even if it comes into and out of existence for a very short time every four years. Abolishing an institution, even one so ephemeral as the Electoral College, requires a Constitutional Amendment for abolition. Let's not amend the Constitution for trivial reasons.

Whatever we do we must adhere as closely as possible to the principle of one man, one un-coerced and meaningful vote. An adjustment that exists solely to allot more power to some self-proclaimed "Right People" is a travesty. The optimum is the interstate compact to assign the electoral votes of their states to the candidate who wins a plurality of votes. So far, far fewer than 270 electoral votes can be so assigned. The States supporting the compact so far are all sure-thing wins for a Democratic nominee -- and no sure-win states for a Republican nominee or even any legitimate swing states. Will there be adequate progress in this direction before 2016? I would not count on it. There must be some clause that prohibits outright vote fraud. Thus if a State comes up with 50 million votes for one nominee or certifies only a preposterously-small number of votes so that his state that 'voted wrong' has far fewer votes is dealt with. Misrepresentation of the count of votes is a form of vote fraud and must not be tolerated.

The second-best solution is for nationwide adoption of proportional distribution of electoral votes. But such must be done nationwide, and not selectively. Republicans would love to have California, New York, and Illinois split their popular votes proportionally as electoral votes while Texas, Georgia, and Arizona remain on a winner-take-all basis.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I recently came across a newspaper article which stated that-for the first time-Protestants make up less than half of the population of the USA. This is partly attributed to those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.

But isn't "Protestant" defined as more or less any Christian who is not either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Under that definition, Mormons are Protestant - and not classifying them as such only indulges the bigoted evangelical stereotype of them as a "cult" (same goes for Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and arguably, even Quakers and Mennonites - historically, definitely Quakers, who were the first to be reviled as a "cult" in this context).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But isn't "Protestant" defined as more or less any Christian who is not either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? Under that definition, Mormons are Protestant - and not classifying them as such only indulges the bigoted evangelical stereotype of them as a "cult" (same goes for Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and arguably, even Quakers and Mennonites - historically, definitely Quakers, who were the first to be reviled as a "cult" in this context).

It's not necessarily bigotry to define Latter Day Saints as Not Protestant. According to Wikipedia:

The three fundamental principles of traditional Protestantism are the following:

• Scripture Alone

The belief in the Bible as the supreme source of authority for the church. The early churches of the Reformation believed in a critical, yet serious, reading of Scripture and holding the Bible as a source of authority higher than that of Church Tradition. The many abuses that had occurred in the Western Church prior to the Protestant Reformation led the Reformers to reject much of the Tradition of the Western Church, though some would maintain Tradition has been maintained and reorganized in the liturgy and in the confessions of the Protestant Churches of the Reformation. In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, as do the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican churches, to name a few, but interpret it in a more literal way.

• Justification by Faith Alone

The subjective principle of the Reformation is justification by faith alone, or, rather, by free grace through faith. It has reference to the personal appropriation of the Christian salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e., is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification."^[7]

• Universal Priesthood of Believers

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people.^[7]

Furthermore

Since the term "Protestant" often refers to those Christians not of the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox faiths, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are occasionally called Protestant, but they do not adhere to most Protestant principles.^{[dubious – discuss]} Neither do they follow Catholic traditions or creeds. Contrary to traditional Christian practice, Mormons believe in a Priesthood organization consisting of Prophets, Apostles, Seventy, Patriarchs, High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons.^[12] Latter-day Saints do not hold to the sola scriptura principle of the Bible being the authority of God^[13] but in a literal Priesthood authority given to worthy male members to teach the Gospel and administer its ordinances.^[14] Neither do they hold to the sola fide concept of faith in Jesus Christ alone, but believe in the combined efforts of deity and man to achieve salvation, that salvation is through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, and that covenants are made to establish the standards necessary for salvation.^[15]

On a purely doctrinal level, all of the foregoing may be difficult to argue with; but most people don't get into the subject that deeply, and the central purpose of setting Mormons off from other non-Catholics/Orthodox Christians is to marginalize and calumniate them.

And what faith were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. born into? That fits into the equation as well.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

On a purely doctrinal level, all of the foregoing may be difficult to argue with; but most people don't get into the subject that deeply, and the central purpose of setting Mormons off from other non-Catholics/Orthodox Christians is to marginalize and calumniate them.

And what faith were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. born into? That fits into the equation as well.

By adopting the Book of Mormon as canon, Mormons are heretics to all other Christian sects.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Such a scheme might work if the reform adopted recently by California, is adopted nationwide. Have districts drawn up by citizens' commissions, not by the politicians themselves as is now done.

A proportional distribution of electors might be the way to go, as is already done with delegates in many state primaries.

I'd rather see more 'swing' districts, the sorts of districts in which competence at constituent service matters more than does partisan affiliation. Sure-thing constituencies at all levels invite institutional corruption. Just look at Detroit, whose former mayor has been convicted of crimes that one doesn't get away with for long except if the other Party has a meaningful chance to win. Machine politics promote incompetence, corruption and cronyism, neglect of minorities, and substandard public services. If you think that such is a function solely of Democrats and non-white minorities -- just look at Texas, where the public-private partnerships in which the taxpayers take the risks of the entrepreneur and the profiteers gouge, state-approved school textbooks well-suited to a fascist regime, and some of the nastiest air pollution in America.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

(Kwame) Kilpatrick's mayorship was plagued by numerous scandals and rampant accusations of corruption, with the mayor eventually resigning after being convicted on felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice. Kilpatrick was sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty, but with good time awarded to county jail inmates in Michigan, he was released on probation after serving 99 days. On May 25, 2010, he was sentenced to 18 months to 5 years in prison for violating his probation, and served time at the Oaks Correctional Facility in northwest Michigan.

On March 11, 2013, Kilpatrick was convicted on more than 20 federal felony counts, including mail fraud, wire fraud, and racketeering. The conviction stemmed from a 38-charge felony indictment, in what a federal prosecutor called a "pattern of extortion, bribery and fraud" by some of Detroit's most prominent officials.

On December 14, 2010, Kilpatrick was again indicted on new corruption charges, in what a federal prosecutor called a "pattern of extortion, bribery and fraud" by some of the city's most prominent officials. His father, Bernard Kilpatrick, was also indicted, as was contractor, Bobby Ferguson, Kilpatrick's aide, Derrick Miller, and Detroit water department chief, Victor Mercado. The original 38-charge indictment listed allegations of 13 fraudulent schemes in awarding contracts in the city's Department of Water and Sewerage, with pocketed kickbacks of nearly one million dollars. He was arraigned on January 10, 2011, on charges in the 89-page indictment. Federal prosecuting attorneys proposed a trial date in January 2012, but defense attorneys asked for a trial date in the summer of 2012. The new charges could add up to 30 years to his prison sentence. Opening statements in the trial began on September 21, 2012. Prosecutors soon brought forth a large number of witnesses that gave some damaging testimony. Mercado took a plea deal while the trial was in progress. On March 11, 2013, Kilpatrick was found guilty by a jury on two dozen counts including those for racketeering, extortion, mail fraud, and tax evasion among others. Shortly after conviction, speaking about Kilpatrick, Judge Nancy Edmunds ruled in favor of remand saying "detention is required in his circumstance"

Illustration from Time Magazine:

Equally at home in senior centers and hip-hop concerts, Kwame Kilpatrick, 34, inspired Detroit voters with his energy and determination when he rode into office three years ago. But a cherry red Lincoln Navigator has put a big dent in his reputation. After weeks of denying it, the mayor admitted in January that the city paid $24,995 to lease just such a car for his wife.

That outlay showed what Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing Magazine, calls "a tin ear for symbolism," given that Detroit's $230 million budget deficit has prompted the mayor to eliminate 3,000 city positions and end 24-hour bus service. It has not helped that Kilpatrick left undiminished his 21-person security detail (the mayor of Chicago, a city with three times the population, has 15 guards). When Gary Brown, the deputy chief of police internal affairs, opened an investigation into misconduct by the security team, Kilpatrick fired him, ostensibly because Brown did not get his chief's approval for the probe. --By Jyoti Thottam. Reported by Amanda Bower/New York, Joseph R. Szczesny/Detroit and David Thigpen/Chicago

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz2Ncvdc1d1


I call him Kwame "Krookpatrick". In view of the community that he has represented, he has done about as much harm, if for different reasons and with different methods, than the Klan ever did. The Detroit school system is a disgrace, and I'm not going to let anyone wallow in the excuse that the students are largely black and poor. Such would be racist. Michigan state government delivers huge subsidies to the school system -- subsidies that if dedicated to educational purposes instead of who-knows-what would support first-rate educational efforts. Maybe the district needs to pare some expenditures not used for obvious educations (like staff pay, physical plant of schools, mandatory school transportation, and educational supplies). Maybe it could attract some good teachers and fortify the abilities of those already there. Maybe it needs to get an exemption from some of the usual requirements for certification.

The state with the most pervasive corruption is Mississippi. The state's politics neatly divides between white Republicans and largely-black Democrats. White people would rather vote for a white Republican crook than for a black Democrat who shows a desire to undo corruption -- and black people won't vote for a white Republican who would undo local corruption. Ethnicity and partisanship don't make the issue one-sided; the state has more former elected officials doing prison time for malfeasance in proportion to the population than any other state. The solution to bad government is obvious -- vote the bums out. But what if there is no meaningful alternative?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

On a purely doctrinal level, all of the foregoing may be difficult to argue with; but most people don't get into the subject that deeply, and the central purpose of setting Mormons off from other non-Catholics/Orthodox Christians is to marginalize and calumniate them.

And what faith were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc. born into? That fits into the equation as well.

As a non-Christian, I view Mormans as simply another flavor of Christianity. Protestants are not Catholics and Catholics aren't Protestants and neither are Orthodox or Mormon, and Orthodox and Mormon are not Catholics and, in my view, are not Protestant. All are Christian.

Of course, it would be interesting to see if Latter Day Saints view themselves as Protestant or as their own brand of Christianity. My understanding is that they get riled when they are viewed as non-Christian or as a cult, rather than as a different brand of Christianity. I could be wrong, however. Any Mormons care to enlighten me?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

By adopting the Book of Mormon as canon, Mormons are heretics to all other Christian sects.

Yes. To be precise Revelation 22;18-19 states: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll[/quote]

As a former soutehrn Baptist sunday school teracher I used to explain it this way. By writing or "finding" the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith added to the scroll. Thus bringing down upon himself the plagues of the scroll.

You can not be a true Protestant and be a Mormon at the same time.

I had some thoughts about the elections today, and about the notion expressed by JPT and attributed to the authors of The Fourth Turning, that in fourth turnings there is supposed to be "unity" and the people unite behind one leadership to meet the challenge of the crisis.

So I looked at the presidential elections in 4th turnings and the following years, and I found this:

In the Revolution Crisis, George Washington was elected without opposition for two terms, and the Federalists won 3 in a row in total. In the first turning (1800), the opposing party won and remained dominant with only 2 presidents elected from the opposition for the remainder of the saeculum (through the official 3T).

In the Civil War Crisis, Abraham Lincoln was elected, and the Republicans proceeded to win 6 elections in a row, and remained dominant with only two presidents elected from the opposition for the remainder of the saeculum, through the 3T.

In the Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, and the Democrats proceeded to win 5 elections in a row, and 7 out of 9. In the Awakening, the "backlash" became dominant in 1968, electing all but 2 presidents for the remainder of the saeculum, through the 3T.

In the Great Recession (current 4T), Barack Obama has been elected and re-elected.

Using my astrological forecast method, I predict that his party, the Democrats, will be elected for the next 3 elections, making 5 in a row as in the previous cycle.

So "unity" has in effect (by this measure) occurred again, as in the previous 3 cycles. The contrary impression can only be maintained if you think the 4T started in 2001, or if you consider the victory of the "backlash" in congressional elections in 2010 to indicate "disunity" (whereas in the similar civil war crisis, the backlash was based in a separate or reconstructed country and did not vote).

My astrological method is my own discovery, but based on one interpretation of horary methods of predicting the outcome of a sporting event with two competing teams. In this method, I use the exact time of the new moon preceding the election. I look at the signs on the Ascendant (eastern horizon or rising sign) and Descendant (setting sign in the west). The Ascendant represents the challenging party, and the Descendant represents the incumbent party. All signs in astrology are linked to a ruling planet (excluding Pluto). Whichever ruler is highest in the sky wins.

This method has worked 4 out of 5 times. Most of the times when it hasn't worked, it is because it seems to predict the popular vote (the Moon in astrology represents the people). In 2000, the incumbent party and challenging party were tied, but the incumbent party's ruler was higher by less than a degree. We all know what happened. In 1968, the incumbent's ruler was higher in an election in which the majority voted for either a member, or a former and future member, of the incumbent's party. In 1888 the sequence was disrupted for several elections when the incumbent party candidate (Cleveland) in that year had a solid popular majority but lost in the electoral college. This also happened in 1876.

1988 was about the only time this method was clearly wrong. In this case, the Saturn Return in the losing candidate's chart was the decisive indicator, so that needs to be watched too. At age 59, Saturn returns to its original position in anyone's horoscope. Candidates who run at the time such a Return is due in the following term, lose the election, or if elected in rare cases, they have a disaster or die in office. For the pattern to continue, the Democrats should not nominate a candidate with a Saturn Return due (e.g. Andrew Cuomo or any candidate about his age (a Joneser Boomer) in 2016).

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

As a non-Christian, I view Mormans as simply another flavor of Christianity. Protestants are not Catholics and Catholics aren't Protestants and neither are Orthodox or Mormon, and Orthodox and Mormon are not Catholics and, in my view, are not Protestant. All are Christian.

Of course, it would be interesting to see if Latter Day Saints view themselves as Protestant or as their own brand of Christianity. My understanding is that they get riled when they are viewed as non-Christian or as a cult, rather than as a different brand of Christianity. I could be wrong, however. Any Mormons care to enlighten me?

Having lived my entire life in Mormon country and having one half of my extended family being devout (uncle was a Mormon bishop for years), I can take a shot at answering you.

LDS view themselves as the only true Christians. All others are apostates. One of Joseph Smith's "revelations" was that the true Christian priesthood was 'lost' shortly following the Passion. Joseph was visited by the resurrected John the Baptist who subsequently returned the true priesthood to him to be passed on to others.

LDS typically get upset when others call them non-Christian because they strongly self identify as the only Christians!

Protestant vs Catholic/Orthodox is irrelevant in their mind because both are non-Christian in their view.

Now, an anthropologist would have no problem recognizing the LDS faith as an iteration of the Protestant schism.

But religion and ethnicity are intricately interwoven in our society; what makes Mormons "Protestant" is how overwhelmingly white and Anglo-Saxon they are - the same thing that (until about 40 years ago) made Catholics "foreigners" and, with the exception of the Irish, "not quite white enough" (and made Jews flat-out members of "another race").

And not for nothing, but to the evangelicals, anyone who is not one of them, including Catholics, aren't real "Christians."

But of course "Christian" has become a political term in America, not a religious one; I'm more honest, and call these self-styled "Christians" what they truly are: Theocrats.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But religion and ethnicity are intricately interwoven in our society; what makes Mormons "Protestant" is how overwhelmingly white and Anglo-Saxon they are - the same thing that (until about 40 years ago) made Catholics "foreigners" and, with the exception of the Irish, "not quite white enough" (and made Jews flat-out members of "another race").

Mormons may be heavily of early-American Anglo-Saxon (with significant contributions of Scandinavian immigrants converted early to Mormonism) origin... but they are clearly of a new branch of Christianity. Catholics have been 'foreigners' only to the extent that they have not assimilated into mainstream American life. One wave after another of Catholics has assimilated into American economic and cultural life. I could tell you much about Polish-Americans who anglicized their names only because surrounding Americans had difficulties with complicated surnames. I can tell about some name changes. "Lynch" is far easier to remember, let alone spell, than is "Zielinski". But that is nothing new. You ought to see how the Dutch butchered French and Walloon (Huguenot) surnames.

The difference between Catholics and some Protestants is on (1) the institution of the Papacy and (2) emphasis. Cultural differences have never been a problem.

And not for nothing, but to the evangelicals, anyone who is not one of them, including Catholics, aren't real "Christians."

The rejection of science and distortion of history by evangelicals and fundamentalists are huge gaps of culture. Such is even more severe than the rejection of modern technologies of entertainment of the Old Order Amish. One can live well enough with 18th- and 19th-century technologies of entertainment so long as one does not reject the modern technologies of medicine and manufacturing. Schlock radiating from the latest music device or cable-cast trash on an ultra-modern TV screen are not better than well-performed live music or theater. Face-to-face communication can be far richer than e-mail or even telephone conversations. High technology has given us more choices, but many of those choices are mindless and depraved. The cure for that is more liberal education at the undergraduate level and more infusion of culture in K-12 education.

But of course "Christian" has become a political term in America, not a religious one; I'm more honest, and call these self-styled "Christians" what they truly are: Theocrats.

Indeed. Many seem to want a "Christian" America -- but "Christian" on their authoritarian terms. Just imagine some clique of clerics vetting politicians before they run for office. That is how the Iranian system works.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But religion and ethnicity are intricately interwoven in our society; what makes Mormons "Protestant" is how overwhelmingly white and Anglo-Saxon they are

Not a bad observation, but there are limits to the validity of this observation.
For example, here in the south, Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians come in two colors.
Do black southern Protestants vote the same way that white southern Protestants do?
If so then efforts to limit early voting, especially after church on the sunday before the election in areas with large black populations would not be happening in states like Florida. .

Originally Posted by Flat 58

But of course "Christian" has become a political term in America, not a religious one; I'm more honest, and call these self-styled "Christians" what they truly are: Theocrats.

Err, yes that is has a lot to do with why I no longer belong to my former church.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Mormons may be heavily of early-American Anglo-Saxon (with significant contributions of Scandinavian immigrants converted early to Mormonism) origin... but they are clearly of a new branch of Christianity. Catholics have been 'foreigners' only to the extent that they have not assimilated into mainstream American life. One wave after another of Catholics has assimilated into American economic and cultural life. I could tell you much about Polish-Americans who anglicized their names only because surrounding Americans had difficulties with complicated surnames. I can tell about some name changes. "Lynch" is far easier to remember, let alone spell, than is "Zielinski". But that is nothing new. You ought to see how the Dutch butchered French and Walloon (Huguenot) surnames.

The difference between Catholics and some Protestants is on (1) the institution of the Papacy and (2) emphasis. Cultural differences have never been a problem.

But I go beyond citing mere cultural differences to identifying out-and-out anthropological differences (and I know all about the Danish Mormons who came to Utah in the 1890s). At least on aggregate, Catholics are darker-skinned than Protestants - and even more so now with the the Latino influx (today, one Catholic Mass in three in the United States is solemnized in Spanish; in 1965, only one in 50 were!).

Indeed. Many seem to want a "Christian" America -- but "Christian" on their authoritarian terms. Just imagine some clique of clerics vetting politicians before they run for office. That is how the Iranian system works.

They differ only in degree, and not in kind, from mullah-ruled Iran, and formerly Taliban-ruled Afghanistan; and they are attempting to enforce their dogmas at every level - see my thread in the Culture & Values forum about an attempt to legalize bullying of gays, and in the relatively "liberal" state of Michigan no less!

The Michigan Snake Legislature is about as liberal as the Oklahoma State Legislature. It does basically what the Koch syndicate asks.

Anyway, I've picked my chosen candidate for President. Not a Man On A White Horse, but rather an Old Gray Mare.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Anyway, I've picked my chosen candidate for President. Not a Man On A White Horse, but rather an Old Gray Mare.

I think we agree she will run, but can she win?

- just killed off

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...email/4370139/

E-mails tie Christie aide to bridge clash

A series of e-mails indicate that a key member of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's staff knew about controversial access lane closures to the George Washington Bridge in September, at one point even suggesting it was time "for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," the Asbury Park Press reported Wednesday.

New Jersey lawmakers are looking into allegations that the shutdown, which caused a massive gridlock in the town of Fort Lee, located at the base of the bridge, may have been retribution for the refusal by the town's Democratic mayor to back Republican Christie in his re-election race last year.

The e-mail exchanges — conducted through personal e-mail accounts between David Wildstein, a longtime Christie friend and his appointee to the Port Authority, which oversees the bridge, and Bridget Anne Kelly, one of Christie's deputy chiefs of staff — show a vindictive motive behind the lane closures, which tied up traffic for four days.

The e-mails, obtained by the Asbury Park Press, were first published Wednesday in a story by The (Bergen) Record.

Christie has insisted that the lane closures were part of a traffic study and that neither his staff nor campaign had anything to do with the project.

The governor abruptly canceled a news conference scheduled for Wednesday afternoon without explanation.

some analysis -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...chris-christie

Big Trouble

As I've written several times, this Christie Bridge Scandal is far more potentially damaging for Christie that it might seem on its face because its fits so perfectly with the negative view (as opposed to the positive view) of Chris Christie. That is, that he and his crew are thugs and bullies. We have basically demonstrable evidence that one of Christie's top aides instructed Christie's crony at the Port Authority, David Wildstein, to create the series of massive traffic jams in the city whose Mayor wouldn't endorse the Governor.

Put into a mix that a good part of the country has the Sopranos as their primary prism for viewing New Jersey. (And, hey, I'm a former New Jersey resident!) And these emails sound very Sopranos-esque. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Christie Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly told David Wildstein, according to emails obtained by TPM. "Got it," Wildstein replied.

This isn't some low level aide. This is part of his inner circle. And unless there's some wildly unexpected explanation, it's pretty clear that we've got the worst case scenario for the Governor in terms of the political damage. I doubted very much that we'd see any email smoking gun. And it's still not from Christie himself. But it came from the Governor's office and I think the weight of logic (though as yet no direct evidence) at least says that Christie himself knew about the order and may have ordered it himself.

I see no credible way now for Christie to say he bears no responsibility for what happened. Responsibility doesn't mean knowledge or culpability. But one of his top aides was involved. So he needs to discipline or fire her or at least say it was wrong. (Perhaps he can say it's okay or that the emails are being misunderstood. But good luck with that.) Regardless, it will be very hard not to provide some accounting of who else in Christie's office knew about this or was involved.

It's not bribery or killing someone or a high crime. But it's vindictive and quite possibly illegal. It's almost the definition of an abuse of power. It won't sink Christie. At least not the evidence so far. But it will hang around his neck forever as that bad thing Christie's operation did that supposedly (depending on whether you're a friend or enemy) tells you who the real Chris Christie is about.

The Mayor of Fort Lee, the target city, says "I've been punished not for something I've done, but for something I didn't do. This is the behavior of a bully in a schoolyard. It is the greatest example of political payback." Mayor Sokolich is hardly a disinterested party and he's a Democrat. But based on this information, who can disagree with what he's saying?

Christie's got a big problem on his hands. Which is probably why he cancelled today's events to try to grapple with the story.

This has him tanking in NJ polls, but that's just part of his problem.

This is going to kill him off in Iowa and New Hampshire. The primary ads there are going to be very very ugly for da big guy. Expect posthumous appearances of Tony Soprano throwing his weight around. Nobody likes abuse of power.



Guess which one of these guys is happy about it -

- so far just the little sharks coming to feed on da big man -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ossible-bridge

N.J. Senate Majority Leader Says Criminal Charges May Come In Bridge Scandal

If you haven't been following this, here's a good chronology of its unfolding to date -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckrak...andal-timeline

A Timeline For Those Just Tuning In To The Christie Bridge Scandal

Just to note, cutting off morning rush into the Big Apple from NJ is akin to this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtyvlzVm7Y