Billy Graham suggesting Mormons are a cult.

[blackfoot]

But I wasn't really thinking of the Egyptians or Persians, but of the
Israelites who came up with a lot of the supernaturalism that is still lurking around today.

And this bothers you....why?

[Bungalow Bill]

It doesn't bother me that much, I'm just giving my opinion, but I do believe that supernaturalism,
taken to extremes, is not good for one's mental health. It doesn't matter all that much now since
the supernaturalists no longer wield power like they did back in the medieval period, and that's a
very good thing.

[O Really]

So the Billy Graham organization (not necessarily Billy Graham himself, who we know is pretty much doing a "Weekend at Bernies" act) pulled their "Mormons are a cult" statement from their website. Let's look at the alternatives: (1) they no longer believe Mormons are a cult; (2) they still believe Mormons are a cult, but they are walking away from saying so in order to support Romney; (3) Ummm, I can't think of another. If it's number (1), it seems they would have said "we've reconsidered, and Mormons are not a cult." But no - they just dropped the content from the website, leading one to think it's number (2). And if it's number (2), then they are compromising their view of eternal life and redemption for earthly life politics. Personally, I'm not a believer, but I've got a lot of respect for Billy Graham and what he has stood for over the years. Franklin - not so much. I'd say the sell-out is complete.

[homerfobe]

It doesn't bother me that much, I'm just giving my opinion, but I do believe that supernaturalism,
taken to extremes, is not good for one's mental health. It doesn't matter all that much now since
the supernaturalists no longer wield power like they did back in the medieval period, and that's a
very good thing.

You've nothing to fear, mental health isn't one of your strong points anyway.

[Reality]

Hmmmm...let's see. BG or his son changed their position on the Mormon Church and it's become a big deal. I assume it's a big deal because doing so was necessary if BG was going to be consistent in his support for Romney.

At one time Obama lauded praise on the Reverend Wright as his mentor but when the good Reverend was exposed for what he is and he became a liability to the Obama campaign, he was kicked under the bus. Why? For one reason the Reverend's damming of America was inconsistent with the God Bless America rhetoric that Obama was preaching. IOW, how can America beleive what I have to say if they think I support what Reverend Wright says. So Obama did what was necessary to be consistent. Same goes for BG.

[perspctv]

If their were Easter Bunny loons trying to use their belief in His Furry Goodness to shape your life you might. My guess is you would be their High Priest.


You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one can disprove wasn't isn't. One cannot prove a negative. If you think otherwise, the Easter Bunny was offering through personal revelation a falsehood.

Who is trying to shape your life by their belief system? Please tell us all so we can be warned as well. (Paranoia comes to mind.)

And me disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why would I try to disprove something that doesn't exist? That's your problem meatball, you are fighting something that doesn't exist, at least it doesn't in your mind, or does it? Hmmmmm.....

PS, pray that the Flying Spaghetti monster helps your spelling and Grammar...amen.

You asked me to disprove your nonexistent entity ... I said I would offer the same proof as you provide that my nonexistent entity doesn't exist. As way of showing you one cannot prove a negative.

Ah yes, the spelling - sometimes it is hard to type and see as well on the phone or tablet. I know you deal with many challenges daily.

Yet a Muslim, logician?

It isn't what the religious believe that is the problem. If they left it contained there all would be fine with me. It is the ones who attempt to legislate their religion for others that is the problem, logician .... they attempt to legislate their believes into law for others to follow.

Religion tries to shape who can marry and where, when I can buy my beer, who can or cannot get an abortion, trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids, sends messages that other religions or atheists are "other" and not to be trusted or voted into office or with some jobs, try to prevent "anti-bullying" programs in school because they are really secretly pro-gay, argues that no such notion as the church/state divide exists in an effort to better craft a theocracy, limiting a woman's right to contraception through her insurance plan, limiting a woman's right to fill prescriptions at pharmacies ... I could go on and on. And there are deeper cultural impacts as well. Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present.

Or, in your case, there might exist no end to the magical thinking.

[perspctv]

There is only one time to question another's religious faith. When that religion seeks to prevent you from the free practice of your religious faith. That is exactly what Islam says. It is the only religion I know of that in its proper practice followers must prevent the practice of any other religious faith.

This is no more true than for that of Christianity.

Have you ever read the Bible?

I have. What would you like to discuss. Start a thread.

I have, ad naseum, - have at it if you wish.

[neoplacebo]

So the Billy Graham organization (not necessarily Billy Graham himself, who we know is pretty much doing a "Weekend at Bernies" act) pulled their "Mormons are a cult" statement from their website. Let's look at the alternatives: (1) they no longer believe Mormons are a cult; (2) they still believe Mormons are a cult, but they are walking away from saying so in order to support Romney; (3) Ummm, I can't think of another. If it's number (1), it seems they would have said "we've reconsidered, and Mormons are not a cult." But no - they just dropped the content from the website, leading one to think it's number (2). And if it's number (2), then they are compromising their view of eternal life and redemption for earthly life politics. Personally, I'm not a believer, but I've got a lot of respect for Billy Graham and what he has stood for over the years. Franklin - not so much. I'd say the sell-out is complete.

That's pretty much what I think as well.

[The Piper]

That's pretty much what I think as well.

Agreeing with Mr.B. I think the wrong person is being blamed.

[blackfoot]

but I do believe that supernaturalism,
taken to extremes, is not good for one's mental health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... 90740.html

[Crock Hunter]

It isn't what the religious believe that is the problem. If they left it contained there all would be fine with me. It is the ones who attempt to legislate their religion for others that is the problem, logician .... they attempt to legislate their believes into law for others to follow.

Religion tries to shape who can marry and where, when I can buy my beer, who can or cannot get an abortion, trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids, sends messages that other religions or atheists are "other" and not to be trusted or voted into office or with some jobs, try to prevent "anti-bullying" programs in school because they are really secretly pro-gay, argues that no such notion as the church/state divide exists in an effort to better craft a theocracy, limiting a woman's right to contraception through her insurance plan, limiting a woman's right to fill prescriptions at pharmacies ... I could go on and on. And there are deeper cultural impacts as well. Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present.

Or, in your case, there might exist no end to the magical thinking.

Excellent post.. Prefect assessment of the contemporary American pseudo-Christian.. ..

[blackfoot]

It isn't what the religious believe that is the problem. If they left it contained there all would be fine with me. It is the ones who attempt to legislate their religion for others that is the problem, logician .... they attempt to legislate their believes into law for others to follow.

Many of our laws today are in agreement with the morals of certain, if not most religions. Laws against theft and murder for example are in agreement with the 10 Commandments, is that reason to remove them? If a lawmaker tried to pass a law today that happened to be in agreement with a certain religious teaching, you would argue the point that he was trying to legislate morality. At some point, even people of your mindset will have to give in to the fact that there are absolutes in the world concerning "right and wrong". If not, then you openly encourage anarchy. I am not aware of any lawmaker attempting to legislate religious beliefs into law. Do you really believe this? That notion would be as foolish as saying this lawmaker is a Jew, and he is trying to pass the 10 Commandments as law because he has tried to pass a new law against certain murders involving domestic violence for example.

Religion tries to shape who can marry and where, when I can buy my beer, who can or cannot get an abortion, trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids, sends messages that other religions or atheists are "other" and not to be trusted or voted into office or with some jobs, try to prevent "anti-bullying" programs in school because they are really secretly pro-gay, argues that no such notion as the church/state divide exists in an effort to better craft a theocracy, limiting a woman's right to contraception through her insurance plan, limiting a woman's right to fill prescriptions at pharmacies ... I could go on and on. And there are deeper cultural impacts as well. Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present.

Correction...."Society" shapes the issues you have mentioned, not religion. Remember, our laws are not founded on Christian principles or concepts are they, at least that's your sides mantra. So don't pull that argument from your hat. Our system of government allows for a voting process where, in the end, majority rules, by way of votes. If the majority continues to set the path that our society will follow, and you aren't pleased, don't blame some religion, blame our form of Government. May I suggest that you move to bring change, or move away. Those are your only options. But don't think people are going to give up their spiritual concerns just because there are people like you trying to advance a "anything goes society". History has already proven that thought process doesn't work.

[scooter]

Nobody's safe from haters.

[Bungalow Bill]

Your only "strong" point is being a clueless homerfobe idiot. Guess you've got to use what
you're stuck with.

Since Gallup says there was only a modest difference between the groups polled, the poll
doesn't mean all that much.

Didn't Mitt visit Billy while he was in Asheville? Maybe old bully boy made Billy an offer he
couldn't refuse, and off came the c word.

[blackfoot]

Since Gallup says there was only a modest difference between the groups polled, the poll
doesn't mean all that much.

Another attribute of the politically stupid....they only value polls when they are in their favor.

[perspctv]

It isn't what the religious believe that is the problem. If they left it contained there all would be fine with me. It is the ones who attempt to legislate their religion for others that is the problem, logician .... they attempt to legislate their believes into law for others to follow.

Many of our laws today are in agreement with the morals of certain, if not most religions. Laws against theft and murder for example are in agreement with the 10 Commandments, is that reason to remove them?

Already anticipated and answered in my post ... see the portion you quoted below. See: "Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present."

Comprehension isn't a forte for you, is it? Perhaps have someone read over your shoulder and explain the words to you.

But to expand on this, since you ask, where there are reasonable laws they overlaps with secular/humanist principles about respecting and protecting others rights. Where y'all go wrong is using your magical book to to deny rights to others.

a lawmaker tried to pass a law today that happened to be in agreement with a certain religious teaching, you would argue the point that he was trying to legislate morality.

Answered before asked.

At some point, even people of your mindset will have to give in to the fact that there are absolutes in the world concerning "right and wrong".[/quote]

You absolutely either aren't reading or understanding.

If not, then you openly encourage anarchy.

I didn't propose a world without laws, dumbass. That is but your lazy straw man.

I am not aware of any lawmaker attempting to legislate religious beliefs into law. Do you really believe this?

Do you really not? What do you think the reason for not allowing me to buy alcohol is part of Sunday? Or the attempt to allow religious minded employers to disallow contraceptive coverage with their insurance plans? Or laws that try to limit family planning? Or laws that force abstinence only on schools or government agencies? Or the laws against stem cell research?

That notion would be as foolish as saying this lawmaker is a Jew, and he is trying to pass the 10 Commandments as law because he has tried to pass a new law against certain murders involving domestic violence for example.

That notion exists whether you are too limited to see it or admit it. Y'all claim it ad naseum where you think it will do you some good, "They are attempting to institute Sharia law!!"

Religion tries to shape who can marry and where, when I can buy my beer, who can or cannot get an abortion, trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids, sends messages that other religions or atheists are "other" and not to be trusted or voted into office or with some jobs, try to prevent "anti-bullying" programs in school because they are really secretly pro-gay, argues that no such notion as the church/state divide exists in an effort to better craft a theocracy, limiting a woman's right to contraception through her insurance plan, limiting a woman's right to fill prescriptions at pharmacies ... I could go on and on. And there are deeper cultural impacts as well. Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present.

Correction...."Society" shapes the issues you have mentioned, not religion.

And there are now magically no religious wankers in Congress or 'society'? My point is to call into question those religious folks that make up the majority of America [Christians] and the efforts of the more wankerish among them to legislate their religion into law.

Remember, our laws are not founded on Christian principles or concepts are they, at least that's your sides mantra.

Indeed not. Many of the founding fathers would be annoyed with how the GOP has sought to fuse the religious right and their political party and aspirations.

So don't pull that argument from your hat.

I'm not ... I'm arguing what is happening now in my lifetime as per your original question. Can't you remember what questions you asked. You asked me to explain how the religious right are impacting today and not America circa 1770 and 80s.

Our system of government allows for a voting process where, in the end, majority rules, by way of votes.

And separation of church and state. And rights aren't up for a vote. Or you stellar folks on the right would have never allowed blacks and white to marry.

If the majority continues to set the path that our society will follow, and you aren't pleased, don't blame some religion, blame our form of Government.

So if Dearborn. Michigan were to set up Sharia Law - that is OK with you? If the movement to pass some law is based and founded ... seeks its moral righteousness from a religion, then yes I'll point the finger at that religion and those who coddle and encourage them while pretending they aren't doing what they are.

I realize the pros and cons of the country we live in ... but pretending that much I find distasteful doesn't emanate from the religious right is just childish. Pointing to that reality is part of that democratic process to contest it.

May I suggest that you move to bring change, or move away.

Change is on its way. You and your type are dying off. The irreligious are growing by leaps and bounds. Demographic shifts and progress will doom much of y'alls attempts to deny rights and science to folks.

Those are your only options. But don't think people are going to give up their spiritual concerns just because there are people like you trying to advance a "anything goes society".

Where did I advocate any such thing, jackass? You can't argue against the position I amarguing ... so you just go and make up some bullshit position and pretend I am making that.

History has already proven that thought process doesn't work.

Not that I am arguing for it ... but for shit and giggles: where did history prove that an "anything goes society" doesn't work.

The truth is your puritanical society is crumbling around you whether you are too cloistered among the Fox world bubble or just too clueless to appreciate it.

The longer the GOP is tied the religious right to faster will be its demise.

[Bungalow Bill]

I guess that would mean the wingnuts are politically stupid since they often only post polls when their
candidate is ahead. I was just quoting the poll, the difference is modest and this was a self-reported
poll, so it hardly settles anything.



"When well-being scores were compared to religiosity, "very religious" Americans had modestly higher
scores in most areas compared with "moderately religious" and nonreligious people. The only area
where nonreligious people scored higher than religious people was in physical health."

[O Really]

A "cult" isn't necessarily related to religion, but cults do have common and definable characteristics. Mormons may or may not be a cult, but that would be determined by a comparison of what they do to the common characteristics of an organization that by any common definition is a cult, Branch Davidians or Mansons, for example. Point being, however, the Graham organization was using "cult" as a derogatory, not simply descriptive term. But nothing changed about the Mormons. Only the comment and evaluation of them by the Graham organization, It makes perfect sense that they would drop the "Mormons are a cult" talk in order to participate in politics as a Romney partisan. OKfine. But if not that, then what? And if that, they've thrown out more than 50 years of Billy Graham work in focusing on his simple and straight-forward message of belief in order to jump into politics. Billy Graham has met courteously with every President since Truman, and including Obama in 2010. While he may have had his preferences, he has stayed out of overt partisan politics. He's now putting out an ad that comes very close to a Romney endorsement. He's entitled to his opinion. He has a right to say what he wants. He can vote for the candidate of his choice and encourage others if he wants. But I think he's majorly besmirching his own legacy.

[billy.pilgrim]

A "cult" isn't necessarily related to religion, but cults do have common and definable characteristics. Mormons may or may not be a cult, but that would be determined by a comparison of what they do to the common characteristics of an organization that by any common definition is a cult, Branch Davidians or Mansons, for example. Point being, however, the Graham organization was using "cult" as a derogatory, not simply descriptive term. But nothing changed about the Mormons. Only the comment and evaluation of them by the Graham organization, It makes perfect sense that they would drop the "Mormons are a cult" talk in order to participate in politics as a Romney partisan. OKfine. But if not that, then what? And if that, they've thrown out more than 50 years of Billy Graham work in focusing on his simple and straight-forward message of belief in order to jump into politics. Billy Graham has met courteously with every President since Truman, and including Obama in 2010. While he may have had his preferences, he has stayed out of overt partisan politics. He's now putting out an ad that comes very close to a Romney endorsement. He's entitled to his opinion. He has a right to say what he wants. He can vote for the candidate of his choice and encourage others if he wants. But I think he's majorly besmirching his own legacy.

the nixon tapes have defined his legacy

something about those private moments tend to expose character truer than all the overt bs - just as the 47% comment is the real mittens, billy has never been other than the right wing bigot he was with nixon

[blackfoot]

Religion tries to shape who can marry and where, when I can buy my beer, who can or cannot get an abortion, trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids, sends messages that other religions or atheists are "other" and not to be trusted or voted into office or with some jobs, try to prevent "anti-bullying" programs in school because they are really secretly pro-gay, argues that no such notion as the church/state divide exists in an effort to better craft a theocracy, limiting a woman's right to contraception through her insurance plan, limiting a woman's right to fill prescriptions at pharmacies ... I could go on and on. And there are deeper cultural impacts as well. Certainly not all are negative. But one cant pretend the negative ones aren't present.

Religious people may try to shape the issues you have mentioned, not "religion". Religion is only a concept, it can't prevent you from buying your beer, stupid. If your town has a blue law then go to the next town, and then get off your butt and vote out the mean ol people that hide your beer from you. What about them pesky traffic lights, you know they have to be based on some religion too.

But lets look at some of your examples you blame on religion....

"Shape who can marry"? You mean like a brother and sister? Mother and son? Well yeah, there are laws against that, nothing to do with religion by the way. But I suppose you are talking about two men, or two women. In that case, at this point in time, "we the people" have spoken on that issue, some decisions were influenced by religious beliefs, some not, but then again, all part of the legislative process. If it makes you feel important to blame it on religion, feel free.

"where, when I can buy my beer". Get over it, another legislative process, some people vote for them for religious purposes I'm sure, but just as many if not more like the idea of having regulation in some areas, especially when stupid drunks are involved.

"trying to limit the appropriate science education of our kids", you mean you want only your version of "theories taught, and not the other concepts out there? Sorry pal, you can't push your religion of atheism on the rest of us now can you, hypocrite!

"who can or cannot get an abortion", the issue there is really who pays for it. You want taxpayers to pay for the mistakes you have made with your children breeding like rats and then expect us to pay for the outcome? Religions not your enemy there brainless, sick and tired taxpayers are.

I can't go on with this BS, I tried to take you seriously, really, but all of what you have posted is pure crap that has the markings of the same old liberal talking points, not worthy to even continue on reading this drivel.