If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
^^ That's a quote from 19th century satirist Finley Peter Dunne, on the responsibility of the media, not scripture.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How does (did) Jesus feel about a government safety net?
Honest question.
Charitable should be the "safety net", not gov't programs (and higher taxation to pay for them). If the wealthy gave with their whole heart (Jesus pitched this frequently), we wouldn't need such mechanisms. Now, I'm not saying if we cut taxes such giving would instantly fill the gaps, however, if you pointedly tell people, "hey, we're going to cut these programs and your taxes, we expect you fat cats to step up", you might be very surprised by how generous people can be. Right now the wealthy expect that the gov't will simply care for the disabled, elderly without retirement plans, and disadvantaged children, because in living memory they have. However, that simply creates more of a gulf between the rich and poor, because the rich believe their neighbors who live in poverty, through no fault of their own, aren't their responsibility. Making them aware that they certainly are, and that doing so enriches their lives more than the things they can buy, would radically turn society around.
It's all about flipping the scenario from "tax collection" to "gift giving". Studies have shown the latter triggers the brain's pleasure centers and becomes habitual, while the former creates almost adversarial levels of animosity (everyone hates getting bills) along with strong feelings entitlement from the recipient ("this is what the gov't owes me every month").
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
My next question to him will be to list problematic right wing issues.
Honestly, I see absolutely zero logic to this idea that right wing politics are more Christian. I see the exact opposite actually.
Eagerness to engage in conflicts that do not adhere to the just war doctrine for one. The left focuses too much on solidarity at the expense of subsidiarity. The right tends to push subsidiarity at the expense of solidarity.
I know you love it when I quote from the Catechism.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY
ARTICLE 1
THE PERSON AND SOCIETY
I. THE COMMUNAL CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN VOCATION
1878 All men are called to the same end: God himself. There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men are to establish among themselves in truth and love.1 Love of neighbor is inseparable from love for God.
1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.2
1880 A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an "heir" and receives certain "talents" that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop.3 He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.
1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."4
1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
II. CONVERSION AND SOCIETY
1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:"8
Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed.9
1887 The inversion of means and ends,10 which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."11
1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.12
1889 Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse."13 This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: "Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it."14
IN BRIEF
1890 There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men ought to establish among themselves.
1891 The human person needs life in society in order to develop in accordance with his nature. Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man.
1892 "The human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject, and the object of every social organization" (GS 25 § 1).
1893 Widespread participation in voluntary associations and institutions is to be encouraged.
1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.
1896 Where sin has perverted the social climate, it is necessary to call for the conversion of hearts and appeal to the grace of God. Charity urges just reforms. There is no solution to the social question apart from the Gospel (cf. CA 3, 5).
1 Cf. GS 24 § 3.
2 Cf. GS 25 § 1.
3 Cf. Lk 19:13,15.
4 GS 25 § 1.
5 John XXIII, MM 60.
6 Cf. GS 25 § 2; CA 12.
7 CA 48 § 4; cf. Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno I,184-186.
8 CA 36 § 2.
9 John XXIII, PT 36.
10 Cf. CA 41.
11 Pius XII, Address at Pentecost, June 1, 1941.
12 Cf. LG 36.
13 CA 25.
14 Lk 17:33.
But you spend a disproportionate amount of timing trashing Hillary Clinton, Chongo.
I can make this argument without Trump, but given that he is the leader of the Republican party now, how are any of the following things Christian?
- misogyny/objectification of women
- racial and religious scapegoating and implicitly promoting witch hunts
- promoting intolerance (maybe this could be lumped into the last point)
- running a fraudulent university
- eagerness to start/continue war
- providing no concrete demonstration of empathy towards the poor in the form of policy beyond generic and vague lip service
- possible tax evasion
Even leaving out Trump, the Republicans for years have been very aggressive about war and very friendly to big corporations. How are these things Jesus-friendly?
You can justify the wars with particular ideological arguments, but can we agree that Jesus is not sitting up there in the clouds going "way to go America, bomb the shit out of those guys! Those bastards have it coming."
So, why is Christianity so well rooted in the Republican party, and why are you so adamant about not seeing Hillary Clinton getting elected Chongo, since everything seems to begin and end with your faith? I think the logical perspective would be more policy-specific and less partisan?
At the time most of you right-wingers weren't having any of the left wing arguments about this being a mistake. Now, even O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are saying that in retrospect it was a mistake, and the left was right. This is big of them to say. But, the right is embracing this faith that the right was merely operating on the best intelligence they had, and that this was a well-intentioned mistake.
First of all, we don't know for absolute fact that there wasn't something else going on there that we aren't aware of that was influencing things. This wouldn't be unbelievable either, because it was politicians that got us into the war, after all. But secondly, the right is quick to overlook this and continue to place their trust in the same Republican party.
This mistake was kind of a big deal, no? This was a little more than forgetting to buy a dozen eggs from the store, this was a mistake that cost countless dollars and way too many lives lost.
Granted, many on the left were in favor of the war too, but wouldn't the Christian thing to do be a little less zealous and adamant in favor of the party that led this war?
If we want change in this country, we really have to drop the partisan bullshit and start thinking for ourselves. You haven't explicitly endorsed Trump, Chongo, but you have made it very clear that you don't want Hillary elected, so logic would have it that you would prefer Trump to be elected, right? You certainly have not expressed ambivalence or an interest in changing our current system.
But you spend a disproportionate amount of timing trashing Hillary Clinton, Chongo.
I can make this argument without Trump, but given that he is the leader of the Republican party now, how are any of the following things Christian?
- misogyny/objectification of women
Trump's got nuthin' on Bubba's mad skills.
- racial and religious scapegoating and implicitly promoting witch hunts
HHS mandate, continually challenging the Church on her hiring practices and what is taught in her schools.
- promoting intolerance (maybe this could be lumped into the last point)
No tolerance for those who have't got on board with redefining marriage
- running a fraudulent university
Running a fraudulent real estate development. At least those who filed the suit have't died under mysterious circumstances
- eagerness to start/continue war
With the exception of the war started by W, the wars of the 20th century started under Democrat administrations.
Papa Bush went into Kuwait after it was invaded and went no further. This actually lead to those on the left complaining that GHWB should have gone in and taken SH out, which W did.
Obama and HRC are responsible for Libya and promoting the "Arab Spring" They had a golden opportunity in Iran but chose not to do anything. Telegraphing when the US was going to leave allowed Al Qaida in Iraq to regroup and morph into ISIS. Evidence is surfacing that Amb. Stevens was in Libya facilitating weapon transfers to Syria via Turkey.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
- providing no concrete demonstration of empathy towards the poor in the form of policy beyond generic and vague lip service
Policies/programs that do more harm than good are worse than lip service. 50 years after the start of the "war on poverty" began, there has been little change in poverty.
- possible tax evasion
What do you think the Clinton Foundation is for?
Even leaving out Trump, the Republicans for years have been very aggressive about war and very friendly to big corporations. How are these things Jesus-friendly?
You can justify the wars with particular ideological arguments, but can we agree that Jesus is not sitting up there in the clouds going "way to go America, bomb the shit out of those guys! Those bastards have it coming."
So, why is Christianity so well rooted in the Republican party, and why are you so adamant about not seeing Hillary Clinton getting elected Chongo, since everything seems to begin and end with your faith? I think the logical perspective would be more policy-specific and less partisan?
According to Bernie, HRC has been VERY friendly to big corporations that donate large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation.
I would not say Christianity is "well rooted" in the Republican party. The Republicans are just as likely to turn their back on Christians if they feel they no longer need their vote.
This election is choice between Kang and Kodos. I know what kind of judges Kang will appoint, and what type of policies she will promote. Kodos has published a list of judges that he claims he will consider. Whether he nominates them or notes another story. Like Kang, Kodos claims to have "evolved" on many issues. It truly is a choice between evils.
If the election is between Kang and Kodos, why do you try so hard to get us to vote for one or the other, rather than discussing key issues in a non-partisan way?
“The ‘freedom of religion’ language reflects our right to live a life of faith at all times, while the ‘freedom of worship’ reflects a right simply confined to a particular space and location. We live in a great nation that allows individuals to live out their faith, or have no faith at all. To protect freedom and diversity, we must carefully articulate this right throughout the federal government.”
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 17, 2016, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Charitable should be the "safety net", not gov't programs (and higher taxation to pay for them). If the wealthy gave with their whole heart (Jesus pitched this frequently), we wouldn't need such mechanisms.
I'm picturing myself as super rich and surrounded by poor people. I'm not going to just give them my hard-earned and well-deserved money, I'm going to spend less to just build a bigger wall to protect all of my cool shit. If there was an example of a society today that does this well and a viable roadmap for getting America there, I'm all ears. But you'd be undoing hundreds (thousands?) of years of demonizing the poor as being bad, lazy people that deserve nothing.
a few more.
The "HHS mandate"
ENDA
Funding Planned Parenthood.
Trying to redefine the 1st amendment from "freedom religion" to "freedom of worship."
Surely Obamacare is as Christian as it gets?
PP = Abortion so that doesn't really warrant another mention;
The other two boil down to wanting favouritism for yourselves and the opposite for the gays. Spun another way, selfishness or greed and spite or maybe Wrath?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm picturing myself as super rich and surrounded by poor people. I'm not going to just give them my hard-earned and well-deserved money, I'm going to spend less to just build a bigger wall to protect all of my cool shit. If there was an example of a society today that does this well and a viable roadmap for getting America there, I'm all ears. But you'd be undoing hundreds (thousands?) of years of demonizing the poor as being bad, lazy people that deserve nothing.
I did. Put it on the shoulders of the oligarchs, tell them their fellow man is their responsibility. Studies have shown how addicting charitable giving can be, even to the point where the wealthy are working harder to make more $$, just so they can have more to give. In my experience it's beyond the threshold of giving "until it hurts". After a while it makes you feel euphoric, a constant "warm glow", similar to a gambling high.
What we would have is a mechanism that not only takes care of poverty, but would also create more humanity by instilling responsibility and compassion. You've seen those ads where you can "sponsor a child for $22 /month", where they actually send you photos and updates on the child you're helping? Those are wildly successful because the donor becomes so personally invested. Think about it, we could actually use the more compulsive and competitive aspects of human nature for good (for a change).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How? It isn't charity when threats of fines and imprisonment are involved.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How? It isn't charity when threats of fines and imprisonment are involved.
But the point was to provide healthcare to those who really needed it. Which it has. I appreciate that a minority got a little worse off and no-one likes that but the ACA did what it was intended to do and slashed the rate of people without health insurance didn't it?
IIRC Jesus was quite big on healing people.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
PP = Abortion so that doesn't really warrant another mention;
The other two boil down to wanting favouritism for yourselves and the opposite for the gays. Spun another way, selfishness or greed and spite or maybe Wrath?
PP is also cancer screenings and other less controversial health services for women which are completely nullified because a small percentage of what they do includes abortions.
No offence Chongo, but your priorities are ideological, partisan, and not really Christian. If this wasn't so your political rants wouldn't be so one-sided, because there is PLENTY that the right wing does that you should be enormously upset about, yet you are almost completely silent, and you have sunk a disproportionate amount of your effort into ensuring that Hillary doesn't get elected.
PP is also cancer screenings and other less controversial health services for women which are completely nullified because a small percentage of what they do includes abortions.
No offence Chongo, but your priorities are ideological, partisan, and not really Christian. If this wasn't so your political rants wouldn't be so one-sided, because there is PLENTY that the right wing does that you should be enormously upset about, yet you are almost completely silent, and you have sunk a disproportionate amount of your effort into ensuring that Hillary doesn't get elected.
I've pointed out before that PP self reporting that abortion is a "small portion of what we do" got the max "pinocchios" from the Washington Post.
This is from the Hill Exposing the Planned Parenthood business model | TheHill
Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortions make up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion “visits” is striking.
Abortion is a sacrament of the church of moral relativism.
But the point was to provide healthcare to those who really needed it. Which it has. I appreciate that a minority got a little worse off and no-one likes that but the ACA did what it was intended to do and slashed the rate of people without health insurance didn't it?
IIRC Jesus was quite big on healing people.
What was the monthly premium for Jesuscare?
How do you slash the rate of someone who didn't have a premium before?
Edit: I asked my sister how much she pays for her Obamacare premium: $348/month. She paid $0 before. She paid cash for her Dr visits and got the generic prescription drugs at Fry's (Kroger) $10 for 90 days.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Jul 18, 2016 at 11:39 AM.
)
relying on the benevolency of bigwig fatcats doesn't work. Sure, it may make some feel good to sprinkle a little money on their favorite charity, but it's not enough and frequently there are strings attached (religious charities that only cater to their own religion, require conversion, proselytizing, etc)
But the point was to provide healthcare to those who really needed it. Which it has. I
by using a vehicle that Christ strongly disliked, "Caesar".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
relying on the benevolency of bigwig fatcats doesn't work.
How would you know? It's not been tried. At least "my" way is proven to make changes in human nature, which benefit society in the long term. "Yours" creates more animosity and people avoid it like the plague, to the point they've turned it all into a $1T /yr business, with millions actively working to pay less through shell companies and foreign trusts... But the real irony is that most of them are people who are for higher taxes in the first place.
Taxation to stabilization, the socialist model, is what doesn't work, all it does is create a larger stake for the wealthy in gov't and classwide dependence on entitlements, with nearly entire races living on assistance (or becoming reliant on criminal endeavors to make ends meet).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How would you know? It's not been tried. At least "my" way is proven to make changes in human nature, which benefit society in the long term.
I think all of history up til the 20th century counts as "having been tried." Those early capitalists were so magnamanious they even let kids work in the factory, up to 12 hours a day! Such charity! The company store, workhouses, orphanages, selling children you couldn't feed... the great depression...
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 18, 2016, 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
At least "my" way is proven to make changes in human nature, which benefit society in the long term.
No, charity is proven to affects people like that. A system of government that depends on the wealthy to be charitable is not proven, and speaking as though its viability is factual is disingenuous on your part.
I think all of history up til the 20th century counts as "having been tried."
It really doesn't. We've developed a great deal over the last century, both morally and ethically, along with far superior communications and distribution systems. It's time to admit that socialism has been an utter failure and give philanthropy a serious try.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Whats the statistic at the moment? 80% of all wealth in the hands of a less than 1% of the population? Or did it hit 90%?
Yep, that's what socialism has gotten us. Everyone scrambles to avoid taxes and hunt for loopholes, all the while blaming the poor for being born into poverty and relying on entitlements. Apathy is the result of turning what should be a natural, unifying act into just another bill to pay.
Ample proof that once they get it, they don't like giving it away.
Under the current system even the most generous people become unmotivated. You can't expect people to be excited over taxes and assistance programs when gov't approval ratings are at an all-time low.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You don't have to be excited by it. You pay your share. I pay my share. I am grateful I don't need those social programs. I can imagine one paycheck, one illness, making a change to life and the shoe being on the other foot. It's called empathy.
Only those with huge bankroll can afford to cheat the system. Maybe it's more of a game to them, finding loopholes? Tax-man Go? You'd think it'd be easier, since they are not balancing a checkbook worrying about the mortgage payment bouncing.
I find it intersting that the UK gives almost as much per capita in charity as the US, but there is virtually no financial incentive to do so- you don't get tax brakes for giving. In fact the most charitable nations in the world tend to be taxed higher than the US. So where is the evidence for correlation- much less causation, that lower taxes=more charity? Doesn't exist. In fact I would say the evidence shows that 'socialist' countries give more- meaning that the population is simply more civic minded- politically and socially.
I find it intersting that the UK gives almost as much per capita in charity as the US, but there is virtually no financial incentive to do so- you don't get tax brakes for giving. In fact the most charitable nations in the world tend to be taxed higher than the US. So where is the evidence for correlation- much less causation, that lower taxes=more charity? Doesn't exist. In fact I would say the evidence shows that 'socialist' countries give more- meaning that the population is simply more civic minded- politically and socially.
^^ In individual charitable giving, which is what I've been talking about, it's not even close between the US and the UK. In fact, Southern US states, which tend to have the lowest tax rates by far, give more per capita than any other place in the world (except for those crazy Mormons in Utah, bless their hearts).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
^^ Quite often you like to focus on the extreme fringe (much like with mass shootings) and allow them to rule your opinions. The vast, vast majority are noble causes and a very few of those types of "pastors" even exist.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
^^ Quite often you like to focus on the extreme fringe (much like with mass shootings) and allow them to rule your opinions. The vast, vast majority are noble causes and a very few of those types of "pastors" even exist.
And your 7 page thread about neo-progressive skull duggery is?
Ex. It's no longer "fringe" when a dangerous ideology (re. Intersectionality) takes over an entire movement (re. Feminism).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why can't we just talk about a particular thing without these sorts of labels? For one, we are never going to agree upon what is extreme and mainstream.
Why can't we just talk about a particular thing without these sorts of labels? For one, we are never going to agree upon what is extreme and mainstream.
You're free to talk about your particular thing without any labels, or words for that matter (since labels are just descriptive words). Good luck.
As a response to another poster's argument, you've failed miserably in making an argument either agreeing or (more likely) disagreeing. Come on Bess, you're better than this. If you don't like the definition of a word someone else is using, make a case for it. Don't just say "why can't we do things my way?!" - that's lazy and has the appearance of being dishonest (though I don't think that's your intent here).
In fact, Southern US states, which tend to have the lowest tax rates by far, give more per capita than any other place in the world (except for those crazy Mormons in Utah, bless their hearts).
Top