Jim Zoetewey on Nov 7, 2005 3:55 PM | That's pretty ironic. One would hope that they'd have a greater depth of knowlege than that. On the other hand, I suppose that that makes them no different from many salespeople (and better trained than some)....

Vincent on Nov 8, 2005 10:45 AM | Yeah. Stumping Mormon missionaries is so easy it's not even fun. They're trained to follow their little lesson plans and to disengage from anything that deviates. There's every reason to think that the real point of LDS missionary work is to make the missionaries loyal to the church, not to bring in new members. Something like half of the converts to Mormonism don't attend three services before they drop out....

Jim Zoetewey on Nov 8, 2005 11:25 AM | You're probably right on that one--at least from what I vaguely remember from social psychology classes. There's something about telling other people that you believe something (even if you don't know the people) that makes you likely to stick with what you said. For example, the guy who started Alchoholics Anonymous was a drinker who found that talking with other people about drinking helped keep him from drinking. The denomination I'm a member of has a similar program that sends high school students out on mission work for a large portion of the summer. I never went, but the people who do often seem to come back having had some very intense experiences. Whether it helps keeps them within the denomination, I don't know, but I imagine it helps....

luc on Jan 11, 2007 10:55 PM | vincent, mormon missionary's actually have 19 years of religous education behind them, which includes four years of seminary where they study the old testament, new tetament, book of mormon and doctorine and covenants. Just to keep you up to date they have also done away with the lesson plans completely....

James on Jan 11, 2007 12:18 PM | It's looking like your definition of a theocracy and mine don't synch up. When you said you didn't know anybody who'd be for a theocracy, I didn't realize you were implying any form of dictatorship. When I google "define:theocracy", it pretty much just indicates rule by religious authority. And by that paraphrased definition, I believe the majority of the US is in favor of theocracy, and votes accordingly. Could a candidate win the 2008 election without stating he/she is some flavor of Christian (preferably Catholic)?...

Jim Zoetewey on Jan 11, 2007 1:07 PM | What I was trying to say is that so far as I can tell, both people on the left and the right seem to fear dictatorship by extremists on the other side--and accuse the other side of trying to create one on a regular basis. With that misunderstanding cleared up, we still might disagree on whether the majority of people in the US are in favor of theocracy. I'd agree that you pretty much have to be or pretend to be Christian to get elected to the presidency in this country. My assumption about theocracy is that the leadership of the dominant religion is structurally part of the government. In the US we specifically bar that. More to the point, there's a limit to how religious presidential candidates can be and still be electable. To win, you've got to win both Republicans and some portion of those with centrist views. Come out as a religious zealot and you lose the center (as well as a lot of Republicans). Lose the center and you lose the country. Thus, the only way you can win as a zealot is to successfully hide these views. In that sense, I'd argue that theocracy isn't a major danger....

James on Jan 11, 2007 1:56 PM | RE: "My assumption about theocracy is that the leadership of the dominant religion is structurally part of the government. In the US we specifically bar that." We specifically barred it, and then we gradually limboed (in more meaning than one) beneath that bar. The first amendment to the Constitution states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]" and yet "In God We Trust" replaced "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto in 1956. Two years prior, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Congressional sessions always open with a Christian prayer. Our nation and its government are steeped in Christianity. It looks to me like the majority of Americans wish to keep it that way, and I believe many wish it to be even more so. Perhaps you are correct that most Americans would not support the initiation of theocracy. But if America were suddenly (perhaps by divine meddling?) a Christian theocracy at the cost of our representational democracy, I believe the majority of Americans would not significantly object. ...

Jim Zoetewey on Jan 11, 2007 8:35 PM | A couple thoughts: First, with regards to "In God We Trust," the Pledge of Allegiance and so on. It's interesting to note that all of those changes happened during the 1950's. That's also the period in which people were particularly worried about communism. The USSR was officially an atheistic state and persecuted religion. Thus, the US emphasized that it differed from the USSR on this and it became one of those symbols of how we differ from them. That's why the Pledge was modified and probably the others too. I'd argue that we've just passed a wave of religious influence on our society. We've had a few of these waves since the founding of the country and they always pass. My impression is that the current one started in the 70's and probably crested during Bush's presidency. One of the interesting things I've been noting lately is the evangelicals who are disillusioned with political power. For example, there's a minister and former member of the Bush administration who came out with a book saying that evangelicals have been manipulated by the Bush administration. He also accused them of ridiculing religious people in secret. I've noted this pattern in other evangelicals as well. Bearing in mind that this is largely anecdotal evidence, I can't prove this, but it seems likely to me. Now... To your second point, I'd agree that the majority of Americans wouldn't work against a theocracy that had somehow become established--at least at the beginning. I suspect this would be because people don't enjoy getting in trouble with the law. On the other hand, if you take a look at how far the Bush presidency has fallen in public approval of late, and, note the recent bunch of attacks on religion by atheists that are getting read and discussed, it seems possible that people would get sick of it even if it became established....

Jim Zoetewey on Jan 10, 2007 10:38 AM | I saw it on Urban Planet, a website devoted to talking about city planning. In one of their forums (the Grand Rapids forum), they were posting pictures and maps from the history of the city. What I'd do in your shoes is to get an Urban Planet account and look through the "Grand Rapids Then and Now" thread that I linked to in my post. In it, you'll find the map and the person who posted it. Then ask that person how he found it....

Jim Zoetewey on Oct 1, 2006 10:30 PM | I sure hope we'll know. I've got to admit that I haven't decided exactly what I think about Snape's behaviour at the end of the sixth book. Certainly the Unbreakable Vow (which would result in death if he didn't help Malfoy) gives Rowling an out if she decides to have Snape ultimately be on Harry's side. My suspicion has been that Snape will die heroically in the last book. But we'll see....

Sorro on Jan 7, 2007 12:28 AM | One challenge to your Horcrux speculation: if Voldemort made Harry into a horcrux when he killed Lily Potter, then why would he then try to kill Harry as well?!? Killing him would only destroy the horcrux he just created, and that doesn't make much sense... IMHO, the only possible way to potentially save your theory would be to say that Harry become a horcrux when Voldemort "killed" himself by using the Avada Kedavra on Harry. The part of him that was there (as opposed to the other horcruxes) did die, so maybe Harry became a horcrux through this "death". However, as far as I understood, someone must perform another spell to trap the piece of soul that is ripped by the killing and put it in the desired object. (I don't think there is such a thing as a "horcrux by mistake") But Voldemort was not around at that time to perform this piece of magic, as the curse bounced back at him and "killed" him... So, I am not sure your theory stands, honestly......

Jim Zoetewey on Jan 7, 2007 3:11 PM | I think you've got a good point. I've always regarded that as a weak point in my theory. Of course, there's a lot of things that we as readers simply don't know. For example, we don't know the details of what would make a horcrux work. For example, maybe using a spell like Avada Kedavra would be necessary to make it work on a living being? Also, maybe you could create a horcrux by mistake under certain circumstances. Perhaps Voldemort had everything ready for creating a horcrux of Harry's remains and all that remained to do was kill him? In that situation, the creation of the horcrux might happen "automatically" after Avada Kedavra was cast. So anyway, I think you're right in that the weakness of my theory is the circumstances of how it might happen. The thing that points to the possibility though is the evidence that I mentioned in my original post. We'll see what Rowling actually chose to be the case though. I don't pretend to know....

Jim Zoetewey on Jan 3, 2007 4:49 PM | Most definitely so. I was amused to read someone in the comments saying "Now I know what band Satan has booked in Hell for all eternity." That being said, apparently the story of Tommy Seebach (the keyboardist and singer) is rather sad in that he died of a heart attack at 58, suffered from alcoholism, and a period of prolonged unpopularity before his death. On the other hand, he was apparently one of the more popular figures in Danish music for a while....

Jim Zoetewey on Dec 23, 2006 1:13 PM | Mostly because cvs is built into Eclipse and there's a plugin for it on jedit (my preferred IDE's). Also my web hosting provider makes CVS available as part of the account. Thus if I ever want to move my stuff over (or make it available to people other than me), I'll end up using it anyway....

Jim Zoetewey on Dec 2, 2006 9:05 AM | I've heard the book recommended. Actually, I've heard the author interviewed and it does sound good. As for your dad... My guess is that it could be as simple as annoyance that they went someplace and you're doing something you could have been doing at home. I remember spending a lot of time reading on vacation too. Mostly though it was on the way there. As my dad was from Colorado originally, we'd drive there most summers and I remember spending much of the 2 day drive reading in the car. I don't remember my parents being annoyed with it. I do remember them being annoyed if I tried to continue reading instead of doing whatever was the planned activity of the moment ("We're leaving now. Put down the book.") I don't know that it's a particularly Calvinist thing. Of course I haven't read everything he's written. I doubt I've read the entire Institutes--just bits and pieces as needed....