Coloring in a whole region or state is misleading to an extreme.

The absolute best way to do this is with an interactive GIS map, so you can click on small areas or even individual streets to get a pop-up of all related information. Most of these types of maps are based on Census data anyway, and GIS is the perfect tool to disseminate such information

That surprises me. Looking at the notes makes me wonder if the survey focused on "congregations" in a way that undercounted some religions based on their method of organization.

Here's part of the reason:

http://www.milarepacenter.org/

http://www.karmecholing.org/index.php

http://www.shaoshantemple.org/ (almost in the Kingdom)

http://classifieds.sevendaysvt.com/viewAd.htm;jsessionid=061F68D9878E16CFD0CAC4FCE0993071?adId=67069

which is much more interesting.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that silly quote in this thread.

And assuming his views are accurately represented, after all the rewrites and misquotes and translations of things he may have said and done decades before they were documented, some of which actually contradict in the various tellings.

And assuming the actual numbers of humans affected.

And assuming the effects were all good?

Lot of bias in that thing you pasted.

But this...

"He is the central figure of the human race"

To say this is hubris is an understatement unless the US equals all of the human race and the rest of the planet which is made up of mostly non-Christians... are not human.

Now that I see it, that thing is pretty ugly.

It's pretty meaningless ethnocentric hyperbole.

Blows that comment to utter oblivion.

In comparison, the one above rates further up on the trite scale than anything can possibly imagine.

Thanks for the Blue Dot post!

of humans affected." Hello, Western European history? All of the Americas?

within a certain stretch of poetic license,

"All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on earth as much as that One Solitary Life. "

But I think we see the results of the Jesus of Nazareth story from completely opposite perspectives.

Now back to the subject of the OP.........

or?

As others have pointed out the sentiment expressed in that passage is offensive and I'll add- simplistic, even simple minded, but that you felt compelled to post it is interesting and to me, explains a lot about you.

I never would have guessed that.

I think the one that surprises me most is Buddhism in Kansas.

Hinduism in Arizona? Didn't see that coming.

I'm about to go there soon and see it for the first time, after 8 years.

That's gotta make Bubba happy.

why we insist on secular governments abroad but fail to adopt such policies at home. Oh wait, I remember. It's the Christians who think they own the country due to a perversion of its history.

in Newton County, Arkansas. I have a hard time swallowing that one.

Once you exclude the Christians, I would say all bets are off on number two. What it doesn't include is non-believers.

What would you expect any given place to have for number two if not Hinduism or Islam?

Christianity after all. And since Atheism is not a religion it's not represented.

that explains the guy ahead of me at the Pizza Hut last week asking the cashier to: "Make me one with everything."

If you are going to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity, with an extra set of books and mythology, you should probably also differentiate between Christianity and Mormonism, with an extra set of books and mythology. Which means you have one state where Christianity is not the #1, and a number of other states where the map may not represent the second most common religion.

And Christians are distinct from Judaism. Under your approach, differentiation could be reduced to theist and non-theist. All theist believe in the mythology of a god or gods, non-theists do not. The book and details of the mythology are irrelevant.

There's a very specific mythology and text attached to Judaism. Christianity takes that mythology, adds a new set of cannon texts, and alters it to a new religeon. Mormonism takes the christian mythology and texts and adds a new set of cannon texts and a new messiah type and changes the theology considerably. Mormonism is newer on the stage, but I think its a fair argument that it is at least as distinguishable from Christianity as Christianity is from Judaism. It is not merely a different take on the same theology and text, such as the differences between Baptists and Pentecostals, it adds a whole new canon and a different basic theology based on that canon.

I mean, they both believe they get planets in the afterlife. They both think there's some alien out there that will grant them said planet...

I agree with your opinion that Mormonism isn't just a sect of Christianity but a completely separate religion.