PDA

View Full Version : Religious identification in the US



ckb2001
06-17-2007, 08:17 PM
Odd for me to post a religion thread, but there were a few stats I found that surprised me while browsing:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm


* The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.

* 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.

* 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990.

------------------


The sources seem to be good (at least the few I looked at). And wiki says something similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States


Needless to say, I like this trend :cooldude:

(P.S I apologize if these stats are common knowledge, but I wasn't aware of how rapid the change was - we're talking 11 years!)

Celtkin
06-17-2007, 08:30 PM
Good stuff, CKB.

It never ceases to amaze me how a philosophy of 'peace' (as most religions portray themselves to be) has been a major source of strife, war and murder in the name of a deity.

The strife seems to stem mostly from Jeudo-Christian-Muslim lines. How many Taoist / Buddhist / Eastern 'religions' support genocide, murder, rape, suppression or exploitation?

Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of a basic Eastern philosophy...that all things are tied together and that all actions, positive and negative, affect all the tied in parts. See "Superstring"

Pagan
06-17-2007, 08:41 PM
* The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.
:D

And the beauty of this is that we do NOT proselytize...people find the Craft on their own. :wink:

ckb2001
06-17-2007, 09:51 PM
Good stuff, CKB.

It never ceases to amaze me how a philosophy of 'peace' (as most religions portray themselves to be) has been a major source of strife, war and murder in the name of a deity.

The strife seems to stem mostly from Jeudo-Christian-Muslim lines. How many Taoist / Buddhist / Eastern 'religions' support genocide, murder, rape, suppression or exploitation?

Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of a basic Eastern philosophy...that all things are tied together and that all actions, positive and negative, affect all the tied in parts. See "Superstring"

The BBC once asked how many wars are caused by religion. A group of scholars came up with the "Religious War Audit" in response. Here are some interesting quotes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

"After reviewing historical analyses by a diverse array of specialists, we concluded that there have been few genuinely religious wars in the last 100 years. The Israel/Arab wars from 1948 to now, often painted in the media and other places as wars over religion, or wars arising from religious differences, have in fact been wars of nationalism, liberation of territory or self-defense."

..

"The Islamist fundamentalist terror war being led by Osama bin Laden, also often painted in media commentary as a war about Islamic fundamentalism, is more about political order in the Arab countries, and the presence of US forces in Muslim countries, than it is about religious conversion of foreigners or expansion of territory in the name of God. Nevertheless, as seen by bin Laden, it is a war of religious duty. But the religious duty he identifies flows
from his disaffections with the political order and with the fact that a foreign, non-Muslim power has stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia, a situation he sees as contrary to his religious traditions, especially when those forces are being used to attack other Muslim countries."

..

"The War Audit found that we needed to go back to the wars of Islamic expansion beginning in the seventh century, the Crusades beginning in the eleventh century, and the Reformation Wars beginning in the sixteenth century to find wars linked more closely to religious belief than to other political causes: that is, cases where the wars were fought because of religious differences."

..

"It is mainly when organised religious institutions become involved with state institutions or when a political opposition is trying to take power that people begin advocating religious justifications for war."
-----------------




I guess it's really difficult to disentangle the precise effect religion has on resolving conflicts through violence or the decision to go to war, but what you say about the difference between Taoism or Buddhism vs Christianity/Islam is worth noting. That's a very good example of how a religion can affect the likelihood violence is used to resolve problems. I mean it's hard to deny the Bible and Koran are relatively bloody books, justifying violence as a way of resolving conflicts in certain situations, whereas Buddhist or Taoist teaching offers almost no justification for using violence to resolve conflicts.

Having said that, let's remember there are always exceptions, such as in Sri Lanka. A form of fundamentalist Buddhism has been used to justify attacks against the LTTE by some people involved in the conflict. But, you're right in that you don't see anything similar to the Crusades or Islam's frequent "jihads", especially during the initial rise of Islam.



Also, it's worth noting there are some interesting scientific studies on how believing violence is justified by God or through (for example) the Bible actually leads to a greater willingness to act more violently:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202614.htm

"Reading violent scriptures increases aggressive behavior, especially among believers, a new study finds."

After reporting their religious affiliations and beliefs, participants read a passage adapted from the King James Bible that described a woman's brutal murder and her husband's revenge on her attackers. Half the participants were told that the passage came from the Old Testament, half that it came from an ancient scroll found by archeologists. Half the participants from each of these groups read a version of the passage that included a sentence in which God commanded his followers to take arms against others.

After reading the passages, participants were paired with confederates of the experimenters for a simple reaction task. They were told that the winner would be able to "blast" the losing partner with noise as loud as 105 decibels, about the level of a fire alarm—a common experimental measure of aggression.

The researchers found that both the religious and secular students were more aggressive, delivering louder blasts of noise to their ostensible partners, when told that the passage they read came from the Bible. Aggressive responses also increased when participants read that God directly sanctioned violence. The increased level of aggression was greater among believers than among secularists, however."
-------------------

ABrownLamp
06-17-2007, 10:23 PM
:D

And the beauty of this is that we do NOT proselytize...people find the Craft on their own. :wink:

How many years of study before wiccans can start casting spells?

Pagan
06-17-2007, 10:57 PM
How many years of study before wiccans can start casting spells?
You can cast a spell anytime you want Lamp. A spell is basically a Wiccan prayer. We try to make something happen by setting energy in motion, only instead of begging our deity we take matters into our own hands.

It's not like what you see in the movies.

tylerdolphin
06-18-2007, 01:04 AM
Good stuff, CKB.

It never ceases to amaze me how a philosophy of 'peace' (as most religions portray themselves to be) has been a major source of strife, war and murder in the name of a deity.

The strife seems to stem mostly from Jeudo-Christian-Muslim lines. How many Taoist / Buddhist / Eastern 'religions' support genocide, murder, rape, suppression or exploitation?

Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of a basic Eastern philosophy...that all things are tied together and that all actions, positive and negative, affect all the tied in parts. See "Superstring"
I dont think a Christain would claim that Christianity full of peace in history...Jesus himself said his teachings would start wars

Maynard the Hammer
06-18-2007, 01:27 AM
paganism is alive and well and has been, though it asserts itself in various forms. the least of which is in the US. most of it was wiped out when we did so to the native americans and started "fresh" in a sense with our protestantism

however there is a deep pagan undercurrent in europe. that roman and medieval christianity was a sort of compromise between the entrenched heathens and new message of christ is evident in catholicism. neo paganism resurged with Wagner and swept through europe in the late 19th century and were some of the underpinnings of national socialism. i say this as a matter of record, not to disparage

the idea of paganism and islam is a new but growing area made by those who literally are willing to stick their necks out to make the assertion. more will be forthcoming

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 01:51 AM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.

Maynard the Hammer
06-18-2007, 01:52 AM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.oh jeez, not this again. lol

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 02:00 AM
Odd for me to post a religion thread, but there were a few stats I found that surprised me while browsing:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm


* The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.

* 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.

* 14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990.

------------------


The sources seem to be good (at least the few I looked at). And wiki says something similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States


Needless to say, I like this trend :cooldude:

(P.S I apologize if these stats are common knowledge, but I wasn't aware of how rapid the change was - we're talking 11 years!)


It's interesting that they have such solid numbers for Wiccans in one part of the article, and yet in another....

"Other religions have no accurate accounting system. For example, Wiccans and other Neopagans are almost completely decentralized; probably half are solitary practitioners who do not belong to a coven. Estimates of their total number in the U.S. vary over a 20:1 ratio."

That being said, I have no problem with people drifitng away from organized religions, as I'm not a big fan of them myself. I did notice that the report didn't mention whether those who described themselves as "spiritual" or "theist" had risen or fallen.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 02:02 AM
oh jeez, not this again. lol

Hey, I'm just asking for a little accuracy. Don't declare that "most of the strife in the world is caused by religion", when the numbers say otherwise. :tongue:

Maynard the Hammer
06-18-2007, 02:09 AM
Hey, I'm just asking for a little accuracy. Don't declare that "most of the strife in the world is caused by religion", when the numbers say otherwise. :tongue:hey im not your opponent here. :D i remember a huge thread called something like "Atheism, not religion is the real cause of mass murder." its a can of worm, though maybe a good one for the unaware

Skeet84
06-18-2007, 02:26 AM
Nice research!! I found some of those facts surprising in a way but very believable.

Celtkin
06-18-2007, 06:45 AM
Hey, I'm just asking for a little accuracy. Don't declare that "most of the strife in the world is caused by religion", when the numbers say otherwise. :tongue:

I said "major source of strife", not "most of the strife".

All I am asking for is a little accuracy when I am quoted. :wink:

Quelonio
06-18-2007, 10:02 AM
There is a lot of argument that in japan a combination of Shintoism and Zen Buddhism was what made way for Samurai warriors, so you could argue that Zen did bring in some strife....

On the long run I do agree though, Judeo-Christian (and I include Islam in that) religions are indeed fuller of problems... and I think it has to do with the idea of sin. Sin does not exist per se in Buddhism, all we are supposed to do is find deattachment from the suffering in this world, and part of that is done through doing well to others and not wishing evil on any one through Karma... not sin, there is no idea of a hell (unless you are tibethan) and there is no idea of the need of a religious deity to forgive you for anything, you just do to others what you would like done to you so your karma is good.

If you are constantly looking at what a book says is evil, to make sure youa re not making any evil deeds so you don't suffer later, and then you have to hope that a deity which is known to turn people into salt and murder dudes if he so wishes, then I feel like you must have more strife in your life.

ABrownLamp
06-18-2007, 10:57 AM
You can cast a spell anytime you want Lamp. A spell is basically a Wiccan prayer. We try to make something happen by setting energy in motion, only instead of begging our deity we take matters into our own hands.

It's not like what you see in the movies.

You mean you dont need tears from a virgin or eye of a newt to cast spells?

Pagan
06-18-2007, 11:12 AM
You mean you dont need tears from a virgin or eye of a newt to cast spells?
Nah...well, bat wings sometimes...:wink:

Celtkin
06-18-2007, 11:54 AM
There is a lot of argument that in japan a combination of Shintoism and Zen Buddhism was what made way for Samurai warriors, so you could argue that Zen did bring in some strife....

On the long run I do agree though, Judeo-Christian (and I include Islam in that) religions are indeed fuller of problems... and I think it has to do with the idea of sin. Sin does not exist per se in Buddhism, all we are supposed to do is find deattachment from the suffering in this world, and part of that is done through doing well to others and not wishing evil on any one through Karma... not sin, there is no idea of a hell (unless you are tibethan) and there is no idea of the need of a religious deity to forgive you for anything, you just do to others what you would like done to you so your karma is good.

If you are constantly looking at what a book says is evil, to make sure youa re not making any evil deeds so you don't suffer later, and then you have to hope that a deity which is known to turn people into salt and murder dudes if he so wishes, then I feel like you must have more strife in your life.

Well said, Q.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 01:49 PM
I said "major source of strife", not "most of the strife".

All I am asking for is a little accuracy when I am quoted. :wink:


Sorry, I was referring more to the endless posts this site has seen in the past that DID label religion the cause of most of the wars and deaths in human history.

Eshlemon
06-18-2007, 01:57 PM
:D

And the beauty of this is that we do NOT proselytize...people find the Craft on their own. :wink:

I can see how Wiccans are on the rise, it's called the Harry Potter Effect. Proselytizing thru brainwashing...damn that evil Rowling!!!:wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 01:58 PM
There is a lot of argument that in japan a combination of Shintoism and Zen Buddhism was what made way for Samurai warriors, so you could argue that Zen did bring in some strife....

On the long run I do agree though, Judeo-Christian (and I include Islam in that) religions are indeed fuller of problems... and I think it has to do with the idea of sin. Sin does not exist per se in Buddhism, all we are supposed to do is find deattachment from the suffering in this world, and part of that is done through doing well to others and not wishing evil on any one through Karma... not sin, there is no idea of a hell (unless you are tibethan) and there is no idea of the need of a religious deity to forgive you for anything, you just do to others what you would like done to you so your karma is good.

If you are constantly looking at what a book says is evil, to make sure youa re not making any evil deeds so you don't suffer later, and then you have to hope that a deity which is known to turn people into salt and murder dudes if he so wishes, then I feel like you must have more strife in your life.

Well, almost every religion BUT Budhism includes some kind of sin. Hinduism certainly does. But on the other hand, I don't recall any form of "sin" existing in Marx's works, not even when interpreted by Mao. All that text refers to is the working together of all men for the greater good. A purely humanist work which denies the existence of any god or deity. And yet, again, that work was used as the excuse for the murder of more than 125 million people.

Why is it so hard to accept that if people want to kill each other, they find an excuse. It is almost never the excuse itself that causes them to do the actual killing.

Again, the 30 years war is a perfect example. On its face it was started by the Pope issuing a decree of Reclamation whereby the Protestant Germans would be forcibly brought back into Catholicism. And yet most often it was Protestant Mercenaries attacking Catholic cities, under the orders of Catholic leaders with Protestant Generals. On the other side, you had a Protestant King, funded by the Catholic Cardinal of France, protecting Catholic and Protestant Germans alike. It was about money and power. Religion was the excuse, but it went out the window almost as soon as the first shot was fired.

Eshlemon
06-18-2007, 02:02 PM
The BBC once asked how many wars are caused by religion. A group of scholars came up with the "Religious War Audit" in response. Here are some interesting quotes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

"After reviewing historical analyses by a diverse array of specialists, we concluded that there have been few genuinely religious wars in the last 100 years. The Israel/Arab wars from 1948 to now, often painted in the media and other places as wars over religion, or wars arising from religious differences, have in fact been wars of nationalism, liberation of territory or self-defense."

..

"The Islamist fundamentalist terror war being led by Osama bin Laden, also often painted in media commentary as a war about Islamic fundamentalism, is more about political order in the Arab countries, and the presence of US forces in Muslim countries, than it is about religious conversion of foreigners or expansion of territory in the name of God. Nevertheless, as seen by bin Laden, it is a war of religious duty. But the religious duty he identifies flows
from his disaffections with the political order and with the fact that a foreign, non-Muslim power has stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia, a situation he sees as contrary to his religious traditions, especially when those forces are being used to attack other Muslim countries."

..

"The War Audit found that we needed to go back to the wars of Islamic expansion beginning in the seventh century, the Crusades beginning in the eleventh century, and the Reformation Wars beginning in the sixteenth century to find wars linked more closely to religious belief than to other political causes: that is, cases where the wars were fought because of religious differences."

..

"It is mainly when organised religious institutions become involved with state institutions or when a political opposition is trying to take power that people begin advocating religious justifications for war."
-----------------




I guess it's really difficult to disentangle the precise effect religion has on resolving conflicts through violence or the decision to go to war, but what you say about the difference between Taoism or Buddhism vs Christianity/Islam is worth noting. That's a very good example of how a religion can affect the likelihood violence is used to resolve problems. I mean it's hard to deny the Bible and Koran are relatively bloody books, justifying violence as a way of resolving conflicts in certain situations, whereas Buddhist or Taoist teaching offers almost no justification for using violence to resolve conflicts.

Having said that, let's remember there are always exceptions, such as in Sri Lanka. A form of fundamentalist Buddhism has been used to justify attacks against the LTTE by some people involved in the conflict. But, you're right in that you don't see anything similar to the Crusades or Islam's frequent "jihads", especially during the initial rise of Islam.



Also, it's worth noting there are some interesting scientific studies on how believing violence is justified by God or through (for example) the Bible actually leads to a greater willingness to act more violently:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202614.htm

"Reading violent scriptures increases aggressive behavior, especially among believers, a new study finds."

After reporting their religious affiliations and beliefs, participants read a passage adapted from the King James Bible that described a woman's brutal murder and her husband's revenge on her attackers. Half the participants were told that the passage came from the Old Testament, half that it came from an ancient scroll found by archeologists. Half the participants from each of these groups read a version of the passage that included a sentence in which God commanded his followers to take arms against others.

After reading the passages, participants were paired with confederates of the experimenters for a simple reaction task. They were told that the winner would be able to "blast" the losing partner with noise as loud as 105 decibels, about the level of a fire alarm—a common experimental measure of aggression.

The researchers found that both the religious and secular students were more aggressive, delivering louder blasts of noise to their ostensible partners, when told that the passage they read came from the Bible. Aggressive responses also increased when participants read that God directly sanctioned violence. The increased level of aggression was greater among believers than among secularists, however."
-------------------

Nice find ckb, I've been making the same statements whenever the board starts to get filled with "religions=wars" rhetoric. Always good to have another reference this "War Audit" provides.

Celtkin
06-18-2007, 02:28 PM
Nice find ckb, I've been making the same statements whenever the board starts to get filled with "religions=wars" rhetoric. Always good to have another reference this "War Audit" provides.

With all due respect to ckb and his research, the data only covers that past 100 years...a small drop in the bucket time that man has been influenced by religion. Also, even a 'few' wars in the past 100 years = a lot of dead people who died in the name of religion. I am not sure what can be done to end it altogether, though.

What the data does show, if it is accurate (I didn't read the research to know what the researcher's criteria was for deciding a 'cause' for a war), is that we are becoming more civilized and probably more secular in terms of our governments.

Don't get me wrong...religion is the source of great good as well and the majority of societies laws are to some degree based on their religious beliefs. I just find it odd that the concept has led to the deaths, persecutions, etc of thousands of people.

Quelonio
06-18-2007, 02:35 PM
Well, almost every religion BUT Budhism includes some kind of sin. Hinduism certainly does. But on the other hand, I don't recall any form of "sin" existing in Marx's works, not even when interpreted by Mao. All that text refers to is the working together of all men for the greater good. A purely humanist work which denies the existence of any god or deity. And yet, again, that work was used as the excuse for the murder of more than 125 million people.

Why is it so hard to accept that if people want to kill each other, they find an excuse. It is almost never the excuse itself that causes them to do the actual killing.

Again, the 30 years war is a perfect example. On its face it was started by the Pope issuing a decree of Reclamation whereby the Protestant Germans would be forcibly brought back into Catholicism. And yet most often it was Protestant Mercenaries attacking Catholic cities, under the orders of Catholic leaders with Protestant Generals. On the other side, you had a Protestant King, funded by the Catholic Cardinal of France, protecting Catholic and Protestant Germans alike. It was about money and power. Religion was the excuse, but it went out the window almost as soon as the first shot was fired.

I think you are misreading me, I am not speaking in general about war or murders or such. Though I do believe that a certain set of morals and code of conducts which is directly related to the religion or religious figure that people follow bears part of the responsability in that.

I just think that in general judeo christian world tends to live in a harder set of conflicts, and i think it has something to do with the morals and code of conduct of their religions.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 02:51 PM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.

Like I said above, it's hard to disentangle the precise influence a belief system has on whether war, murder or other atrocities are committed. So, just saying Stalin and Mao were atheists does nothing to suggest atheism played a major role in what they did.

No, what would be a more relevant analysis would be to put all these various leaders in the SAME environment and see which person/group ends up committing more atrocities. This comparison of yours is meaningless without a quantification of how much the belief that God doesn't exist is responsible for their actions.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 03:00 PM
It's interesting that they have such solid numbers for Wiccans in one part of the article, and yet in another....

"Other religions have no accurate accounting system. For example, Wiccans and other Neopagans are almost completely decentralized; probably half are solitary practitioners who do not belong to a coven. Estimates of their total number in the U.S. vary over a 20:1 ratio."

That being said, I have no problem with people drifitng away from organized religions, as I'm not a big fan of them myself. I did notice that the report didn't mention whether those who described themselves as "spiritual" or "theist" had risen or fallen.

Good observation, but the 20:1 ratio probably includes studies with small sample sizes and various methodologies.

Here's a relevant link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr3.htm

"The massive American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) is probably the most accurate source for religious identification. 1 It was a telephone poll taken during 2001-FEB to JUNE. However, even their estimates contain room for errors:

* Some heavily oppressed and discriminated against groups, like Wiccans and other Neopagans, often refuse to reveal their religion to a stranger over the telephone because of safety concerns. So, the actual number of Wiccans is probably much larger than the survey indicates.

* In the ARIS study of 1990, 2.3% of those contacted refused to disclose their religion. In the 2001 survey, the number had grown to 5.4%. The latter number represents over 11 million adults. The reason for this increase in desire for secrecy is unknown.

* The terminology is confusing. As a result of the 2001 survey, they estimate that there are 134,000 Wiccans and 140,000 Pagans in the U.S. But many Wiccans describe themselves as Pagans. So, the number of Wiccans is probably larger than indicated.

Our best estimate of the total number of Wiccans in the U.S. is based on the ARIS study:

Number of Wiccan found by ARIS: 134,000 adults

Number of Pagans found by ARIS: 140,000 adults

Total Wiccans and Pagans: 274,000 adults

Less estimated Pagans who are not Wiccans: - 70,000 adults

Total Wiccans: 204,000 adults

Estimated number of Wiccans who refused to disclose religion 204,000 adults

Total Wiccan adults in the U.S. 408,000 adults

Total Wiccans (adults plus children) 750,000 people
------------------------------

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 03:28 PM
Like I said above, it's hard to disentangle the precise influence a belief system has on whether war, murder or other atrocities are committed. So, just saying Stalin and Mao were atheists does nothing to suggest atheism played a major role in what they did.

No, what would be a more relevant analysis would be to put all these various leaders in the SAME environment and see which person/group ends up committing more atrocities. This comparison of yours is meaningless without a quantification of how much the belief that God doesn't exist is responsible for their actions.


Actually, I'd say it's almost impossible to fully disentagle them. In point of fact, I see atheism and humanism as just as much of a belief system as any religion.

But it is still interesting that the two single greatest losses of human life were not perpetrated under the guise of any religion, but were in fact perpetrated under the name of anti-religious forces. If only annecdotally, it is still worth noting that nobody else on the planet has managed to kill upwards of 65-70 million people at a time. It's only been the folks who were actively preaching against religion.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 03:35 PM
I think you are misreading me, I am not speaking in general about war or murders or such. Though I do believe that a certain set of morals and code of conducts which is directly related to the religion or religious figure that people follow bears part of the responsability in that.

I just think that in general judeo christian world tends to live in a harder set of conflicts, and i think it has something to do with the morals and code of conduct of their religions.


And I would counter that by pointing out that when we HAVE seen environments stripped of religion, as in communist nations, the conflicts have not lessened, they have in fact worsened. Repression has not gotten lighter, it in fact got harder. Once you account for that, I don't see how you continue to blame the religion. I don't think religion influences man, man influences religion. This is evidenced by the fact that wether religion is there or not, people STILL find ways of being really rotten to each other, maybe even MORE so when religion isn't there.

Celtkin
06-18-2007, 04:02 PM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.

Bro, I am not sure where you are getting your figures and I don't doubt them but here is what I found:

Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm)


BTW: Check this guy's "Who am I?" in the link above :lol:

Mao:


Perhaps no man is responsible for as many deaths in this century as Mao. More than 50 million people starved to death in the vast famine he visited on his country in 1960 and 1961NYT Scroll down (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mao_zedong/index.html?offset=50&&inline=nyt-per)


From 1958-62, Mao's "Great Leap Forward," a mass campaign to communize agriculture and speed industrial growth, left China's economy in ruins, and led to the deaths of some thirty million Chinese from starvationPBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/peopleevents/pande03.html)

Stalin:

Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands.http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm


Five years ago, I wrote about the unknown Holocaust in Ukraine. I was shocked to receive a flood of mail from young Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent telling me that until they read my column, they knew nothing of the 1932-33 genocide in which Josef Stalin's Soviet regime murdered seven million Ukrainians and sent two million more to concentration camps.
http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html

Megatron
06-18-2007, 04:33 PM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing. I don't know if Stalin or Mao were atheists but they saw eliminating religion as a political power as an asset to their rule. No religion, no excommunications or what not eroding their control over the populace. They just replaced diety worship with personality worship, or in a sense deified themselves.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 04:56 PM
Bro, I am not sure where you are getting your figures and I don't doubt them but here is what I found:

Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm)


BTW: Check this guy's "Who am I?" in the link above :lol:

Mao:

NYT Scroll down (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mao_zedong/index.html?offset=50&&inline=nyt-per)

PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/peopleevents/pande03.html)

Stalin:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html

Sources for the 50-60 million number I have read.

Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

For Mao...he's credited with 25-35 million killed direclty in purges, and another 25-30 killed in famines. I've read three different books on him that use the same ranges. Of course, there are folks who disagree, and bring those numbers down to 20-30 million each for Stalin and Mao. Does it really matter?

The populations of Europe and Africa during the 6th and 9th centuries make it virtually impossible for the Muslim and Christian Crusades combined to have come anywhere close to either dictators numbers, even when combined. There were only 200 million people on the planet in the 9th century, and most of them lived in East Asia, not Europe and the Middle east.

Pagan
06-18-2007, 04:58 PM
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933

"It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity. "

Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

"Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty---- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933

"The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavoring to develop them."

--Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/catholics_salute_hitlerJPG-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/hitler_leaving_churchJPG-1.jpg

It would seem that there was at least one monster working in the name of Christianity who murdered millions. :wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 05:08 PM
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933

"It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity. "

Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

"Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty---- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933

"The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavoring to develop them."

--Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/catholics_salute_hitlerJPG-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/hitler_leaving_churchJPG-1.jpg

It would seem that there was at least one monster working in the name of Christianity who murdered millions. :wink:

Pagan, you know I'm not exactly a stereotypical christian, but I still find that rather insulting. The man replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. You'll also notice that all of those speeches occur BEFORE 1934, while Hitler was still consolidating power. That doesn't qualify him as a Christian anymore than the Wicked Witch of the West qualified as a Wiccan.

Celtkin
06-18-2007, 05:12 PM
Sources for the 50-60 million number I have read.

Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

For Mao...he's credited with 25-35 million killed direclty in purges, and another 25-30 killed in famines. I've read three different books on him that use the same ranges. Of course, there are folks who disagree, and bring those numbers down to 20-30 million each for Stalin and Mao. Does it really matter?

The populations of Europe and Africa during the 6th and 9th centuries make it virtually impossible for the Muslim and Christian Crusades combined to have come anywhere close to either dictators numbers, even when combined. There were only 200 million people on the planet in the 9th century, and most of them lived in East Asia, not Europe and the Middle east.

No, it doesn't matter to the dead people but it matters in terms of accuracy if you are 50-70MM off in your claim. :wink:


BTW: Where did you get that reference?

cnc66
06-18-2007, 05:21 PM
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933

"It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power, which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity. "

Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

"Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty---- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.

--Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933

"The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavoring to develop them."

--Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/catholics_salute_hitlerJPG-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/06/hitler_leaving_churchJPG-1.jpg

It would seem that there was at least one monster working in the name of Christianity who murdered millions. :wink:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Pink_Dove
06-18-2007, 05:41 PM
Pagan, you know I'm not exactly a stereotypical christian, but I still find that rather insulting. The man replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. You'll also notice that all of those speeches occur BEFORE 1934, while Hitler was still consolidating power. That doesn't qualify him as a Christian anymore than the Wicked Witch of the West qualified as a Wiccan.

Yeah same here. That post was tabloid worthy. Assemble quotes out of some beer hall speeches and images of Hitler leaving church and you've got a story.

He was obsessed with the idea of lebensraum, and the superiority of an Aryan master race. I've read some historians's contention that Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Keep in mind, I've also read that he adhered to some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. That's the closest thing you'll get.

But when a man writes that ''the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity'' and ''Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.'', I find it hard to believe that he killed millions ''working in the name of Christianity''.

Pagan
06-18-2007, 07:01 PM
Pagan, you know I'm not exactly a stereotypical christian, but I still find that rather insulting. The man replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. You'll also notice that all of those speeches occur BEFORE 1934, while Hitler was still consolidating power.
Why is it insulting bro? I'm not saying that Christian doctrine was the cause of what he did. I was pointing out that it was his twisted views of Christianity that killed those people.

And why is it that whenever something like this (or the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the Burning Times) is brought up, people right off the bat deflect to the "I'm insulted" defense?


That doesn't qualify him as a Christian anymore than the Wicked Witch of the West qualified as a Wiccan.
Funny you should say that, as Christians are still trying to make people believe that Wiccans are EXACTLY like that. :wink:


On Wednesday, May 5th, Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns ignored both the federal and Nebraska State Constitutions and issued a proclamation declaring May 22, 1999 as "March For Jesus Day." "March for Jesus Day' was established as a time for us to join together as people of many faiths so that we may pay homage to our divine authority," reads part of the proclamation.

Even more disturbing are the statements allegedly made by Gov. Johanns to reporters concerning future proclamations.

In an article printed on May 6, 1999 in the Lincoln Journal Star, Johanns is reported to have made the statement that while he would consider similar proclamations "for the Jewish faith, Hinduism, whatever," that he would not issue a proclamation for Wicca. His only criteria for determining future requests for similar proclamations he said was, "... so long as it doesn't require me to sign something I personally don't agree with," thus elevating his own personal opinion of what constitutes a valid religion in his state above the law. A statement such as this on the religion of Wicca issued by the chief government official of the state of Nebraska, is not only constitutionally unsound, it is an blatant act of governmental discrimination against those citizens of his state who are Wiccan.

On Saturday , Terry Riley and about 30 other pagans held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of Dagda's Cauldron Occult Shop despite the presence of about 50 protesters across the street who want him and his business out of town.

Riley rented the building from Kirby Smith and was given a one-year lease. Smith canceled the lease on Wednesday and gave Riley a 90-day eviction notice. Smith said that, although he has no problem with either Riley or his business, he has received death threats and has heard of plans to possibly vandalize the building.

This next one is funny as hell. Even as the reporter is trying to be "concerned", he capitalizes "Lord" and "Christian" but fails to give the same respect to "Goddess" and "Pagan". Typical.

Praise the Lord in the Bible Belt and nobody thinks twice. Praise the goddess and folks get riled.

That's what happened yesterday as about 75 pagan May Day revelers danced, beat drums, chanted and meditated on a hilltop Menifee County farm. They were greeted by a dozen Christians offering free soft drinks, fried chicken and a message: Repent.

Members of Louisville's Evangel Life Christian Center opened a "welcome center'' and hoisted a banner near the festival grounds urging the festival-goers to worship ``the Lord your God'' and offering to introduce them to Jesus Christ.

At the welcome center, friendly Christians said the pagans are hell-bound.

Over the past several decades, "we" weren't considered much to worry about. This is changing and changing fast. Modern Paganism IS one of the rapidest growing religious paths/personal belief systems in the World today. The 700 Club has featured their concerns of late (3 times in 4 weeks) and are most disturbed that (in a recent poll) the most popular desire of teenage girls is to become a Witch or Wiccan. Witchcraft has become a very strong draw for both Movie and TV audiences. Festivals and gatherings at the local level have exploded and will continue to grow rapidly. Our presence on the internet is simply astounding with an estimated 3,000 Web sites that focus on Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism.

The religious right is NOT happy with the continuous rise in "popularity" of the Modern Pagan movement. They are concerned and they are nervous. Although this is THEIR problem, they are making it our problem. As predicted in many Pagan circles over the last several years, with our growth will come increased protests and concerns with those that believe that this should be a Christian nation.
Just a few examples Phin....I get "insulted" on a daily basis.

FFiB
06-18-2007, 09:07 PM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.

Any time you replace tolerance and acceptance the danger for war and killing is close by.

Mao and Stalin were dictators, so was Hitler. Their purpose was to kill those who could endanger their ideal of society and politics. Religion is the same. Intolerance and the desire to spread their way of living superseeds the right of other thinking individuals to express their views.

Intolerance and the desire and need to spread ones view is the reason for wars.

It doesn't matter if it is political or religious. But I am amazed how religion is downplaying their own violent history by excusing themselves "others were worse".

Finally, you do not know how many people actually died during the crusades which lasted more than just 24 hours. Estimates range anywhere from 60 to a couple hundred millions. 100 million plus sounds reasonable considering that the 9 crusades stretched over a couple hundred of years (with a few years break in between them).

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:36 PM
Why is it insulting bro? I'm not saying that Christian doctrine was the cause of what he did. I was pointing out that it was his twisted views of Christianity that killed those people.

And why is it that whenever something like this (or the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the Burning Times) is brought up, people right off the bat deflect to the "I'm insulted" defense?


Funny you should say that, as Christians are still trying to make people believe that Wiccans are EXACTLY like that. :wink:




This next one is funny as hell. Even as the reporter is trying to be "concerned", he capitalizes "Lord" and "Christian" but fails to give the same respect to "Goddess" and "Pagan". Typical.


Just a few examples Phin....I get "insulted" on a daily basis.

And I'm saying that his "views of Christianity" had nothing to do with it. All those quotes are from a time before he solidified his power. He was "preaching to the choir". When he actually started killing people he had nothing good to say about Christianity.

As to the rest, just because there are morons who have a screwed up view of Wicca, you feel the need to jump in the pool with them?

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:43 PM
Any time you replace tolerance and acceptance the danger for war and killing is close by.

Mao and Stalin were dictators, so was Hitler. Their purpose was to kill those who could endanger their ideal of society and politics. Religion is the same. Intolerance and the desire to spread their way of living superseeds the right of other thinking individuals to express their views.

Intolerance and the desire and need to spread ones view is the reason for wars.

It doesn't matter if it is political or religious. But I am amazed how religion is downplaying their own violent history by excusing themselves "others were worse".

Finally, you do not know how many people actually died during the crusades which lasted more than just 24 hours. Estimates range anywhere from 60 to a couple hundred millions. 100 million plus sounds reasonable considering that the 9 crusades stretched over a couple hundred of years (with a few years break in between them).

FFIB, the population of the entire WORLD in the 9th century was less than 250 million people. And the vast majority of those people lived in East Asia, not Europe or the Middle East. I'd love to see the estimate of anything close to 100 million for all the crusades combined. Kindly show us a reference.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:45 PM
No, it doesn't matter to the dead people but it matters in terms of accuracy if you are 50-70MM off in your claim. :wink:


BTW: Where did you get that reference?

Biblio page for the wiki article on Stalin.

Maynard the Hammer
06-18-2007, 11:51 PM
nazi rallies held blatant pagan reinactments in an effort to tie in the mythical aryan-norsemen-germanic tribes to that present day. the history channel had a lot of stuff on this. i think its worth repeating the connection of Richard Wagner, revitalization of paganism in european popular culture, nazism and wagners works being the soundtrack to the third reich

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 12:00 AM
nazi rallies held blatant pagan reinactments in an effort to tie in the mythical aryan-norsemen-germanic tribes to that present day. the history channel had a lot of stuff on this. i think its worth repeating the connection of Richard Wagner, revitalization of paganism in european popular culture, nazism and wagners works being the soundtrack to the third reich

It's only worth repeating if you think that any of that had anything to do with the views of the Nazi's. I think it would be silly to do so. About as silly as calling Hitler a christian.

Maynard the Hammer
06-19-2007, 12:31 AM
It's only worth repeating if you think that any of that had anything to do with the views of the Nazi's. I think it would be silly to do so. About as silly as calling Hitler a christian.im not connecting genocide to paganism. there is no connection

Pagan
06-19-2007, 07:29 AM
And I'm saying that his "views of Christianity" had nothing to do with it. All those quotes are from a time before he solidified his power. He was "preaching to the choir". When he actually started killing people he had nothing good to say about Christianity.
Phin, I know that was before he solidified power. He used them in order to help himself get in the position he arrived in. You're missing the point, I'm saying that he took those beliefs and twisted them to fool an entire nation in order to achieve his ultimate goal of genocide. I'm not saying the beliefs themselves were wrong.


As to the rest, just because there are morons who have a screwed up view of Wicca, you feel the need to jump in the pool with them?
I'm not jumping in the pool Phin. ONe just grows weary of excuses being made whenever these things turn up.

Let me give you an example. If every day you walked out of your house a different Asian person punched you in the grill, after a few years would you say "oh, it's just a few", or would you have trepidation every time you saw an Asian? How long before you stop saying "oh it's only a few"? How long before you stop making excuses?

I have nothing against Christianity. It's Christians for the most part who piss me off. Like that bumper sticker says, "Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers."

Celtkin
06-19-2007, 07:35 AM
Biblio page for the wiki article on Stalin.

I generally like Wiki but I avoided that page because of this:


The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page

FFiB
06-19-2007, 09:41 AM
FFIB, the population of the entire WORLD in the 9th century was less than 250 million people. And the vast majority of those people lived in East Asia, not Europe or the Middle East. I'd love to see the estimate of anything close to 100 million for all the crusades combined. Kindly show us a reference.

a) the 250 Million people is an estimate
b) the 9 crusades stretched from the 11th to the 13th century

To show you a reference I have to dig out my old history books which show (depending on publisher) numbers between 60 and a couple hundred million.

The 100 millionen was my guess using an in between number and realizing that all 9 crusades took nearly 200 years.

Most numbers are guesses: Stalin's, Mao's, Hitler's and so on. And you must realize that back then record keeping was pathetic. We can't even agree on the current death toll of the 10th crusade (Iraq War), which the word 'crusade' were the words of the President, not mine, and 10th Crusade was used by Cockburn.


The Tenth Crusade is a rhetorical device that builds an analogy between the U.S.-led War on Terrorism and the historical Crusades.

The word crusade was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the nearly 3,000 victims of those attacks. He spoke of "this crusade, this war on terrorism" [1]. The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of crusade argue that from context Bush had used the word crusade in a military, non-religious sense, such as The Great Crusade which was the phrase used by General Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast. [2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal. [3] [4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Crusade


The Tenth Crusade

by Alexander Cockburn

Amid the elegies for the dead and the ceremonies of remembrance, seditious questions intrude: Is there really a war on terror; and if one is indeed being waged, what are its objectives?

The Taliban are out of power. Papaver somniferum, the opium poppy, blooms once more in Afghan pastures. The military budget is up. The bluster war on Iraq blares from every headline. On the home front the war on the Bill of Rights is set at full throttle, though getting less popular with each day as judges thunder their indignation at the unconstitutional diktats of Attorney General John Ashcroft, a man low in public esteem.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0907.html

But regardless of the 10th Crusade, estimations of death are just that: estimations.

You also have the Crusade against the (I believe the) Tartars (or however you spell it), the Albigensian Crusade, the Balkan Crusades, the Northern Crusades, and many more.....

Al in all crusades occupied several hundred years, and all of them were religious in nature.

But I don't want to just rant on religion here, it was mostly to argue your numbers of death during religious crusades.

Bottomline is, that every form of government and ideology which teaches intolerance is bound to wage war and cause death: it could be a dictator with political ideologies or a religious leader with religious ideologies. Bottomline is that intolerance is at the root of most death throughout history.

And to the Hitler debate: Hitler was a religious man and his dream of the 3rd Reich derived out of the the first two of which the first Reich was the Holy Roman Reich of the German Nation.

The 'aryan race' has very little to do with religion. The Nazi used it for 'master race'. The race which is superior to all others.

Hitler was born a Roman Catholic. It is to be said that his hatred towards jews was also furthered by writings of religious people among them The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. And people should not forget that the Reichskristallnacht was on the day of Luther's birthday.

If he acted in 'faith' or not? Only he knew. But the fact is that christians were not just deported and gased.

Quelonio
06-19-2007, 11:25 AM
I generally like Wiki but I avoided that page because of this:

You'll find that on almost any politician part of Wiki, that is why I tend to not trust Wiki when I am talking politics, it goes for both sides, when you search Castro, that is disputed, when you search Batista that is disputed... so no one seems to ever agree.

I do believe though that maybe if you add Pol Pot and the crazy Rumanian dude, then you could get to phin phan's figures.

Eshlemon
06-19-2007, 01:20 PM
With all due respect to ckb and his research, the data only covers that past 100 years...a small drop in the bucket time that man has been influenced by religion. Also, even a 'few' wars in the past 100 years = a lot of dead people who died in the name of religion. I am not sure what can be done to end it altogether, though.

What the data does show, if it is accurate (I didn't read the research to know what the researcher's criteria was for deciding a 'cause' for a war), is that we are becoming more civilized and probably more secular in terms of our governments.

Don't get me wrong...religion is the source of great good as well and the majority of societies laws are to some degree based on their religious beliefs. I just find it odd that the concept has led to the deaths, persecutions, etc of thousands of people.

Alot of good people die for many reasons, and I'm not saying no wars were fought for religious. But the vast majority, even the crusades to some extent, are fought over money, power, control of trade, etc. Even in situations involved where combatants were "religious", their goals were either interwined or completely non-religious in nature.

As the the last 100 years have shown, a more secular world is not anymore inclined towards peace (and some will argue are less inclined but hard to quantify that basis) than a religous world. Perhaps instead of religions=wars, a better one served would be civilizations=wars.

Megatron
06-19-2007, 01:25 PM
Alot of good people die for many reasons, and I'm not saying no wars were fought for religious. But the vast majority, even the crusades to some extent, are fought over money, power, control of trade, etc. Even in situations involved where combatants were "religious", their goals were either interwined or completely non-religious in nature.

As the the last 100 years have shown, a more secular world is not anymore inclined towards peace (and some will argue are less inclined but hard to quantify that basis) than a religous world. Perhaps instead of religions=wars, a better one served would be civilizations=wars. Here's a funny side thought to counter what you said. The NFL football season would hardly be considered a traditional religious battle but more often then not players who win thank God for the opportunity. The thank God for winning or believe God is on their side and choosing them over their adversaries. So even if the battle is not religiously motivated there are still many taking part that are religiously motivated to take part.

Eshlemon
06-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Here's a funny side thought to counter what you said. The NFL football season would hardly be considered a traditional religious battle but more often then not players who win thank God for the opportunity. The thank God for winning or believe God is on their side and choosing them over their adversaries. So even if the battle is not religiously motivated there are still many taking part that are religiously motivated to take part.

:confused2

I think I'm really missing the connection here. Players are in football as some sort of religious crusade?

Megatron
06-19-2007, 02:43 PM
:confused2

I think I'm really missing the connection here. Players are in football as some sort of religious crusade? No the point is people that are in a conflict or confrontation, often look to their deity as a source for their victory. My point is the battle doesn't have to be a crusade to be religiously motivated.

Eshlemon
06-19-2007, 03:22 PM
No the point is people that are in a conflict or confrontation, often look to their deity as a source for their victory. My point is the battle doesn't have to be a crusade to be religiously motivated.

I see direction, but think that's a over-simplification. All life is a battle involving conflict and confrontation. And people TG for everything else too...or good genetics, Goddess, their Mom when Dad taught him how to throw, etc. Or maybe that's an over-generalization on my part.:)

Megatron
06-19-2007, 03:25 PM
I see direction, but think that's a over-simplification. All life is a battle involving conflict and confrontation. And people TG for everything else too...or good genetics, Goddess, their Mom when Dad taught him how to throw, etc. Or maybe that's an over-generalization on my part.:) Nah you're on the right track. It basically destroys the debate. You could conceivably argue that all conflict is religiously motivated. That way no one religion faces the brunt of all accusations.

Eshlemon
06-19-2007, 03:37 PM
Nah you're on the right track. It basically destroys the debate. You could conceivably argue that all conflict is religiously motivated. That way no one religion faces the brunt of all accusations.

I disagree, as in your example. Even if a player TG or professes or states he loves the game and would play for nothing. The majority aren't in the NFL for religion or football, but the money. Which makes money arguably the source of all conflict, or a broader extent resources that the money enables you to purchase.

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 03:38 PM
a) the 250 Million people is an estimate
b) the 9 crusades stretched from the 11th to the 13th century

To show you a reference I have to dig out my old history books which show (depending on publisher) numbers between 60 and a couple hundred million.

The 100 millionen was my guess using an in between number and realizing that all 9 crusades took nearly 200 years.

Most numbers are guesses: Stalin's, Mao's, Hitler's and so on. And you must realize that back then record keeping was pathetic. We can't even agree on the current death toll of the 10th crusade (Iraq War), which the word 'crusade' were the words of the President, not mine, and 10th Crusade was used by Cockburn.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Crusade



http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0907.html

But regardless of the 10th Crusade, estimations of death are just that: estimations.

You also have the Crusade against the (I believe the) Tartars (or however you spell it), the Albigensian Crusade, the Balkan Crusades, the Northern Crusades, and many more.....

Al in all crusades occupied several hundred years, and all of them were religious in nature.

But I don't want to just rant on religion here, it was mostly to argue your numbers of death during religious crusades.

Bottomline is, that every form of government and ideology which teaches intolerance is bound to wage war and cause death: it could be a dictator with political ideologies or a religious leader with religious ideologies. Bottomline is that intolerance is at the root of most death throughout history.

And to the Hitler debate: Hitler was a religious man and his dream of the 3rd Reich derived out of the the first two of which the first Reich was the Holy Roman Reich of the German Nation.

The 'aryan race' has very little to do with religion. The Nazi used it for 'master race'. The race which is superior to all others.

Hitler was born a Roman Catholic. It is to be said that his hatred towards jews was also furthered by writings of religious people among them The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. And people should not forget that the Reichskristallnacht was on the day of Luther's birthday.

If he acted in 'faith' or not? Only he knew. But the fact is that christians were not just deported and gased.


Actually, Gypsys were gassed, as were homosexuals and blacks. All of whom were Christians. And as for Hitler, I'm sorry, but you can't replace the Bible with MEin Kampf and call yourself a Christian. It just doesn't work that way. I could call myself a Budhist, but it doesn't make me one.

And the 250 million number is a decent estimate because we know roughly how much carrying capacity the agriculture of the period would allow. And it just doesn't allow for that many people. Your "estimation" would mean that the Europeans managed to wipe out almost half the worlds population during the Crusades, and that's just silly. Further, you have to account for the fact that only two of the Crusades were really successful. The others probably accounted for more European deaths than Islamic. And lastly, warfare at the time just didn't work that way. It took serious organization for Mao and Stalin to kill the numbers they accomplished. They just didn't have those methods in the time we're discussing.

Megatron
06-19-2007, 03:39 PM
I disagree, as in your example. Even if a player TG or professes or states he loves the game and would play for nothing. The majority aren't in the NFL for religion or football, but the money. Which makes money arguably the source of all conflict, or a broader extent resources that the money enables you to purchase. No I don't think so because conflict can be religiously motivated solely. Even if a conflict was monetarily motivated someone could stil be religiously motivated to persue it. God given right have any meaning to you?:wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 03:42 PM
I generally like Wiki but I avoided that page because of this:

It's the bibliography page, not the article. It references the actual works directly, and I checked a few to verify. I avoid quoting the articles for the same reason you do, but the bibliography section is different.

Megatron
06-19-2007, 03:48 PM
It's the bibliography page, not the article. It references the actual works directly, and I checked a few to verify. I avoid quoting the articles for the same reason you do, but the bibliography section is different. Same here unless the part I'm quoting has proper footnotes.

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 03:50 PM
Phin, I know that was before he solidified power. He used them in order to help himself get in the position he arrived in. You're missing the point, I'm saying that he took those beliefs and twisted them to fool an entire nation in order to achieve his ultimate goal of genocide. I'm not saying the beliefs themselves were wrong.


I'm not jumping in the pool Phin. ONe just grows weary of excuses being made whenever these things turn up.

Let me give you an example. If every day you walked out of your house a different Asian person punched you in the grill, after a few years would you say "oh, it's just a few", or would you have trepidation every time you saw an Asian? How long before you stop saying "oh it's only a few"? How long before you stop making excuses?

I have nothing against Christianity. It's Christians for the most part who piss me off. Like that bumper sticker says, "Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers."


The thing is Pagan, give it some time. Wait until you have a LOT of followers of Wicca and see what happens. You're going to find the same intolerance, the same bigotry, the same exclusionism. Only it'll be Wiccans doing it to others. Heck, I know a few wiccans who are just as narrow minded in their way as any Christian now. I had good friends who were pagans who stopped talking to me when I stood up for Christianity to them.

Bottom line, people fear what they don't understand, and most people don't understand Wicca. A few years ago, most Americans didn't understand Judaism, and Jews went through the same things you are going through. Much worse actually. Some still do.

Now, your LAST paragraph, I FULLY agree with. In fact, it's the whole point of my argument. It's not the religion. It's what people have DONE with the religion. It's not the religion which has killed anyone, it's the people who screwed it up in ORDER to kill each other.

Eshlemon
06-19-2007, 04:22 PM
No I don't think so because conflict can be religiously motivated solely. Even if a conflict was monetarily motivated someone could stil be religiously motivated to persue it. God given right have any meaning to you?:wink:


:lol: I think we're starting to talk in circles, at #50 I didn't dispute wars have been faught for varying degrees of religious reasons. What I'm disputing is the line of thinking that attaches religions=wars, religion is the source of all wars, etc.

If you mean a Creator given right to individual choice or comparable Rights of Man self-evident truths, then yes...Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

FFiB
06-19-2007, 04:55 PM
Actually, Gypsys were gassed, as were homosexuals and blacks. All of whom were Christians. And as for Hitler, I'm sorry, but you can't replace the Bible with MEin Kampf and call yourself a Christian. It just doesn't work that way. I could call myself a Budhist, but it doesn't make me one.

And the 250 million number is a decent estimate because we know roughly how much carrying capacity the agriculture of the period would allow. And it just doesn't allow for that many people. Your "estimation" would mean that the Europeans managed to wipe out almost half the worlds population during the Crusades, and that's just silly. Further, you have to account for the fact that only two of the Crusades were really successful. The others probably accounted for more European deaths than Islamic. And lastly, warfare at the time just didn't work that way. It took serious organization for Mao and Stalin to kill the numbers they accomplished. They just didn't have those methods in the time we're discussing.

Gypsies were gassed not because of religion but because they were considered a sub human species.

Blacks same as Gipsies. RACE!!!

Homeosexuels were gased regardless of religion.

You know, I really can't make any clearer: there were 9 (!!!) numbered crusades over 200 years. There were several additional ones which were named. The crusades lasted several hundred years. There was plenty of population in Europe to go along. Plus crusades stretched also outside the european continent.

Now I hope I get that right: the first or second crusade spilled into asia I believe.

The other (first or second) was in the Middle east.

The 3rd was Egypt and Jerusalem, the fourth again Christians vs Muslims.

I think you get my drift.

You hold your hope always into Europe. Christianity, if you want to believe it or not, had that world domination just like any other religion.

Now back to Hitler:

As I said: Gypsies were considered a sub human race. It was totally unimportant if they were christian or not. It was race.

Same with blacks. I must say to that that there weren't that many blacks back then in Germany anyways. I was totally surprised when I took History in the US how much importance was laid on that black issue in Nazi Germany. Because hardly anybody in Germany or other countries made the black issue in Nazi Germany such importance. I believe history has been adjusted to the 'guilt factor' since the US OF AMERICA considered blacks a subhuman race as well - not too long ago.

Funny you bring up homosexuals: aren't they sinners in christian belives anyhow.

Hitler was driven by his ideology mixed with religion.

And I don't know where you get the idea that 'Mein Kampf' replaced the Bible. 'Mein Kampf' was an autobiography mixed with political thesis. It is a work to study 'political and ideological theories' before Hitler came to power. It was written in 1926 while he was still in the slammer.

Just for your information: the swastika's origin are religious in nature. One of the versions I believe is hinduh and buddishm or one or the other. There were several other versions of it such as in ancient Greece.

FFiB
06-19-2007, 04:57 PM
:lol: I think we're starting to talk in circles, at #50 I didn't dispute wars have been faught for varying degrees of religious reasons. What I'm disputing is the line of thinking that attaches religions=wars, religion is the source of all wars, etc.

If you mean a Creator given right to individual choice or comparable Rights of Man self-evident truths, then yes...Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Religion is not the source of all wars but a good portion of it. Intolerance is the source of ALL wars. And religion preaches intolerance.

TexanPhinatic
06-19-2007, 06:59 PM
Religion is not the source of all wars but a good portion of it. Intolerance is the source of ALL wars. And religion preaches intolerance.

Agreed, lets ban them, the intolerant bastards!!

FFiB
06-19-2007, 10:24 PM
Agreed, lets ban them, the intolerant bastards!!

That would make those who ban intolerant bastards intolerant themselves.

:wink:

TexanPhinatic
06-19-2007, 10:42 PM
That would make those who ban intolerant bastards intolerant themselves.

:wink:

Ah thats the crux ....

Anyway, to say that religion is the cause of a majority of the worlds wars is a joke. Religion might be a fairly common excuse FOR war, but its not the root of it. If it wasnt religion, it would be something else. But it sounds sexier to say your fighting at the behest of a divine being than because your a greedy ******* who doesnt give a **** about anyone else.

Megatron
06-20-2007, 01:32 AM
:lol: I think we're starting to talk in circles, at #50 I didn't dispute wars have been faught for varying degrees of religious reasons. What I'm disputing is the line of thinking that attaches religions=wars, religion is the source of all wars, etc.

If you mean a Creator given right to individual choice or comparable Rights of Man self-evident truths, then yes...Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yeah I hear you absolutely and I fall into that trap all to often attributing all conflict to being religiously based. When you hear the leaders use religion or religious references in the how's or why's for war or to justify the reasons then it's hard not to.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 04:10 PM
Gypsies were gassed not because of religion but because they were considered a sub human species.

Blacks same as Gipsies. RACE!!!

Homeosexuels were gased regardless of religion.

You know, I really can't make any clearer: there were 9 (!!!) numbered crusades over 200 years. There were several additional ones which were named. The crusades lasted several hundred years. There was plenty of population in Europe to go along. Plus crusades stretched also outside the european continent.

Now I hope I get that right: the first or second crusade spilled into asia I believe.

The other (first or second) was in the Middle east.

The 3rd was Egypt and Jerusalem, the fourth again Christians vs Muslims.

I think you get my drift.

You hold your hope always into Europe. Christianity, if you want to believe it or not, had that world domination just like any other religion.

Now back to Hitler:

As I said: Gypsies were considered a sub human race. It was totally unimportant if they were christian or not. It was race.

Same with blacks. I must say to that that there weren't that many blacks back then in Germany anyways. I was totally surprised when I took History in the US how much importance was laid on that black issue in Nazi Germany. Because hardly anybody in Germany or other countries made the black issue in Nazi Germany such importance. I believe history has been adjusted to the 'guilt factor' since the US OF AMERICA considered blacks a subhuman race as well - not too long ago.

Funny you bring up homosexuals: aren't they sinners in christian belives anyhow.

Hitler was driven by his ideology mixed with religion.

And I don't know where you get the idea that 'Mein Kampf' replaced the Bible. 'Mein Kampf' was an autobiography mixed with political thesis. It is a work to study 'political and ideological theories' before Hitler came to power. It was written in 1926 while he was still in the slammer.

Just for your information: the swastika's origin are religious in nature. One of the versions I believe is hinduh and buddishm or one or the other. There were several other versions of it such as in ancient Greece.


Don't preach the Hollocaust to a JEw FFiB. Hitler described the RACE of Jews over and over in his diatribes. It wasn't about their religion, it was about their RACE. His scientists took great pains to isolate them as almost a different SPECIES to that of Aryans. There are VOLUMES of research they conducted to isolate every possible PHYSICAL distinction. And Hitler killed PLENTY of Christians who were FORMER JEws. All it took was one grandparent to make a Jew in the Nazi's eyes. That wasn't because of religion, that was because of blood. Learn a thing or two before opening that trap FFIB.

Hitler wanted racial purity. Gypsy's, Jews, blacks, homosexuals(considered a genetic defect by Hitler), he wanted them dead because he wanted racial purity. Conversion to Christianity didn't save a single Jew. Even the Spanish Inquisition would spare someone if they truly converted.

So before you go claiming that it was about religion, check a few facts.

Might also want to check this link....

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html


" In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools."

Heck of an article, you might actually want to read it.

Dolfan984
06-20-2007, 06:27 PM
And yet, despite the evils of religion, we still somehow managed to have devout atheists like Mao and Stalin murder upwards of 125 million people. Consider that that number exceeds the likely population of the world during the Islamic and Christian Crusades, as well as the population of Europe during the 30 years War(not really religious in nature anyway once you explore it), and you have the simple fact that two atheists somehow managed to kill more people than all the major religious wars combined. Amazing.

IMO that just makes them crazy instead of doing what they were doing in the name of religion...which is also crazy but it's a different kind of crazy. One's doing one for power while the other is doing it as a service to their deity.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 06:44 PM
IMO that just makes them crazy instead of doing what they were doing in the name of religion...which is also crazy but it's a different kind of crazy. One's doing one for power while the other is doing it as a service to their deity.


It's entirely arguable that pretty much any religious leader you can name did what he did in search of personal power at least as much as Mao or Stalin.

Further, you are discounting the idealistic fervor of communism. That sort of ideology can be just as seductive as any religion.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 06:58 PM
Yeah I hear you absolutely and I fall into that trap all to often attributing all conflict to being religiously based. When you hear the leaders use religion or religious references in the how's or why's for war or to justify the reasons then it's hard not to.

ROFL, I just realized that going by that line of reasoning, YOU would have to argue that Bush went into Iraq in order to end terrorism.

Dolfan984
06-20-2007, 07:26 PM
It's entirely arguable that pretty much any religious leader you can name did what he did in search of personal power at least as much as Mao or Stalin.

Further, you are discounting the idealistic fervor of communism. That sort of ideology can be just as seductive as any religion.

I agree, but those religious leaders don't make their followers think that they're doing it for their country/their power, they're doing it for their religion.

There isn't that much communism left in the world, it's a lot easier to convince a civilian in a communist nation to believe that communism is idealistic and not a good form of government. You won't be able to convince a civilian who has faith in their religion that their beliefs are wrong. You have powerful persuasion when the people who follow your orders believe you're doing them in the name of their lord.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 07:47 PM
I agree, but those religious leaders don't make their followers think that they're doing it for their country/their power, they're doing it for their religion.

There isn't that much communism left in the world, it's a lot easier to convince a civilian in a communist nation to believe that communism is idealistic and not a good form of government. You won't be able to convince a civilian who has faith in their religion that their beliefs are wrong. You have powerful persuasion when the people who follow your orders believe you're doing them in the name of their lord.

What's the difference? For centuries the Japanese invested their religious fervor in large part into their Emperor. They melded the secular and religious ideology. Likewise, Hitler was viewed as a semi-deified entity by many Nazi's. They certainly took his word as binding, regardless of the subject.

And before you make that second statement, look at how many people convert to other religions, or just "drop out" of the religion they were born into. Further, it's hard to make that comparison when most of the communist nations on the planet have been harsh and brutal extremist states, while most religions don't do anything more than place a moral code on people. It's a lot easier to be a casual catholic than it is to be a communist afterall.

Megatron
06-21-2007, 07:32 AM
ROFL, I just realized that going by that line of reasoning, YOU would have to argue that Bush went into Iraq in order to end terrorism. Raa roo?:err:

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 09:26 AM
Raa roo?:err:

Well, if the argument is that "because Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and that he said he was killing the Jews in the name of Christianity", than it makes it true, than it is equally true that because Bush said that he went into Iraq to end terrorism, that is also true.

If you argue that the only requirement to determine intent is the declaration of that intent, than you have to apply that rule to all leaders. Including GW. :wink:

Majpain
06-22-2007, 04:25 PM
You can cast a spell anytime you want Lamp. A spell is basically a Wiccan prayer. We try to make something happen by setting energy in motion, only instead of begging our deity we take matters into our own hands.

It's not like what you see in the movies.

:unsure::err:

Pagan
06-22-2007, 04:48 PM
:unsure::err:
You watch too much TV. :wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-23-2007, 01:21 PM
You watch too much TV. :wink:

If you say that Charmed isn't real I will give you SUCH a pinch!! :err:

Pagan
06-23-2007, 01:57 PM
If you say that Charmed isn't real I will give you SUCH a pinch!! :err:
Of course it is...so's "The Craft" and "Practical Magick". :tongue: