Religions that can Ruin Peoples Lifes

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:53 am

Firstly I would like to say sorry to any JW's out there if I offend you - it is not my intention - I am merely trying to understand . I personally don't have a religion other than 'believing in good people' regardless of religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, country of origin etc .... I sincerely only look at one thing - is this person a good person.

But this scares me. A very good friend of mine was brought up under the JW umbrella, and it scares me the stories I hear. Apart from many horror tales, here are just a few. She was raped in the name of JW. She was thrown out of her home at 16 in the name of JW. Her mother is addicated to anti-depressants due to JW. My friend, was anorexic because of JW. She took drugs because of JW. Even now at 40 years old, and out of JW, she still suffers daily because of it.

I did some looking around and quite honestly it scares me what I see. The following is one of the more milder vids I found. How can a religion ruin so many lifes ....... or am I missing something.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:04 am

I didn't watch the whole video...but most of it...that was sad....

I have no experience with JW, have had friends that are JW's and I've never seen anything like what I've heard about on here and in the churches......It is a touchy subject with many people....I do feel sorry for the people that have had hard lives due to a religion or cult that was forced on them....:-1

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:26 am

WonderWendy3;719502 wrote: I didn't watch the whole video...but most of it...that was sad....

I have no experience with JW, have had friends that are JW's and I've never seen anything like what I've heard about on here and in the churches......It is a touchy subject with many people....I do feel sorry for the people that have had hard lives due to a religion or cult that was forced on them....:-1

Your right, maybe I should not have posted it or at least not pulled out JW as an example,

cos I'm sure their are other religions that can be just as controlling. I'm going to see if I can change the title at least, as these were not my words just taken from the report.

I guess its because of my friend. I just can't believe how one religion, and her families obsession with it, could ruin her life so.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:19 am

I think those things can happen under the coaxing of any religion however, the Witnesses due have a peculiarity. I used to have a very good friend who had become a Witness. Part of the rigamarole included trying to change me from a pagan to finally dumping me because I was considered "worldly" in the religious sense. I have also lost my cousin to Mormonism. Lost other family members to holy roller religions as well. It can happen with any of them, I'm sure. The brainwash capability is there.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:34 am

Last week in the papers their was a case of a woman that refused blood due to her religion, having just give birth to twins she needed a transfusion, the Dr's went to her husband to try to get him to give persmission and he refused. The young wife and mother died.

I feel that is really sad but I think we do have to look at what people want and choose, I think that faith gets people through many things and can make life have reason.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:58 am

SuzyB;719563 wrote: Last week in the papers their was a case of a woman that refused blood due to her religion, having just give birth to twins she needed a transfusion, the Dr's went to her husband to try to get him to give persmission and he refused. The young wife and mother died.

I feel that is really sad but I think we do have to look at what people want and choose, I think that faith gets people through many things and can make life have reason.

I never understood this part. How could you refuse something that would save your loved ones life - I know I would say sod the religion - just save them. Now the husband and twins do not have a husband/mother

I thought doctors could over-rule on this kind of thing, and thats how a lot of these religions get around those times. Like 'well they over-ruled - I did refuse' :-2

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:51 am

I think a culture where you are not allowed to criticise a religion or make fun of them is a dangerous one to allow to develop. If someone has faith them what others think shouldn't bother them. The first thing cults do is try to control the way it's members think and one of the ways is what they read and watch. When we allow religion to dictate what is taught in schools and stop the teaching of something or the publishing of something because some religious group or another finds it offensive we go too far. Tolerance goes both ways-if religion wants tolerance for its beliefs and the right to proselytise among non believers they have to respect the right of those who don't share it to try and proselytise amongst it's followers.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:36 am

ThePheasant;719498 wrote: Firstly I would like to say sorry to any JW's out there if I offend you - it is not my intention - I am merely trying to understand . I personally don't have a religion other than 'believing in good people' regardless of religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, country of origin etc .... I sincerely only look at one thing - is this person a good person.

But this scares me. A very good friend of mine was brought up under the JW umbrella, and it scares me the stories I hear. Apart from many horror tales, here are just a few. She was raped in the name of JW. She was thrown out of her home at 16 in the name of JW. Her mother is addicated to anti-depressants due to JW. My friend, was anorexic because of JW. She took drugs because of JW. Even now at 40 years old, and out of JW, she still suffers daily because of it.

I did some looking around and quite honestly it scares me what I see. The following is one of the more milder vids I found. How can a religion ruin so many lifes ....... or am I missing something.

I will say on this matter and I dont mean to sound funny when I say that but its because I will upset so many people I guess saying what I really think.But what I will say though is that what you say there I agree with you 100%.Its also such a shame that our one God has to be reached in so many different ways and can hurt so many on that journey .To be a decent person....to have a good heart is what matters and yes we all do make mistakes and yes none of us are perfect but thats also part of being human and its what lies within us and the way we think and treat our fellow man thats important.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:46 am

There are degrees of harm that society allows people to inflict on their neighbour. I'm not aware that JWs arm volunteers with tanks or cruise missiles. There are worse things in this world than religious zealots, misguided or otherwise.

Do we really want to live in a world where nobody can refuse a live-saving blood transfusion? Even if they have a legitimate reason to?

JWs have a long history of official persecution. I'm not impressed when I see it suggested that rape is officially sanctioned by their rulebook either.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:27 am

Why must everything be compared to war??

I'm not so sure that religious zealots are as harmless as you appear to suggest, Spot. After all, religion is one thing that causes such wars to happen.

As much as I disagree with the blood thing and as selfish as that mother was to have willfully chosen to leave her two children motherless, I wouldn't have the doctor pull rank on her. So I agree there, if begrudgingly so.

I can't comment on the rape suggestion but as for the rest and more, I can say that calling out any faith's erroneous aspects is far from any kind of persecution.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:01 am

I have an ex brother in law who has been a Jehovah Witness for most of his adult life. He is very peculiar. I have often stated that I avoid religious zealots like the plague. It seems to me that very troubled, or insecure, or frightened people allow religion to run their lives. They all seem kind of like zombies to me. As far as the rape issue goes... Ive never heard of anything like that before. These cults do rob people of their lives though, and take away the persons ability to think for themselves. It makes them potential victims for all kinds of exploitation.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:18 am

RedGlitter;719894 wrote: calling out any faith's erroneous aspects is far from any kind of persecution.

weeder;719902 wrote: These cults do rob people of their lives though, and take away the persons ability to think for themselves. It makes them potential victims for all kinds of exploitation.
What we can do to test these comments - "erroneous aspects" and "take away the persons ability to think for themselves" - is to agree firstly on an exemplary religion which we assert has none of these drawbacks, and then to compare Jehovah's Witnesses to it point by point. That'd be instructive.

So, what'll we choose as the lodestone? Roman Catholicism? The Baptists? Lutherans? Seventh Day Adventists? Assemblies of God? The Church of England?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:30 am

spot;719906 wrote: What we can do to test these comments - "erroneous aspects" and "take away the persons ability to think for themselves" - is to agree firstly on an exemplary religion which we assert has none of these drawbacks, and then to compare Jehovah's Witnesses to it point by point. That'd be instructive.

So, what'll we choose as the lodestone? Roman Catholicism? The Baptists? Lutherans? Seventh Day Adventists? Assemblies of God? The Church of England?

I have some experience with several of those denominations and no personal experience with the others. I am not sure we could actually identify an exemplary faith among those (or for possibly others for that matter) as there has been zeal and brainwashing occurring now and then even among these suggested faiths.

I won't say religion is a bad thing as I don't generally think it is but it ALL has the potential to become a bad thing under the right circumstances, with the right people.

What do you think?

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:48 am

spot;719906 wrote:

So, what'll we choose as the lodestone? Roman Catholicism? The Baptists? Lutherans? Seventh Day Adventists? Assemblies of God? The Church of England?

How about basic common sense and scientific proof? :sneaky:

Religion has been the cause of more wars and upsets than anything else.

If people want to have religious beliefs then go ahead, be my guest. Just don't come to my home, trying to shove it down my throat...:-5 If your religion is that good, then why do you have to "sell" it, door to door? Surely people will find it out for themselves...:-3

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:54 am

I just cant fathom how a religion can become more important then the life of a loved one. How can anyone let their loved one die for the want of blood? if you love that person (selfish love) surely you would do everything in your power to keep them with you, even denying your religious laws. I know i would.

Its a bit frightening really.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:01 am

RedGlitter;719918 wrote: What do you think?I think that if we stick to their essential defining documents we'll not go beyond what they'd say of themselves and "occurring now and then" will not be a problem for either the exemplary faith or for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Priests have been known to resort to buggery but that's not a defining characteristic of Roman Catholic practice, to put it crudely. Before anyone accuses me of bias, Anglican Organists and Choirmasters are notorious in that regard as well, almost on a par with Secular Scoutmasters.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:18 am

I don't think it's so much religion as a whole that ruins people's lives, as it's maybe folks let their religion ruin their lives. I'm Southern Baptist, but I'm not here shoving the doctrine down your throats, but I know some members of my church would be. I know lot's JW's and some are really nice folks, and others are defiantly odd ducks.

Wars were started in the name of religion, but if you get down to the nitty gritty, the people leading the wars were greedy b*stards.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:21 am

RedGlitter;719918 wrote: I have some experience with several of those denominations and no personal experience with the others. I am not sure we could actually identify an exemplary faith among those (or for possibly others for that matter) as there has been zeal and brainwashing occurring now and then even among these suggested faiths.

I won't say religion is a bad thing as I don't generally think it is but it ALL has the potential to become a bad thing under the right circumstances, with the right people.

What do you think?

I totally agree with you here Red. I too do not think that religion is a bad thing, however 'some religions' will use power and fear to get people to do almost anything they like and can be VERY damaging.

With regards to my comment about my friend being raped under the flag of JW (that's if peoples comments where directed towards that), could perhaps have been misread. It was not that the JW said it was the done thing. She was regularly forced to be in the presence of a man who her parents, and others in the church, believed to be a wonderful person. She was brought up to believe that these people were close to their god and anything they wish to do to her was okay. In fact she would be damned if she did not oblige. When she did finally have the courage to tell her parents (after years of abuse), they threw her out of the house for daring to imply that this w4nker was less than perfect!

So this was not only controlling her life, but her parents too - to the point where they threw their own child out onto the streets - rather than believe anything different. I wonder how many other girls were abused and left homeless - just by this one 'sorry excuse for a human being' and this one church!

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:28 am

ThePheasant;719944 wrote: I totally agree with you here Red. I too do not think that religion is a bad thing, however 'some religions' will use power and fear to get people to do almost anything they like and can be VERY damaging.

With regards to my comment about my friend being raped under the flag of JW (that's if peoples comments where directed towards that), could perhaps have been misread. It was not that the JW said it was the done thing. She was regularly forced to be in the presence of a man who her parents, and others in the church, believed to be a wonderful person. She was brought up to believe that these people were close to their god and anything they wish to do to her was okay. In fact she would be damned if she did not oblige. When she did finally have the courage to tell her parents (after years of abuse), they threw her out of the house for daring to imply that this w4nker was less than perfect!

So this was not only controlling her life, but her parents too - to the point where they threw their own child out onto the streets - rather than believe anything different. I wonder how many other girls were abused and left homeless - just by this one 'sorry excuse for a human being' and this one church!

Oh no, thats so sad, and so wrong:mad:

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:45 am

kazalala;719950 wrote: Oh no, thats so sad, and so wrong:mad:

It's rather like damning the entire British medical profession because one general practitioner murdered around 250 of his patients. As far as the British medical profession - or the Roman Cathlic church - or Jehovah's Witnesses - go, so what? Either it's the group or it's the bad apple that you blame. Is the British medical profession a bunch of murdering power freaks? Well no, not in general. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a bunch of rapists? Well no, not in general. Shall we talk about groups rather than exceptions?

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:06 am

spot;719954 wrote: It's rather like damning the entire British medical profession because one general practitioner murdered around 250 of his patients. As far as the British medical profession - or the Roman Cathlic church - or Jehovah's Witnesses - go, so what? Either it's the group or it's the bad apple that you blame. Is the British medical profession a bunch of murdering power freaks? Well no, not in general. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a bunch of rapists? Well no, not in general. Shall we talk about groups rather than exceptions?

I just thought that particular story was sad spot, and i its probably the reason this thread was started. Im not very good at intellectual discussions, but in this instance i think the parents are to blame at the very least for choosing not to believe their daughter, so as not to bring in to question their religion. I accept and understand that the man who abused that girl would do it regardless of his religious beliefs, but would her parents have belived her if they were not so heavily involved with their religion?

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:21 am

kazalala;719959 wrote: would her parents have belived her if they were not so heavily involved with their religion?Would you regard the fact that they did to be the fault of the religion or the parents?

Would you blame the silence of generations of Anglicans regarding onanistic practices on choirboys to be the fault of Anglicanism or the times?

Where do you allocate responsibility when the doctrine of the church itself forbids the act you're complaining about?

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:29 am

spot;719954 wrote: It's rather like damning the entire British medical profession because one general practitioner murdered around 250 of his patients. As far as the British medical profession - or the Roman Cathlic church - or Jehovah's Witnesses - go, so what? Either it's the group or it's the bad apple that you blame. Is the British medical profession a bunch of murdering power freaks? Well no, not in general. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a bunch of rapists? Well no, not in general. Shall we talk about groups rather than exceptions?

That is an unfair statement! Yes there are bad apples in all walks of life. Lets use your comparison. When a medical practitioner murders around 250 people I don't see the entire British Medical Profession standing behind him/her, disbelieving the victims and stating that they believed his doings to be for the good of his people.

My thread was not pulling out just rape, it was talking about the entire controlling issues that these 'cults' (or whatever they should be called!) practice. The brainwashing and deceit causing hundreds of people (in one cult alone), to have their lives ruined!

Like I said I think religion can be a good thing. But not when it uses its powers and fear tactics to wreck families and hundreds of individuals, it stinks!

Try again :p - cos I don't see any link here between 'cults' and individual bad apples.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:34 am

spot;719963 wrote: Would you regard the fact that they did to be the fault of the religion or the parents?

Would you blame the silence of generations of Anglicans regarding onanistic practices on choirboys to be the fault of Anglicanism or the times?

Where do you allocate responsibility when the doctrine of the church itself forbids the act you're complaining about?

I know Spot you going to tell me to shut up cos you were talking to Kaz :wah:

But I see the fault being the religion and the parent. You can see how controlling and brainwashing these cults can be. Even to the point where they can interfere with the powerful love and bond a parent has with its child. Thats how powerful they are! Scary but true - not many 'groups of people' could get hundreds of people to die in one fire for love of their god!

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:34 am

spot;719963 wrote: Would you regard the fact that they did to be the fault of the religion or the parents?

Would you blame the silence of generations of Anglicans regarding onanistic practices on choirboys to be the fault of Anglicanism or the times?

Where do you allocate responsibility when the doctrine of the church itself forbids the act you're complaining about?

I think it was the fault of the parents, they are so wrapped up in their beliefs, they dont want it sullied by the fact that "one of them" could do those things.

I think its people that are bad, not religion, but some people are bad in the name of religion.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:25 am

Then let's choose an uncontentious religion to compare with what's referred to here as a "cult", Jehovah's Witnesses, and decide by comparing them whether it's religion in general that's at fault or some cultish aspect that Jehovah's Witnesses express but the uncontentious religion doesn't. We still need someone to propose what our baseline is, I'm not going to do that myself.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:30 am

spot;719983 wrote: Then let's choose an uncontentious religion to compare with what's referred to here as a "cult", Jehovah's Witnesses, and decide by comparing them whether it's religion in general that's at fault or some cultish aspect that Jehovah's Witnesses express but the uncontentious religion doesn't. We still need someone to propose what our baseline is, I'm not going to do that myself.

Me either:p

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:32 am

kazalala;719987 wrote:

Me either:p

Dawg garn it!! It looks like its up to me! - BRB (give me an hour or two) :-5

I would like to add that I did not say it was religion in general thats at fault (as you stated in your post my spotted friend).

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:33 am

ThePheasant;719988 wrote: Dawg garn it!! It looks like its up to me! - BRB (give me an hour or two) :-5

:wah:

my brains starting to hurt:rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:38 am

ThePheasant;719988 wrote: I would like to add that I did not say it was religion in general thats at fault (as you stated in your post my spotted friend).I said no such thing! - it was Hugh...How about basic common sense and scientific proof?

Religion has been the cause of more wars and upsets than anything else.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:39 am

ThePheasant;719988 wrote: I would like to add that I did not say it was religion in general thats at fault (as you stated in your post my spotted friend).I said no such thing! - it was Hugh...How about basic common sense and scientific proof?

Religion has been the cause of more wars and upsets than anything else.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:22 am

spot;720003 wrote: I said no such thing! - it was Hugh...How about basic common sense and scientific proof?

Religion has been the cause of more wars and upsets than anything else.

:o My bad ... sorry.

I'm still searching for the info. It would appear that not too many people are prepared to put figures/statistics up regarding death/ruined lives/wars etc. caused directly or indirectly by religion ... I wonder why :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:14 pm

Ok I am getting more and more frustrated looking at this..... :-5

Also, the more I research (and the more I see) the angrier I am getting!

I pulled this out anyway. Link shown below:

What's the situation with child abuse? (Talking about JW)

Not good. They take Deuteronomy 19:15 literally, which demands two witnesses to a crime (not easy in cases of abuse). And they cite 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 – "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?" – to justify trying to deal with criminals with courts of elders rather than courts of law. A Panorama investigation reported they have an internal list of 23,720 reported abusers which they keep private. Studies in the US suggest they have proportionally four times more sexual assaults on children than the Catholic Church.

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3132440.ece

I give in Spot, before I start a religious war :wah:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:53 pm

spot;719983 wrote: Then let's choose an uncontentious religion to compare with what's referred to here as a "cult", Jehovah's Witnesses, and decide by comparing them whether it's religion in general that's at fault or some cultish aspect that Jehovah's Witnesses express but the uncontentious religion doesn't. We still need someone to propose what our baseline is, I'm not going to do that myself.

Let's take Buddhism, just to be awkward.

And I'd say the religion would have to take some of the blame for creating the environment / mindset that convinced the parents that this outsider to the family was so upright as to be unquestionable.

Whilst the religion cannot be blamed for the actions of individuals within its ranks it is responsible for the attitudes of its adherents. After all, one of the major purposes of a religion is to adjust the attitudes of a society.

If it can be shown that a particular group, be that a religion or otherwise, has a likelihood to act in a specific way that is significantly different to the norm for their society then that group can and should be blamed for those actions even if they do not specifically endorse them.

In the case of Harrold Shipman, members of the BMC are statistically *less* likely than the norm to be mass murderers therefore the BMC cannot be held accountable. If it can be shown that JWs are more likely than the rest of society to accept and cover up abuse by their elders then it is right and proper to hold them guilty.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:06 pm

Bryn Mawr;720128 wrote: Let's take Buddhism, just to be awkward.Any other time I might, but in this thread we want to keep as many cultural boundaries in parallel as we can please.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:17 pm

spot;720145 wrote: Any other time I might, but in this thread we want to keep as many cultural boundaries in parallel as we can please.

I cannot think of a single denomination that can be held as a paragon of virtue in all its manifestations.

Take the Methodists as an example. Here they're mild mannered, middle of the road, curtsey to the Queen, moderates but I'd heard people on this site referring to Methodists as harry arsed fundamentalists to be avoided at all costs. Same goes for the Baptists.

No way coulld you take the Anglicans of the Catholics with their historical baggage so what does that leave us?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:33 pm

I interrupt this serious discussion to stick this thing here as a sample of what's wrong with religion:

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=397273

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:39 pm

RedGlitter;720162 wrote: I interrupt this serious discussion to stick this thing here as a sample of what's wrong with religion:

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=397273

Red!!! what took you so long?:D

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:40 pm

RedGlitter;720162 wrote: I interrupt this serious discussion to stick this thing here as a sample of what's wrong with religion:

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=397273

:wah: He gets the style off to a tee :wah:

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:42 pm

RedGlitter;720162 wrote: I interrupt this serious discussion to stick this thing here as a sample of what's wrong with religion:

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=397273

:yh_rotfl OMG Terri that has to be one of the funniest vids I've seen in a while.

By the way I sent money. Apparently god is going to pay my bank overdraft fee and feed my children this month :-3

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:45 am

ThePheasant;720079 wrote:

My bad ... sorry.

I'm still searching for the info. It would appear that not too many people are prepared to put figures/statistics up regarding death/ruined lives/wars etc. caused directly or indirectly by religion ... I wonder why :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why not start with the crusades and work forward. Go to the cinema and watch that film about good queen bess that's just come out who'se title I can't remember. religion and misogyny what a story line. The English Civil War killed one in seven of the population that was all about religion as well-at least on some levels. Spanish inquisition etc etc.

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

Course you could argue all these wars had economic causes as well.

posted by bryn mawr

Take the Methodists as an example. Here they're mild mannered, middle of the road, curtsey to the Queen, moderates but I'd heard people on this site referring to Methodists as harry arsed fundamentalists to be avoided at all costs. Same goes for the Baptists.

At one time they were viewed as dangerous revolutionaries.

On a lighter note

http://www.youtube.com/user/lbc4god

Some of the comments are worth reading. Some people clearly can't tell when someone is taking the **** or cope with it either.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:07 am

gmc;720273 wrote: The English Civil War killed one in seven of the populationWhose population? I can't think of any population of which that statement would be true.

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:43 am

British Isles, 1641-52

English Civil War
Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars: the experience of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1651 (1992)
England & Wales: 190,000
Total k. in recorded fights: 84,830
Parliament: 34,130

Royalist: 50,700
War-related diseases, soldiers & civilians: 100,000

Bishop's Wars: 1,000

Accidents: ca. 500

(Thomas Hobbes est. 100,000 d. from fighting & disease.)
Scotland: 60,000

Total k. in recorded fights: 27,895
Parliament: 16,245

Royalist: 11,765
[Disease: ca. 30,000], incl. ca. 10,000 POWs who never came home
Ireland: 618,000 [see below for details.]

TOTAL: 868,000
Leslie Clarkson, Death Disease & Famine in Pre-industrial England (1975): 100,000 Englishmen, 1642-46 (citing another unnamed author, and doubting that this refers to battle deaths alone -- must include deaths by all causes)

Sorokin: 50,500 battle losses, all sides, 1642-51
Ireland

Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars (1992)
Petty's 1672 estimate of dead in Ireland, covering 10/1641-10/1653:
Protestants d. by war, dis., malnu.: 112,000, incl. 37,000 massacred at outbreak. Carlton says that 37,000 is exaggeration by factor of 9 or 10.

Catholic d.: 504,000

Total: 618,000 [sic.]

R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972 (1988)

Irish population decline from 2.0M (ca. 1640) to 1.7M (1672) [i.e.: 300,000]

1641: 4,000 k. in Ulster
Pitirim Sorokin:

The Sociology of Revolution (1967): 100,000 to 200,000 Irish massacred, 1651

Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol.3: 5,500 battle losses, 1649-52
Hirst, Authority & Conflict: England, 1603-1658 (1986): Ulster rebellion, 1641: 4,000 Protestants k. immediately + 8,000 refugees died in winter.

Morgan, Oxford History of Britain: Ulster rebellion, 1641: 3,000 Protestants kHere are a few facts and figures to do with deaths incurred during the English Civil War, courtesy of http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#EnglCW

I don't know if it helps or not...:-3

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:38 am

spot;720277 wrote: Whose population? I can't think of any population of which that statement would be true.

Can't for the life of me remember the original source of that and I now wish I had checked properly before I posted it.

It referred to the population of england I think..

This might help as well. although hugh janus's link is probably a better one.

http://www.answers.com/topic/english-civil-war

As usual in wars of this era, disease caused more deaths than combat. Matthew White cites a number of sources which give a range for the deaths in the Brtish Isles (IONA) from 1641 to 1652. For England and Wales and Scotland, White uses two sources for the number of deaths resulting from the war, and these range between 210,000 to 100,000. Two sources are used to give a range of battle deaths, the first source gives 84,830 killed in England and Wales and another 27,895 thousand in Scotland; another source states that a total of 50,500 were killed in battle. White uses more sources for the Irish conflict where a warfare continued for longer than in England and Wales. The total number of people who died because of warfare in Ireland during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms range from less than 300,000 up to 618,000. Only one source gives battle losses, and these are a total of 5,500 between 1649 and 1652.[10]

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn020.pdf

Modern estimates put fatalities

on both sides during the war at 185,000 — equivalent

to 3.6 per cent of Britain’s seventeenth century population.

(By comparison only 2.6 per cent of Britain’s population

lost their lives during the First World War.) In places such

as the midland village of Myddle, civil war casualties exceeded

those suffered during the First World war, in absolute

as well as relative terms. For the general population of

England the civil war was a period of almost unmitigated

catastrophe.9 The depths of the trauma suffered is suggested

by the fact that in early 1643 numerous sightings

Bear in mind the population around at the time. There would hardly have been a family that wasn't involved somehow. Unless you just count as war casualties those who got stabbed, shot or blown to pieces and dismiss the rest as collateral damage. incidentally despite it being a scots king and the involvement of scotland I find attempts to change the name from english civil war to british civil war a bit pc too far.

Bit off topic perhaps but catholic and protestant took a long time to learn to live together and it doesn't take much to fan the flames of religious hatred.

from the oxford english dictionary

cult

• noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.

Arguably all religions are cults in one way or the other. Why just small religious groups?