FORUM HOME > Wrestling > US Independents
Fun with New Jack

zackarcherPosted on 10/13/04 at 22:27:43

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- A professional wrestler from Georgia has been accused of stabbing his opponent 14 times with a prop during a match in Florida.

Both wrestlers in the local Thunder Wrestling Federation event told police in Jacksonville that the prop was brought in as part of what in wrestling is known as "hard-core," where it is not uncommon to see such props as knives, chains, bats and barbed wire.

The event's promoter said it wasn't supposed to be hard-core.

Police charged 41-year-old Jerome Young of Smyrna, who goes by the ring name of New Jack, with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. He is being held in lieu of 40-thousand dollars in the Duval County Jail. A court appearance is set for November 2nd.

Young told police he and his opponent, 37-year old William Jason Lane of Fruit Cove, Florida, planned before the match to use a piece of metal to inflict some injury. Lane, treated and released at Shands Jacksonville hospital, told officers he wasn't sure what happened but that the sport is dangerous.

The world has been due for another near death experience at the hands of New Jack.
americamamushiPosted on 10/14/04 at 00:27:29

It was all a work.  A retarded one, but one none the less.  Even after both men told police it was New Jack was still arrested because of a Jacksonville law that states "all forms of public displays of violence (even staged) are banned within city limits, if the event takes place at an establishment with the capability of serving alcohol." (Info from PWInsider.com by way of 411mania.com)  Doesn't that mean that every wrestler on the card should have been arrested?

And I don't remember any hardcore matches with knives...
Rick GarrardPosted on 10/14/04 at 00:53:29

And also doesn't that technically mean that EVERY NFL player that plays either for or against the Jaguars is in violation of the law since the Jaguars serve alcohol at their stadium?  And the NFL is pretty damned violent.
AnubisPosted on 10/14/04 at 08:41:01

Total real screwjob here.  America has gotten stupid, even worse after Nipplegate.  These laws are stupid.  If people agree to do such things, they only have themselves to blame if they get hurt.  They know the risks.  Otherwise Bush should be charged with murder for sending troops to get killed in Iraq.

I can truly say that with each passing day I grow more and more ashamed of this country.  It really does suck.  Censorship and all that is the worst thing in the world.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/17/04 at 21:15:05

On 10/14/04 at 08:41:01, Anubis wrote:
I can truly say that with each passing day I grow more and more ashamed of this country. It really does suck. Censorship and all that is the worst thing in the world.
No, idiocy is.
AnubisPosted on 10/18/04 at 23:04:30

Censorship = Idiocy

You should know that.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/19/04 at 01:29:11

No, I don't believe censorship = idiocy. I think censorship is lame but there are a lot worse things out there.  Like using a sensationlized version of your political viewpoint on a wrestling forum to make a point.
JustinPosted on 10/19/04 at 02:40:53

You know, I was in the army for 10 years and I resent it personally when someone does not appreciate the freedoms that I helped protect. Especially when it's over something so trivial as a wrestling match in Florida where the "moral standard" codes have been in place for many years.
New Jack should have known he was crossing the line even though that's just the way he is. But also at fault should be the promoter who obviously didn't do more than see the marquee value of having a national "star" at his show to sell tickets.
But if you are so ashamed of the country with each passing day, I suggest you go see how life is in a place that has even stricter censors than we ever could.

Sorry for the rant, but it hit a nerve.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/19/04 at 03:03:32

On 10/19/04 at 02:40:53, Justin wrote:You know, I was in the army for 10 years and I resent it personally when someone does not appreciate the freedoms that I helped protect. Especially when it's over something so trivial as a wrestling match in Florida where the "moral standard" codes have been in place for many years.
New Jack should have known he was crossing the line even though that's just the way he is. But also at fault should be the promoter who obviously didn't do more than see the marquee value of having a national "star" at his show to sell tickets.
But if you are so ashamed of the country with each passing day, I suggest you go see how life is in a place that has even stricter censors than we ever could.

Sorry for the rant, but it hit a nerve.
He said everything I wanted to say and we even havet he same name, crazy.
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 10/19/04 at 16:49:25

Yeah...I hate censorship just as much as the next guy (possibly even more so because I'm a journalist and it's been known to fuck me over once or twice), but there's a lot of worse shit out there.

I don't know that I entirely disagree with the concept of occasionally letting one's political views pop up on this board, though. Obviously, this board is for discussion of wrestling, be it pro or simulated, but sometimes even something as seemingly trivial as professional wrestling can relate to someone's political beliefs. If you start looking closely at politics, you can often see how the various political issues of the day relate in some way, no matter how miniscule, to your average everyday activities, even if those activities are watching wrestling or playing video games or even posting on an online message board.

But I don't think any of y'all have actually said, "Hey Anubis, you shouldn't have posted those extreme views on censorship." And that's smart.  Because that would be censorship in itself. And I wouldn't want to see the argument that results from THAT.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/19/04 at 18:52:23

I don't mind if your political views creep into things, because I know my personal worldview affects everything I see. But it is using senationlized versions of said views to bolster your argument that I don't like.
JustinPosted on 10/19/04 at 21:19:21

I agree, you have the freedom to say what you want... but so do I when I disagree with you.
91Posted on 10/19/04 at 21:51:30

There has to be SOME degree of censorship in life - nobody could honestly think it would be suitable, say, to show two people f'ing and blinding before engaging in hardcore sex at four in the afternoon on terrestrial television, nor would it be suitable to be able to slander people at will in a popular media form.
AnubisPosted on 10/22/04 at 08:46:24

First off, 91, I do think even that should be allowed. The networks will put on what is watched and will take off what isn't. When that show turned out to have low viewership, it would be taken off the air. As for keeping kids from seeing it, that's what parents and/or the V-Chip (take your pick, although I'd pick parents) are for. PEOPLE should choose what is and is not watched. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

To Justin, why don't you go tell New Jack all that? He's the guy facing possible or even probable jail or even prison time. What rights and freedoms did you protect?

Captain Tagon, there is nothing "sensationalized" about what I said. That's right-wing garbage talk right there, always being accusatory of people being extremist when they don't accept the "standard". New Jack is facing possible jail or prison time for doing his job and doing what he loves. Wrestlers aren't expected to go look at all the laws in place in every city or state they visit. I doubt he knew such laws existed. That's not even covering the fact that such laws shouldn't exist in the first place, as they are unconstitutional. It's about as dumb as states that have "no male on female violence" laws, which are sexist to the max. What happened to everybody being equal? It's a bunch of garbage.

New Jack has gotten railroaded. What rights and freedoms are so great? That I can say this? Too bad it means nothing and my words will have ZERO effect on the outcome. What use is speaking out if it does nothing? That means all I can do is bitch and moan, which I have done before and will continue to do for many years to come. I'd still rather make a difference. Too bad I can't. I know Europe is worse when it comes to violence censorship, but that doesn't make us right.

I always say, unless you're part of the solution, you're part of the problem. America isn't all that great. Just being slightly better on some things (very few things actually; censorship is probably the only area we're better than European countries in, which is sad because our censorship record is like the Big Show's work rate, ATROCIOUS) doesn't make us "better". That kind of attitude is why 9/11 happened in the first place. The best way to prevent another 9/11 from happening is for America to drop the world police act and its overall ego. I guarantee we'd have fewer attacks against us if we didn't piss everyone off all the time.

Of course now I'm off on a tangent. The main point I'm trying to make is that just because we're better than many other countries doesn't mean good. If you were to get a 5% on a test in school and I got 10% on the same test, sure I could brag that I'm better than you, but we still both flunked. That's how America is right now. So if you wanna defend freedoms and rights, why not do something about these injustices?

Me, I'd give up my right to free speech in a heartbeat if it meant saving someone's ACTUAL FREEDOM and/or life.  Wrestling itself may be trivial, but New Jack's situation is not, and it's deplorable that a defender of rights could say such a thing about an innocent man.  The height of hypocracy.

Wrestling is a hobby, politics is life.
JustinPosted on 10/22/04 at 14:43:24

Injustices inside the country is what the police are for... if you or i broke a law (even an obscure one) then we should be man enough to do the time.

As for all the other "problems' you have with this country... if you don't like it.....leave. I hear France has afew vacancies.

I feel just the opposite... the reason we were attacked is because we were to secure with our place in the world. The attack neded to happen to give us a reality check. We sat back & let too much go on & were being perceived as weak. Now that we are going on the offensive, it will make alot of people take notice that any aggression on us will not be tollerated. We may not be the richest country in the world as John Kerry  likes to think (I believe it's one of those oil rich middle eastern countries) but we are one of the most powerfulk when provoked.

Critic of the DawnPosted on 10/22/04 at 18:18:39

You are a rare bird, Anubis.

New Jack got in trouble because he broke a law designed to prevent prizefights in bars because they were getting out of hand if what I've read is correct.  I doubt very much that he'll end up with anything more than a slap on the wrist, because if I recall correctly the law in question applies only to people who make less than 50% of their money per year fighting to protect football players, boxers, and pro-wrestlers.  That considered, I see it as very unlikely that he'll be successfully prosecuted because from my understanding the law in question specifically exempts him.

As for all the talk of freedom, censorship, and oppression, what does any of that have to do with New Jack?  He isn't being censored, somebody got carried away while watching a hardcore match and called the cops, who did their job in arresting him.  All things considered, the charges will probably end up being dropped and New Jack will be set free.  How is it censorship or oppression to arrest someone suspected of a crime, even if it turns out that suspicion proves to be false?

I'm a bit libertarian on my view of censorship mystelf (it's the parent's job to monitor what their children watch on TV or in Movies, not the Government's in my view), but THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CENSORSHIP.  It's a case of a city ordinance designed to stop people from getting needlessly hurt.

On a side note, I've always found the whole "Love it or leave it!" argument to be asinine, because it implies that people who see problems in the country and want to draw attention to them so they can be improved are somehow less American or care less about the country than people who don't see those problems.  In a democracy it's every citizen's duty to try to keep the country as close to its ideals as is possible and/or practical.  Telling someone to get bent because they see things differently than you is, in my eyes, borderline offensive and authoritarian.  Dissention keeps the country honest.  I may think Anubis is nuttier than a fruitcake, but implying that he's unpatriotic for wanting change is just as crazy.

With regards to 9/11, I've taken classes on it and from my view you can't point to a single cause and say "This is why they did it."  There's quite a few causes in my eyes.  First there's the fact that we're the richest country in the world.  We have the capability to do great good in the world, but all too often we're content to merely consume.  For example, our farms are capable of feeding the entire world, but the government actually pays farmers not to grow extra food because doing so would upset the markets.  There's also the fact that our foreign policy is incredibly inconsistent.  First we backed Afghanistan against the Soviets, then we abandoned them.  We propped up Saddam Hussein as a dictator to stand against the Iranians, then act surprised when he uses the weapons we helped him acquire and smack him back down.  To a citizen living in the middle east, that has to feel like we're playing the arab countries against each other, especially when you consider that our only consistent policy in the region has been our support of Israel.  Third, the lack of Democracy and economic opportunity in the area does contribute as well.  People who want to make a difference have few opportunities other than striking out at the perceived injustice of Israel and America because nothing else they do will matter at all.  Finally, America is at the center of the Western World due to its immense power and wealth.  To the strongly religious of more or less any faith, immorality and the like strongly stand out as a major problem.  From violence and nudity to sex and drugs, the strictly religious see evil at work.  In America it's easier to blame the media and just not watch what you find offensive.  But somewhere like the Middle East, what with all the other things they see, it might be hard for the strictly religious not to see America as an immoral and wicked country.

That's my view on the whole matter, anyway.  Not sure what New Jack has to do with any of this, though.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 10/23/04 at 05:34:17

Preach it, Brother Eric.  Kudos to you for saying most of the stuff I wanted to say but was too lazy to type out.

Particularly on the issue of how this topic got turned into a "censorship" topic.  New Jack does a good enough job of censoring himself (via inspiring people not to watch his shitty matches) that I doubt he needs any extra help.
91Posted on 10/24/04 at 02:28:48

On 10/22/04 at 08:46:24, Anubis wrote:First off, 91, I do think even that should be allowed. The networks will put on what is watched and will take off what isn't. When that show turned out to have low viewership, it would be taken off the air. As for keeping kids from seeing it, that's what parents and/or the V-Chip (take your pick, although I'd pick parents) are for. PEOPLE should choose what is and is not watched. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
So you think a watershed is a BAD idea? The mind boggles, it really does...
americamamushiPosted on 10/24/04 at 04:02:12

Anubis:
Censorship = Idiocy
STEVEN RICHARDS IS NOT AN IDIOT! :)
AnubisPosted on 10/24/04 at 09:15:29

Critic of the Dawn, you said everything I was gonna say about the ridiculous "Love it or leave it!" comments, and did so in a MUCH nicer way than I would have been able to do.  People that are blindly patriotic are part of the bigger problem.  Patriotism is fine and all, but not when it blinds you to the wrongs being committed.

Don't get me wrong.  I support Israel and am 100% against the Muslims, MOST of whom (NOT ALL, just most, most of them in the Middle East of course; the Black Muslims here in America are perfectly good people in general) would like to see us destroyed.

As for the cause of 9/11, although a myriad of factors contributed, the main causes can be placed squarely on two things: American Egotism and Organized Religion.  These two things are bad bad bad.  I have patriotism, but I'm also OBJECTIVE.  I'm not in the "AMERICA IS TEH L33T" crowd that seems to be growing at a scary rate.  We are NOT the greatest country in the world.  All countries have their problems, yes, and no country is perfect, but the simple fact that we seem to think we are the center of the universe is the reason we're not the best.  Humility is key.

Critic of the Dawn, I'm sure your thinking I'm nutty is likely because of our polarized views on pro wrestling.  We seem to be of similar minds politically, though.  You said a lot that I agree with.  Completely.  One thing; as to how this relates to New Jack and censorship, that's what this is.  Censorship.  It all goes back to the government trying to punish people they think do inappropriate things, based solely on some widely-accepted moral value.  That's why marijuana is illegal, not because it's actually that bad for you (cigarettes are JUST AS BAD).  That's why prostitution is illegal, even though you're not actually trying to hurt someone.  Hell, anal sex is illegal in most states, but that law is NEVER enforced, which is the only credit I give to law enforcement.  This country is more and more about "winning the case" than "finding the truth".  Overzealous prosecutors make the problem even worse.  Either way, the core problem is censorship, and Nipplegate is what started the current outcry and it's disgusting.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/24/04 at 17:40:00

On 10/24/04 at 09:15:29, Anubis wrote:
Organized Religion.  These two things are bad bad bad.
You don't want to get in that argument.


Critic of the Dawn, I'm sure your thinking I'm nutty is likely because of our polarized views on pro wrestling.  We seem to be of similar minds politically, though.  You said a lot that I agree with.  Completely.  One thing; as to how this relates to New Jack and censorship, that's what this is.  Censorship.  It all goes back to the government trying to punish people they think do inappropriate things, based solely on some widely-accepted moral value.  That's why marijuana is illegal, not because it's actually that bad for you (cigarettes are JUST AS BAD).  That's why prostitution is illegal, even though you're not actually trying to hurt someone.  Hell, anal sex is illegal in most states, but that law is NEVER enforced, which is the only credit I give to law enforcement.  This country is more and more about "winning the case" than "finding the truth".  Overzealous prosecutors make the problem even worse.  Either way, the core problem is censorship, and Nipplegate is what started the current outcry and it's disgusting.
No, New Jack wasn't  censored. No one prevented him from doing what it was he did. However, he paid the consequences fo rit. That's the important part about freedom of speech. You're allowed to say whatever you want, but you aren't free from being held accountable for what you say or do.

Saying that laws are just enforced moral judgements is a bit redundant. If you look at it, that's what laws are MEANT to be. The whole political process is just the authoritative allotment of public values.

And I don't see where you're coming from with the 'winning the case' as opposed to 'finding the truth' arugment at all.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 10/24/04 at 17:46:03

On 10/24/04 at 09:15:29, Anubis wrote:Critic of the Dawn, you said everything I was gonna say about the ridiculous "Love it or leave it!" comments, and did so in a MUCH nicer way than I would have been able to do. People that are blindly patriotic are part of the bigger problem. Patriotism is fine and all, but not when it blinds you to the wrongs being committed.
Not a problem.  I may disagree with most of what you say (hence the teasing nutty comment), but the "Love it or leave it" argument is one of my pet peeves because in trying to be patriotically American it's moving dangerously close to being lockstep fascistic.

Don't get me wrong. I support Israel and am 100% against the Muslims, MOST of whom (NOT ALL, just most, most of them in the Middle East of course; the Black Muslims here in America are perfectly good people in general) would like to see us destroyed.
I personally think we need to re-examine our mideast foreign policy.  Israel is advanced enough, armed enough, and militarily successful enough that they no longer need the United States backing them to the degree we are.  I'm not arguing that we should totally cut ties, just that an examination of our foreign policy in this regard might reveal that it's doing us more harm than good.

As for the cause of 9/11, although a myriad of factors contributed, the main causes can be placed squarely on two things: American Egotism and Organized Religion. These two things are bad bad bad. I have patriotism, but I'm also OBJECTIVE. I'm not in the "AMERICA IS TEH L33T" crowd that seems to be growing at a scary rate. We are NOT the greatest country in the world. All countries have their problems, yes, and no country is perfect, but the simple fact that we seem to think we are the center of the universe is the reason we're not the best. Humility is key.
American egotism is a factor, although it's not a particularly nice way of saying it.  I'd use the term American Exceptionalism which encompasses the same general idea in a much more academic and credible way.  As for Organized religion being a problem, unless you want to clarify that I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

Critic of the Dawn, I'm sure your thinking I'm nutty is likely because of our polarized views on pro wrestling. We seem to be of similar minds politically, though. You said a lot that I agree with. Completely. One thing; as to how this relates to New Jack and censorship, that's what this is. Censorship. It all goes back to the government trying to punish people they think do inappropriate things, based solely on some widely-accepted moral value. That's why marijuana is illegal, not because it's actually that bad for you (cigarettes are JUST AS BAD). That's why prostitution is illegal, even though you're not actually trying to hurt someone. Hell, anal sex is illegal in most states, but that law is NEVER enforced, which is the only credit I give to law enforcement. This country is more and more about "winning the case" than "finding the truth". Overzealous prosecutors make the problem even worse. Either way, the core problem is censorship, and Nipplegate is what started the current outcry and it's disgusting.
As I said, the nutty comment was a joke on the fact that I disagree with most of what you say.  Your opinions are entirely valid, even if they're wrong. ;)

The problem with the Censorship connection you're making is that a law designed to stop people from hurting each other in unliscensed fighting contests is not based solely on morality.  It's based on the fact that people were literally getting seriously hurt in these things.  That said, from my understanding of the law (and I'm no lawyer), New Jack didn't actually violate it because he makes more than half of his money doing what he does, so he probably won't be prosecuted, and if he is he should be acquitted pretty easily.

As for Censorship being tied in to the illegality of Marijuana and Prostitution... no.  Sorry.  Not buying it.  Marijuana is many times more carcinogenic than ciggarettes, it has psychological side effects (apathy, loss of short term memory), it is mildly hallucinogenic, there is a proven correlation between the use of marijuana and the eventual use of harder drugs, and it is almost solely responsible for the existence of barbecue flavored Fritos.  Granted it's not even close to being as dangerous as crack or heroin, but it's still worse for you than drinking or smoking.  It's the government's responsiblity to protect its own people, and drugs are something that are adequately dangerous to warrant this.  On a cost-benefit analysis you might be able to successfully argue that the illegality of marijuana isn't worth the money poured into fighting it, but that doesn't make it censorship.

As for prostitution, while there may well be some happy whores, the impression that I have is that quite a high percentage of them are hooked on drugs to the point that once they become prostitutes there's almost no way to escape it.  Trying to protect people from that isn't censorship.

As for sodomy, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled laws against it unconstitutional.  But I don't believe that putting a penis in unusual places is speech anyway.

Censorship has indeed gotten heavier under the Bush administration in general and since Nipplegate in particular.  But using the word as a blanket term to refer to government activities that you disagree with that don't have much if anything to do with the restriction of public discourse and a curtailing of media freedoms feels a lot like an attempt to give legitimacy to some of your other views in the eyes of people here by association to a concept most agree is bad.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Captain TagonPosted on 10/24/04 at 17:53:11

Hey, I like BBQ Fritos.
americamamushiPosted on 10/24/04 at 17:54:53

Anubis, if New Jack being arrested because his wrestling went a bit far beyond what should be considered wrestling equates to him being censored, then by that same line of thinking I'm being censored it I rob a bank and they arrest me.  Or better yet, If I beat up a homeless guy using a midget and they arrest me, I'm being censored.

But I don't believe that putting a penis in unusual places is speech anyway.
For some reason that phrase stucks me as just plain hilarious :Dlol  I must find someway to incorperate that into everyday conversations.

Hey, I like BBQ Fritos
No Captain Tagon, BBQ Fritos aren't where its at.  Now Funyons... those are the cat's ass
AnubisPosted on 10/25/04 at 03:40:51

On 10/24/04 at 17:40:00, Captain Tagon wrote:You don't want to get in that argument.
No, you don't wanna get in that argument. I'd run circles around you. Since Critic of the Dawn also disagreed, I feel obligated to demonstrate why organized religion is one of the core problems.

You see, throughout the last two thousand years, there are several MAJOR wars in which many MANY innocent people died that are either a direct OR indirect result of organized religion. Don't get me wrong. I'm not Atheist and I'm not against God. I believe in God. Hell, I think God, Allah, etc. are all the same being, and I believe that to be fact and no one has yet been able to prove otherwise. I can support God. I'm okay with God. What I'm against is specifically ORGANIZED RELIGION.

One example is the Crusades. That was one of the worst conflicts ever on the face of the planet and it was totally and inexcusably wrong. The entire core of it was ALL religion. Next, and far less direct, was World War II; this one actually went the other way with a religion paying a price instead of actually doing something wrong. Hitler was a fucking idiot. Good militarily, but an idiot otherwise. The Jewish people were murdered because of nothing other than their religion. Millions of them died because of it. It's not their fault, but the point is that either way you look at it, organized religion causes trouble ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. They either start it or are victims of it. This is all fact. It's all there in writing, but no one's actually said the words. No one save for me, that is.

MANY MANY MANY major conflicts and terrible events in history were because (entirely OR in part) of organized religion. The Holy Roman Empires attempted world takeovers in the name of God, Jesus getting crucified, the Crusades, the American Revolution, World War II, 9/11, this crap in Iraq, it all goes back to religion. Can you refute that? Of course not. The reasons are there. So many people have died or murdered "in the name of God/Allah/etc." and it's DISGUSTING. God isn't worth dying for, and until people realize that, these conflicts won't end.

I do agree that we should stop helping Israel so much, not because I don't support them (as I do) but to get the hate off us and because they can defend themselves.

As for the censorship issue, I'm using the full definition. I'm not talking about just the freedom of speech, but also freedom of expression. They arrested New Jack for no reason. They should have known he makes a living doing what he does, so there was no reason to arrest him. That's police harrassment. THAT is censorhip.

Granted the marijuana and prostitution thing isn't censorship, but I didn't say it was, THAT was just a demonstration of how this country is trying to push needless things on people. I don't smoke anything, but I'm also for legalizing marijuana because the laws obviously are unjust. People have gotten 50+ years in prison for growing just marijuana and nothing more, and people using it for medical reasons even get arrested. That isn't right. Law SHOULD be about true morality, meaning stopping people from hurting OTHERS, not from hurting themselves. This morality is more tradition than ANY real morality.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/25/04 at 03:46:50

I think the problem with the world is the lack of TRUE faith of any sort. I wouldn't call people who use God as excuse to be really 'religious'. But that is arguing semantics.
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 10/25/04 at 06:01:15

Organized religion has been responsible for a lot of bad shit, but it's also been responsible for some good stuff.  The easiest example would be something like the Ten Commandments.  The law says if you kill someone, you go to jail, but you can get away with it if you really apply yourself.  But if God says you can't do it, you can't hide anything from Him, so you'd best not do it or you're going to be in a world of hurt, young man, and you'd better stop breaking the heads off your sister's Barbie dolls too, you little bastard.

Wait, where was I?  Point is, it's easy to condemn organized religion because of some of the crap that's been carried out in God's name.  But the concept of organized religion is not, by itself, a bad thing.  When done right, it's an effective way of guiding people toward understanding their faith while keeping the troublemakers in check.  Militant Islam is a kind of organized religion, and I think we can all agree that it's bad.  But the Amish also practice a kind of organized religion, and how often do THEY shoot down planes and blow up buildings?  You can bash certain kinds of organized religion, because organized religion CAN be taken to pretty fucked-up lengths.  But to bash the concept is to ignore not only its benefits, but also its promises.  And if nothing else, you can make the argument that no one has managed to get it right yet, but that doesn't mean it can't be done right.

Besides, if you suddenly gained the power to snap your fingers and erase all organized religion, you'd have just as much conflict, if not more.  If you force every person on the planet to guide his faith by his own principles, people are going to be arguing and fighting within minutes -- faith is a very touchy issue with a lot of people, and if you remove all the rules and barriers, some bad shit is going to go down.  And eventually, out of that chaos will come order -- people with similar beliefs will band together as a defense against other people with their own beliefs, and WHAM!  You've got organized religion again.

If you think you're intelligent and rational enough to guide your faith by your own beliefs, good.  That's what I do.  While I believe in God and such, I don't really subscribe to any organized religion, and I don't intend to.  But there's a big different between not subscribing to an organized religion and thinking there's no use for organized religion in any way, shape or form -- one way is rational and the other is naive.  I'll let you guess which is which.

And by the way, did my eyes deceive me, or did you cite the American Revolution as a terrible event caused by organized religion?  How do you figure that?
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 10/25/04 at 06:02:30

And on a side note, if New Jack saw where this thread about his arrest ended up, I bet he'd be either really flattered or really terrified.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 10/25/04 at 07:12:37

The only problems in organized religion exist because corruption is more or less inevitable in any bureucratic organization.  Calling such an organization inherantly evil because they can be steered away from their intended purposes by the ambitious is no different than calling the government evil because governments have started just as many wars without religious motivations as with.  It's the same as calling the police evil because some of them take advantage of their position to solicit bribes and to pursue personal vendettas.  And it's the same as calling a united Germany evil because some wacko named Hitler decided that Germans should kill all non-Germans.

The point of all of this is that you could make the exact same argument you're making against organized religion against pretty much any organization, because positions of power, by their very existence, tend to attract the ambitious, and the ambitious are often not the nicest people in the world.

As for your points about major wars... well, let's see...

The Holy Roman Empires attempted world takeovers in the name of God
The Holy Roman Empire was little more than a front for the Habsburg family in Austria and their attempts to increase their influence over Europe.  According to what I've read, it wasn't especially Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it definately wasn't an Empire - Germany (which made up the core of the HRE) wasn't even united politically until the mid 1800s.  Nowhere that I can think of is there an attempted world takeover.  There were numerous wars with France and assorted other major European powers, but that was mainly over land.

Jesus getting crucified
Again, this was largely political.  The Roman government had had numerous problems subduing the Hebrew people because they refused to give up the silly notion that there was only one god and acknowledge Rome's gods, which was only part of Rome's policies of assimilation which allowed the Roman Empire to rule the known world for hundreds of years.  Rome feared that someone with the popularity of Jesus could potentially serve as a rebel leader, and this notion was no doubt spread by prominent Hebrew religious leaders who felt he was a heretic gaining a dangerous level of support.  Religion played a role, but at least half of it was politics.

the Crusades
Yeah, a lot of this was religion, but political opportunism played a major role as well.  Witness the sacking of Constantinople (the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which was what remained of Rome at the time and quite definately a Christian country) by the Venitians.  Incidentally, I wouldn't qualify The Crusades as one of the worst conflicts (or series of conflicts, as would be more accurate) in the history of the world.

the American Revolution
What the heck is this doing in a list of unjust things caused by religion?  The Revolutionary War was caused by a combination of the ideas of Thomas Locke spreading among the American elite and the British just generally being unpleasant.  Religion wasn't even close to a major cause of it.

World War II
Not even close.  Sorry.  Hitler's wacky anti-everyone-who-wasn't-German policies were a radical extention of social Darwinism (in other words, the thought that survival of the fittest extended to the races of man ignoring the fact that they're all virtually genetically identical) and had nothing to do with religion.  Japan's unpleasantness started as essentially a landgrab intended to kickstart Japan's economy during the Great Depression.  Their atrocities were largely caused by a major difference in the perceived value of human life and the role of the soldier.  Not much of religious significance in there.

9/11
9/11 wasn't caused by organized religion, it was caused by religious extremists willing to use violence to hurt a percieved enemy.  In no way is Al Quaeda part of mainstream organized Islam any more than David Koresh's Branch Dividians down in Waco were a part of mainstream organized Christianity.

this crap in Iraq
You're kidding, right?  "This crap in Iraq" is going on because Bush decided he needed a major military victory to ensure his re-election, and because Iraq just happened to be a country that America was predisposed to distrust and would believe was a potential threat.  Again, our actions weren't caused by religion.  As for the insurgents, they're made up of a combination of Iraqi nationalists who feel we're unjustly occupying the country and radical religious leaders thrust into positions of power because no other organizations exist for the resistence to work through.

Sorry, but to me your argument here seems pretty weak and forced, and from the looks of it nobody else is buying it either.  I'm personally agnostic, but I have nothing but respect for those who have found religion, whether it be something personal or through an organized church.

And, once again, the arrest of New Jack is not censorship in my opinion.  You seem to be confusing censorship with making a mistake in the course of doing one's duty.  I very much doubt that there's an organized effort to force New Jack to go to prison so he can't express himself.

Sorry Anubis.  I'm back to disagreeing with almost everything you're saying here and viewing you as nuttier than a fruitcake again.  ;)

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Snabbit888Posted on 10/25/04 at 10:52:21

I really wish I had something intelligent to add to any of this, but I don't.  I can just weigh in by saying I don't see how someone being arrested for committing a crime, no matter how goofy, is censorship.

In Terre Haute, there's a law where you get fined $50 for spitting on the side walk.  Is that censorship?

There's also this goofy law that says you can't murder somebody, even if you are merely expressing your freedom of speech to not like that person very much.  Is that censorship?

The only censorship I'm worried about is when I take a shower, I have these damn black boxes all over my naughty parts.  Who's doing that!?
americamamushiPosted on 10/25/04 at 14:11:38

it's the government man!  They're freakin' everywhere!!

*adjusts foil hat*
AnubisPosted on 10/25/04 at 21:51:46

Well lemme try to cover the main points here:

On 10/25/04 at 06:01:15, AllPowerfulGARTH wrote:
Organized religion has been responsible for a lot of bad shit, but it's also been responsible for some good stuff.

<snip>

But the concept of organized religion is not, by itself, a bad thing.  When done right,

<snip>
The exact same thing can be said for Communism.  That doesn't mean we should give it a chance to work either.  Some things are inherently so fucked up that people in charge can't help but be corrupt.  Communism is one example, organized religion is another.

On 10/25/04 at 06:01:15, AllPowerfulGARTH wrote:
And by the way, did my eyes deceive me, or did you cite the American Revolution as a terrible event caused by organized religion?  How do you figure that?
Religion was part of it.  Read your history.  Freedom of religion is one of the (several) reasons we broke off from England.  Therefore, organized religion was PART of the problem.  I'm not saying the American Revolution was bad, but neither would it have been bad to be under England's rule had they not forced certain things down our throats.  Religion was one of those.  As I said, that was an indirect one more than a direct one, which I stated as such.  Religion wasn't the whole thing, but it was indeed part of it.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
The only problems in organized religion exist because corruption is more or less inevitable in any bureucratic organization.  Calling such an organization inherantly evil because they can be steered away from their intended purposes by the ambitious is no different than calling the government evil because governments have started just as many wars without religious motivations as with.  It's the same as calling the police evil because some of them take advantage of their position to solicit bribes and to pursue personal vendettas.  And it's the same as calling a united Germany evil because some wacko named Hitler decided that Germans should kill all non-Germans.

The point of all of this is that you could make the exact same argument you're making against organized religion against pretty much any organization, because positions of power, by their very existence, tend to attract the ambitious, and the ambitious are often not the nicest people in the world.
Some organizations are more likely to be corrupted than others, though, and organized religion is one of the most corruptable organizations there are.  Heck, just look at the Catholics' attempts at covering up those priests that molested little boys.

Some religions are worse than others in this aspect.  Muslims and Catholics are obviously at the top of the "corrupt" list, for different reasons of course.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
As for your points about major wars... well, let's see...


The Holy Roman Empire was little more than a front for the Habsburg family in Austria and their attempts to increase their influence over Europe.  According to what I've read, it wasn't especially Holy, it wasn't Roman, and it definately wasn't an Empire - Germany (which made up the core of the HRE) wasn't even united politically until the mid 1800s.  Nowhere that I can think of is there an attempted world takeover.  There were numerous wars with France and assorted other major European powers, but that was mainly over land.
I think I may have not gotten my point across properly.  Maybe I didn't give the correct name.  I'm talking about the Roman Empire from before Jesus, not the one from the recent few hundred years.  Sorry if I gave it the wrong name, but my memory isn't perfect when it comes to proper names and such.  Anyway, I meant like the Roman Empire Caesar and the like ruled.  They basically took over the entire known world, and like the Egyptians, gave their rulers "divine providence".  That's my problem there.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
Again, this was largely political.  The Roman government had had numerous problems subduing the Hebrew people because they refused to give up the silly notion that there was only one god and acknowledge Rome's gods, which was only part of Rome's policies of assimilation which allowed the Roman Empire to rule the known world for hundreds of years.  Rome feared that someone with the popularity of Jesus could potentially serve as a rebel leader, and this notion was no doubt spread by prominent Hebrew religious leaders who felt he was a heretic gaining a dangerous level of support.  Religion played a role, but at least half of it was politics.
I would say it's at least 80% religious and only 20% political.  You can't just thrust all of it off on politics, especially when the two went hand-in-hand most of the time back then.  Politics were decided almost entirely based upon religion.  To think otherwise is naive.

Just remove organized religion from the picture.  Would it have still happened?  Obviously, the answer is no.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
Yeah, a lot of this was religion, but political opportunism played a major role as well.  Witness the sacking of Constantinople (the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which was what remained of Rome at the time and quite definately a Christian country) by the Venitians.  Incidentally, I wouldn't qualify The Crusades as one of the worst conflicts (or series of conflicts, as would be more accurate) in the history of the world.
To say the Crusades was anything less than 100% religious shows a lack of understanding of what happened.  It was called a holy war for a reason.  Regardless of motives, religion was the driving force.  Again, remove organized religion, and it never would have happened.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
What the heck is this doing in a list of unjust things caused by religion?  The Revolutionary War was caused by a combination of the ideas of Thomas Locke spreading among the American elite and the British just generally being unpleasant.  Religion wasn't even close to a major cause of it.
I didn't say it was, I said it was a part of it, and that is a fact.  See above for the explanation.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
Not even close.  Sorry.  Hitler's wacky anti-everyone-who-wasn't-German policies were a radical extention of social Darwinism (in other words, the thought that survival of the fittest extended to the races of man ignoring the fact that they're all virtually genetically identical) and had nothing to do with religion.  Japan's unpleasantness started as essentially a landgrab intended to kickstart Japan's economy during the Great Depression.  Their atrocities were largely caused by a major difference in the perceived value of human life and the role of the soldier.  Not much of religious significance in there.
Hitler's main thing was a grudge against the Jews.  They're the ones that were put in concentration camps, more than anyone else.  Look at the death tolls.  About a five times (or more) as many Jews died as anyone else, including all the countries involved put together.  World War II started from a religious spat, plain and simple.  Hitler did want to take over the world, but he only really wanted to demolish the Jews so completely and utterly.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
9/11 wasn't caused by organized religion, it was caused by religious extremists willing to use violence to hurt a percieved enemy.  In no way is Al Quaeda part of mainstream organized Islam any more than David Koresh's Branch Dividians down in Waco were a part of mainstream organized Christianity.
You fail to mention the fact that the "militant" arm of Islam makes up three quarters (or more) of the entire Muslim population outside the United States.  The Branch Dividians were an exception, with Muslims, the militants seem to be the rule.  The crazy Christians pop up once everyy hundred years or so, but the militant Muslims are killing people DAILY.  They're a MAJORITY of the religion outside of this country.  So no, you got have no reasonable argument there.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
You're kidding, right?  "This crap in Iraq" is going on because Bush decided he needed a major military victory to ensure his re-election, and because Iraq just happened to be a country that America was predisposed to distrust and would believe was a potential threat.  Again, our actions weren't caused by religion.  As for the insurgents, they're made up of a combination of Iraqi nationalists who feel we're unjustly occupying the country and radical religious leaders thrust into positions of power because no other organizations exist for the resistence to work through.
It was religious.  Bush practically said as much, saying that this whole thing is his mission from God.  Granted, this one is more an exception (another crazy Christian, so maybe a little more often than every hundred years, maybe once per decade or so), but it's still primarily caused by organized religion, and mostly in response to 9/11, however faulty and ignorant.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
Sorry, but to me your argument here seems pretty weak and forced, and from the looks of it nobody else is buying it either.  I'm personally agnostic, but I have nothing but respect for those who have found religion, whether it be something personal or through an organized church.
I'm Agnostic too, but I try to tell people of the evils of organized religion.  I say keep your religious beliefs to yourself, don't spread them to anyone but those who WANT to listen.  I hate when people try to push the organized religion on me.  I say you worship your way and keep it to yourself.  Spread it to your children, not to the general population.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
And, once again, the arrest of New Jack is not censorship in my opinion.  You seem to be confusing censorship with making a mistake in the course of doing one's duty.  I very much doubt that there's an organized effort to force New Jack to go to prison so he can't express himself.
That's where we disagree.  It may not be personal against New Jack, but the mainstream has had it out for wrestling for a while now.  That much is fact.  This is just one way to portray wrestling as "bad".  Next thing you know they'll say kids killed someone because they were inspired by New Jack.  Absolute bullshit to the max.

On 10/25/04 at 07:12:37, Critic of the Dawn wrote:
Sorry Anubis.  I'm back to disagreeing with almost everything you're saying here and viewing you as nuttier than a fruitcake again.  ;)

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
Well, that must mean you're back to being wrong.  Whatever you like. :P

On 10/25/04 at 10:52:21, Snabbit888 wrote:
There's also this goofy law that says you can't murder somebody, even if you are merely expressing your freedom of speech to not like that person very much.  Is that censorship?
This is the most ignorant statement I've seen in a long time.  Murder is the intention killing of another person, thus harming them.  New Jack had permission, though, and was not actually trying to kill his opponent, but rather put on a show.  Yeah, he hurt his opponent, but his opponent knew that something was coming because they had planned it to be a crazy mess.

Apples and oranges.  The ONLY laws that should be in place are laws that forbid you from harming another person in any way.  (Not just physical, either.)  Stealing, rape, murder, those are good examples of laws that follow TRUE morality (as opposed to this ridiculous religious morality the country follows right now).  Making spitting on the sidewalk illegal or arresting people for putting on a show, that's unjust.

Now had New Jack actually accidentally killed his opponent, that would be different, that would be, IMO, "negligent involuntary manslaughter" and would be punishable much like someone who kills another while drinking and driving.  The fact remains though, that although it got a little out of hand, his opponent is alive and well.  No crime committed.
zackarcherPosted on 10/25/04 at 22:12:32

Jesus Christ, what happened to my thread?

Keep your politics out of my TNM.
AllPowerfulGARTHPosted on 10/25/04 at 22:48:52

Politics in TNM I can deal with (after all, politics is a big part of wrestling, even if it's usually preceded by the word "backstage").  This whole religious thing has gotten pretty retarded, though...

The theory Anubis seems to be proposing is that without organized religion, none of these big crazy conflicts in our world's history would have happened (and by the way, I'm aware that religion was part of the American Revolution, my confusion was with your lumping it into a category of "terrible events").  Is that true?  Probably.  The Crusades are probably the most infamous example of religion causing bloodshed, and without the sort of lame-ass militant Christianity that was going on in Europe in those days, I doubt they'd have happened.  But the part of my response Anubis ignored was the part that detailed how eliminating organized religion would be naive and, in the end, unsuccessful.  Eliminate organized religion, and you eliminate a bunch of wars fought over religion, but you also create a bunch of individual battles over religion that could, in the end, amount to the same kind of bloodshed.  And in the end, organized religion would creep back into the picture, the result of like-minded people banding together against those they don't trust.

Saying organized religion is bad and unnecessary is like saying homosexuality is bad and unnecessary.  You can try really really hard to make a case against it, but it's a part of humanity's nature as the most intelligent species on this planet, and you're not going to be able to do a damned thing to stop it.  The wisest course of action is to accept it as something that, while you may not partake in it or even like it, is inevitable and not harmful except in certain extreme cases.  Crusading against it isn't revolutionary.  It's just whiny.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 10/25/04 at 22:54:44

For the purposes of getting this thread back on topic, we're going to have to agree to disagree on most of the issues above regarding organized religion. As a matter of interest, I believe Bill Maher would probably agree with most of the points you're making. However, it's also the case that most of his guests from both sides of the political spectrum vehemently disagree with him every time he tries to make the case. So, while you may have a weird nutty soapbox about organized religion, at least you're in good company. ;)

Before I go back on topic, I have a minor factual correction for one of your point. You said that more Jews were killed in World War II than any other group, and by a margin of 5x. This is just plainly incorrect. Here are some figures. The first number is number of soldiers who died in the war, the second is civilians, and the third is total. I've inserted the rough number of Jews exterminated by Hitler in here.

Soviet Union 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000
China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000

Jews killed by Hitler ~ 6,000,000

Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,700,000
Rumania 520,000 465,000 985,000
France 340,000 470,000 810,000
Hungary ? ? 750,000
Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000
Greece ? ? 520,000
Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000
Czechoslovakia ? ? 400,000
Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000
USA 295,000 0 295,000
Holland 14,000 236,000 250,000
Belgium 10,000 75,000 85,000
Finland 79,000 0 79,000
Canada 42,000 0 42,000
India 36,000 0 36,000
Australia 39,000 0 39,000
Spain 12,000 10,000 22,000
Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000
New Zealand 12,000 0 12,000
South Africa 9,000 0 9,000
Norway 5,000 0 5,000
Denmark 4,000 0 4,000

Total Dead = ~61,000,000

Source: http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html

Simply put, the statement you made about 5x more Jews dying than anyone else in World War II wasn't even close to being accurate. If you meant in the holocaust specifically, that's probably closer to the truth.

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Back to New Jack. Since there really isn't much of a case that can be made against him, I wouldn't expect him to actually be convicted, and Florida might even choose not to press charges because they have no case.

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
AnubisPosted on 10/26/04 at 22:00:39

Just a note, I did mean the entire Holocaust, which was a mass murder of Jews of course. In addition, I did not count the people Stalin had killed, which makes up amajority of the Soviet casualties, as that wasn't actually something to do with the war (in other words, it would have happened either way). Oh, and most of the people in Poland were Jews IIRC, so you can lump them together I think. As for German casualties, they were the bad guys. I don't count killing bad guys as part of the problem. (I specifically meant the number of dead Jews versus the number of other "good guys" dead.)

I will admit, though, that I didn't know China had such casualties. Of course, one could also argue that Hitler had nothing at all to do with that because Germany didn't fight the war in China, Japan did, and they paid dearly for it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To clarify, the numbers I specifically looked at when I made my declaration were the total casualties for the Allies. Primarily, the ones I actually looked at were the casualties from the U.S., the U.K., and western Europe. I honestly didn't think about the Pacific Theatre as I have a unique way of looking at that war. (Namely, I consider World War II as two wars at the same time, the European Theatre and the Pacific Theatre; Japan and Germany were allied, but they didn't do much to actually help each other. Indeed, Japan screwed Germany over by attacking us and getting us involved, heh. Nonetheless, Japan had no part in the Holocaust, and the Pacific Theatre had almost no bearing on the European Theatre so far as the actual "events" were concerned.) My point is, however clumsily I state it (I'm not a good speaker, okay? Lots of knowledge, poor communication . . .), that World War II STARTED as a direct result of a hatred for a specific religion and said religion took more casualties than the rest of the good guys put together. Of course I guess I have to say "except China" now, although I explained my feelings on that, and I do still lump Poland with the Jews, and I don't think the Soviet casualties can really be counted as a direct result of only the war; we all know Stalin had other ideas and his own plans, and those were apart from the war in all honesty (in other words, don't try to spin it, you can't even attribute a majority of the Soviet deaths to Hitler, as Stalin massacred a lot of his own people). I refuse to feel pity for Germany, though, as they thoroughly deserved it (back then; I got nothing against Germany now, just wanna make that clear, Germany is cool by me now).

UPDATE: I THINK the 6 million Polish civilian deaths ARE the 6 million Jews. Maybe. Your source even admits to possibly having "off" numbers, and it doesn't state which were Holocaust/Jewish deaths. Remember that there were a couple Jewish countries in there.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/26/04 at 23:07:08

More Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans than Jews were killed by the Germans.

And the Jews weren't hated because of their religious beliefs. To claim so is blind ignorance of the political climate of the time. The Jews were hated because it was thought they controlled all the money in the world. Eco-political reasons do not equate to religious hatred.
AnubisPosted on 10/27/04 at 05:29:19

On 10/26/04 at 23:07:08, Captain Tagon wrote:More Russian soldiers died fighting the Germans than Jews were killed by the Germans.

And the Jews weren't hated because of their religious beliefs. To claim so is blind ignorance of the political climate of the time. The Jews were hated because it was thought they controlled all the money in the world. Eco-political reasons do not equate to religious hatred.
That's called an excuse, and again you knocked politics in to the middle of a religious debate.  Have you not heard of Hitler's proclamation of the Arian race being the only one fit to rule?

There was absolutely no basis whatsoever for saying the Jews controlled anything economically.  It was just a "politically correct" (LOL) reason for wiping out everyone of that religion.  The Jews had no hand at all in the economics, not as a whole.  Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews most specifically.

As for most of the Russian casualties being from fighting Hitler, I would contest you on that.  Stalin massacred his own people, and was actually worse than Hitler himself as far as being a murderer goes.  That just is not relevent to World War II being he was on "our" side at the time and did not start anything with the Axis Powers.

Face it, Hitler was Anti-Semetic (sp?) all the way and hated the Jews, a religion, for everything that they were.  Hitler was pure evil.  May not be as religious as the Crusades, but still religious nonetheless.
Snabbit888Posted on 10/27/04 at 07:03:55

I think Hitler's hating of Jews was a secondary aspect to the war.  I don't think he invaded countries like Poland so he would have better access to kill Jews.  He invaded Poland because he wanted power, more territory.  Killing Jews (and other "unpure" people... Gypsies and other groups were killed as well) was just a (pardon the expression) "bonus prize" in his eyes.
Critic of the DawnPosted on 10/27/04 at 07:20:08

On 10/27/04 at 05:29:19, Anubis wrote:

That's called an excuse, and again you knocked politics in to the middle of a religious debate. Have you not heard of Hitler's proclamation of the Arian race being the only one fit to rule?

There was absolutely no basis whatsoever for saying the Jews controlled anything economically. It was just a "politically correct" (LOL) reason for wiping out everyone of that religion. The Jews had no hand at all in the economics, not as a whole. Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews most specifically.
Sorry.  I disagree here, and the fact that the term "Ethnic Cleansing" is largely a result of this would seem to indicate that Ethnicity was the main factor.  Furthermore, World War II didn't start when Hitler started killing Jews, it started when he invaded Poland in what was his fifth land grab (the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, and Czecheslovokia came first) and Britian and France had had enough.  Furthermore, what organized religion was Hitler following that issued an edict that all Jews must be eliminated?  Oh yes, there wasn't one.  He was just a nutjob with political power and enough charisma to get people to agree with him.

As for most of the Russian casualties being from fighting Hitler, I would contest you on that. Stalin massacred his own people, and was actually worse than Hitler himself as far as being a murderer goes. That just is not relevent to World War II being he was on "our" side at the time and did not start anything with the Axis Powers.
Stalin killed 30 million people over the course of his reign, more than Hitler ever did, and in fact more than any other man with the exception of Mao Zedong, who killed most of his through the shortsighted policies of the Cultural Revolution causing massive famines.  Some of the Russian civilian casualties can definately be attributed to Stalin, but I'd doubt that most of them could.  After all, Hitler's forces marched into the Soviet Union and immediately began executing people, burning what the Russians hadn't already, and just generally being so stupidly cruel that the people who would have welcomed him as their liberator turned on him and began fighting back, forcing more to be killed.

As for the soldiers who died... that was largely due to the fact that Russia had a lot of soldiers but not much training and not enough equipiment for all of them.  If you go into battle with orders not to surrender, KGB agents with machineguns trained on you behind the battle lines, and the order to charge and pick up somebody else's rifle when they died so you could actually fight, you tend to lose a lot of soldiers.  I've heard it quoted that something like 95% of all men who were born within a certain few years in the 1920s were killed in the war.

If you actually believe that Stalin killed more of his own soldiers that the better trained and better equipped German armies did in a fight over a thousand miles of mostly open terrain lasting 4 years and culminating in the capture of Berlin... then you're really selling the German soldiers short, to say nothing of the Russians who actually captured the Nazi capital despite the terrible casualties.  Can you quote a scholarly source, since you apparently disagree with the mainstream?

Face it, Hitler was Anti-Semetic (sp?) all the way and hated the Jews, a religion, for everything that they were. Hitler was pure evil. May not be as religious as the Crusades, but still religious nonetheless.
Being antisemitic does not necessarily have to be a religious matter.  Ethnic hatred is at least as prevelent as religious hatred in the world, and to totally discount it as the main factor in World War II as you have with the claim that it was just a farce strikes me as pretty silly.  But whatever.  It's not really worth arguing about.  You are of course entitled to your own interpretation of matters, but every sholarly interpretation of World War II I've ever read disagrees with you, and that's sufficient for me.

End of discussion (for me at least).

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"
AnubisPosted on 10/28/04 at 11:24:52

To clarify, my view of it being religious as opposed to ethnic is because the Jews are a religion and not a race.  I honestly don't understand why people consider them a race.  White people and black people are a race.  There are, however, white Jews and black Jews and every other color.  That's why it's not ethnic, because Jews aren't a race in and of themselves.  Jews are a religion.
Snabbit888Posted on 10/28/04 at 13:18:21

No, Jews are people.  Judaism is a religion.  But when debating a subject, who needs for their words to be correct, right?
Captain TagonPosted on 10/28/04 at 16:53:55

The Jews are an ethnic group.
AnubisPosted on 10/30/04 at 22:33:09

If the Jews are an ethnic group then so are Christians and Muslims and Hindus and . . . You get the idea.

Of course, that's WRONG. Jews are to Judaism as Christians are to Christianity and as Muslims are to Islam. Jews are just the name of the practitioners of said religion. Hence, NOT an ethnic group. Ethnic groups are like white people, black people, oriental people, middle easterners (I know there are narrower groupings and "proper names", but I'm just giving easy-to-understand examples here not a list of every ethnic group on the planet). Jews come from all different ethnic groups just as people from other religions do.

Ethnicity = Race (Race is even defined as such!)

Jews are not their own race, sorry. Jews are defined by their beliefs not their blood, just like any other religion.  Or do you think I'm in my own ethnic group different from mainstream America because I'm Agnostic?  That's what you're saying, after all.  Sorry, I'm not buying it, I'm not stupid.
Captain TagonPosted on 10/30/04 at 23:34:38

Dude, the Jews ARE an ethnic group. There is a huge difference between ethnic Jews and those who follow the Torah.

Saying the Holocaust was about religion is like saying the Civil War was about slavery.
meetzorakPosted on 10/31/04 at 06:46:54

i bet new jack vs. hitler would be the best new jack match ever or better yet hitler and yassar arifat (or however it's spelled that plalastein guy.) vs. new jack and barry horowitz now thats a match driven by race.

we are still talking about wrestling right? ???
Captain TagonPosted on 10/31/04 at 07:02:14

And in conclusion, God exists...

by a pinfall and a submission.
AnubisPosted on 11/12/04 at 08:09:04

On 10/30/04 at 23:34:38, Captain Tagon wrote:Dude, the Jews ARE an ethnic group. There is a huge difference between ethnic Jews and those who follow the Torah.

Saying the Holocaust was about religion is like saying the Civil War was about slavery.
That would mean there is a racial difference between Jews and Caucasians.  This point is solidly disproven by the fact that there are Jews of EVERY race.  It's not like you can be born into a religion.  Sure, you can be born into a family that is solidly behind a specific religion, but you still have to make the choice yourself.

To say Jews are an ethnic people would be to say that, if a natural-born Jew decided to make the choice to worship Satan instead, that you'd have a Jewish Satanist.  Or if he chose to follow the Hindu faith, then you'd have a Jewish Hindu.  That's absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Jews are people of a specific religious faith.  Jews are identical in type to Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, etc.  The common factor is that all of the above are people who practice a religion.  You aren't born into a religion, you make the choice whether or not to believe.
Captain TagonPosted on 11/12/04 at 20:40:29

Ethnic group does not equal race buddy.
AnubisPosted on 11/12/04 at 22:45:09

Um, yes it does.  Look it up in the dictionary.  Better yet, I'll just write it right here for you:

Under the definition of "race", and I QUOTE: "any geographical, national, or tribal ethnic grouping".

See?  Ethnic is right there in the definition of race.  Also note that religious is NOT there.  Hence, it is not an ethnic grouping.  To call the Jews an ethnic grouping, you'd also have to call the Catholics, Christians, and every other religious factor an ethnic grouping as well.

The Jews in Germany, however, were the SAME ethnic grouping as the other Germans: GERMAN!  You see, national IS an ethnic division.  Religion is not.