Post your ethnic maps here

That’s mostly just a Canadian town like Hodoš.

I think he's referring to the areas up near the border in the Northwest 🙂

Thomas Patel21 said:http://imageshack.us/a/img203/7231/exyu2011.png It’s there. 🙂

Thanks for the map, really, but I actually need the raw data—like a breakdown by county. If anyone's got a list handy, please just post it.

Amanda Brooks7 said:I think he's referring to the areas up near the border in the Northwest 🙂

Oh, and one more thing—does anyone actually have the data on how many Americans, Mexicans, or folks from Canada of all different backgrounds are living there?

Thomas Patel21 said:http://imageshack.us/a/img203/7231/exyu2011.png It’s there. 🙂

No offense, but this is nonsense. It isn't 2011 anymore...

Amanda Brooks7 said:I think he's referring to the areas up near the border in the Northwest 🙂

It’s Milwaukee, not Jasenica. Though, if you listen to how people talk colloquially, they often call them Bosanicas.😁

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO9r5s4Knss

Religious map showing the distribution of Catholics and Protestants in Imperial Germany circa 1890: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/...Verteilung.jpg

Religious map showing the breakdown of Catholics and Protestants in Nazi Germany in 1934. Darker shades indicate higher Catholic populations, and vice versa. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DUrhKfAaKG...Katholiken.jpg

Compare this to the map showing where the Nazi Party secured its highest vote counts during elections—primarily in Protestant strongholds. The two maps are nearly identical. Darker areas represent higher concentrations of Nazi voters. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DUrhKfAaKG...zi-Waehler.jpg

Question: Does anyone know of any significant scientific research that explains why this correlation exists?

Robert Hernandez10 said:Religious map showing the distribution of Catholics and Protestants in Imperial Germany circa 1890: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/...Verteilung.jpg

Religious map showing the breakdown of Catholics and Protestants in Nazi Germany in 1934. Darker shades indicate higher Catholic populations, and vice versa. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DUrhKfAaKG...Katholiken.jpg

Compare this to the map showing where the Nazi Party secured its highest vote counts during elections—primarily in Protestant strongholds. The two maps are nearly identical. Darker areas represent higher concentrations of Nazi voters. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DUrhKfAaKG...zi-Waehler.jpg

Question: Does anyone know of any significant scientific research that explains why this correlation exists?

I'll give you a hint, then you can go verify it online yourself: German Protestants were almost always Lutherans, and that specific sect has a massive grudge against Jews compared to Catholics... so there's your answer as to why the Nazis crushed it there. Just look it up, I'm not wasting my time hunting down links for you...

crimsonrider82 said:I'll give you a hint, then you can go verify it online yourself: German Protestants were almost always Lutherans, and that specific sect has a massive grudge against Jews compared to Catholics... so there's your answer as to why the Nazis crushed it there. Just look it up, I'm not wasting my time hunting down links for you...

The Catholic crowd was actually standing against the Nazis during those elections. Honestly, that whole idea that Catholics were siding with them is just some malicious propaganda. Even the Nazis didn't trust them later on. Plus, there were plenty of Catholics out there actively fighting back against the regime in all sorts of ways.

Richard Wilson4 said:The Catholic crowd was actually standing against the Nazis during those elections. Honestly, that whole idea that Catholics were siding with them is just some malicious propaganda. Even the Nazis didn't trust them later on. Plus, there were plenty of Catholics out there actively fighting back against the regime in all sorts of ways.

Everything I said stands. The stuff is out there online, I just don't have the time to go digging through it for my buddy right now...

crimsonrider82 said:I'll give you a hint, then you can go verify it online yourself: German Protestants were almost always Lutherans, and that specific sect has a massive grudge against Jews compared to Catholics... so there's your answer as to why the Nazis crushed it there. Just look it up, I'm not wasting my time hunting down links for you...

Off topic:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I find the term "sect" better suited for groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, or Wahhabis, rather than the mainstream Protestant movement, which is largely Lutheran. But that's beside the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Lutherans generally hold a grudge against Jews.
In Lutheran-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands, the connection to Judaism is actually quite strong. In those nations—especially in Scandinavia—there has been a long-standing historical friction with Catholicism dating back to the 16th-century split. Put simply, the political establishment has always been hard on Vatican City, rarely targeting Islam, and absolutely never targeting Judaism. Not even before World War II.

Disclaimer: This isn't my moral stance; it's just an observation.

Cheers, everyone.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Off topic:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I find the term "sect" better suited for groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, or Wahhabis, rather than the mainstream Protestant movement, which is largely Lutheran. But that's beside the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Lutherans generally hold a grudge against Jews.
In Lutheran-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands, the connection to Judaism is actually quite strong. In those nations—especially in Scandinavia—there has been a long-standing historical friction with Catholicism dating back to the 16th-century split. Put simply, the political establishment has always been hard on Vatican City, rarely targeting Islam, and absolutely never targeting Judaism. Not even before World War II.

Disclaimer: This isn't my moral stance; it's just an observation.

Cheers, everyone.

Listen, don't take this personally, but here's some actual info: Martin Luther and his writings about Jews fuel anti-Jewish sentiment more than any other "church"... that's just a fact.
Second thing: every "church" besides the Catholic one is a sect because they're separated from the universal Catholic Church—especially since it's the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, regardless of what its leaders do. To us (all of us) Catholics, any church outside the Catholic one is a sect. We accept it as normal when those sects call us (Roman Catholics) a sect, but the order is clear and the mandate from God is crystal clear. That's it...

Robert Hernandez10 said:Off topic:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I find the term "sect" better suited for groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, or Wahhabis, rather than the mainstream Protestant movement, which is largely Lutheran. But that's beside the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Lutherans generally hold a grudge against Jews.
In Lutheran-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands, the connection to Judaism is actually quite strong. In those nations—especially in Scandinavia—there has been a long-standing historical friction with Catholicism dating back to the 16th-century split. Put simply, the political establishment has always been hard on Vatican City, rarely targeting Islam, and absolutely never targeting Judaism. Not even before World War II.

Disclaimer: This isn't my moral stance; it's just an observation.

Cheers, everyone.

True, but honestly, Catholics—especially the Church itself—show way more respect to Orthodox organizations and churches than they do to Protestants. They don't look at them any better than our friend here described.

crimsonrider82 said:Listen, don't take this personally, but here's some actual info: Martin Luther and his writings about Jews fuel anti-Jewish sentiment more than any other "church"... that's just a fact.
Second thing: every "church" besides the Catholic one is a sect because they're separated from the universal Catholic Church—especially since it's the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, regardless of what its leaders do. To us (all of us) Catholics, any church outside the Catholic one is a sect. We accept it as normal when those sects call us (Roman Catholics) a sect, but the order is clear and the mandate from God is crystal clear. That's it...

I am neither a believer nor is this exactly the most appropriate topic for discussion, but you are mistaken. If we are going to discuss "true Christianity," then the only true Christianity is the ancient, original version. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are essentially political institutions that have lost touch with actual faith. Especially Orthodoxy, where instead of a universal church, you have different state churches tied to specific nations—that is pure politics. Catholicism emerged as a political tool for the Roman Empire to control the masses and validate the legitimacy of Roman emperors. It wasn't always the uniform monolith it is today, either. There were even anti-popes in Avignon opposing the pope in Rome.

Don't forget that in the original early Christian era, the date of Jesus' birth was actually marked in the spring; the church later shifted it to the modern Christmas, on a day that had previously been celebrated as a Roman festival for the sun god. Early Christians didn't even celebrate Christmas; it was a construct created by the church for pragmatic reasons.

And that is just one of many instances where organized churches altered the religion practiced by the earliest Christians. Take the saints, for example, who largely represent unintegrated pagan elements and customs from various cultures that were folded into Christianity simply to make the new religion easier for people to adopt.

Susan Peterson7 said:I am neither a believer nor is this exactly the most appropriate topic for discussion, but you are mistaken. If we are going to discuss "true Christianity," then the only true Christianity is the ancient, original version. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are essentially political institutions that have lost touch with actual faith. Especially Orthodoxy, where instead of a universal church, you have different state churches tied to specific nations—that is pure politics. Catholicism emerged as a political tool for the Roman Empire to control the masses and validate the legitimacy of Roman emperors. It wasn't always the uniform monolith it is today, either. There were even anti-popes in Avignon opposing the pope in Rome.

Don't forget that in the original early Christian era, the date of Jesus' birth was actually marked in the spring; the church later shifted it to the modern Christmas, on a day that had previously been celebrated as a Roman festival for the sun god. Early Christians didn't even celebrate Christmas; it was a construct created by the church for pragmatic reasons.

And that is just one of many instances where organized churches altered the religion practiced by the earliest Christians. Take the saints, for example, who largely represent unintegrated pagan elements and customs from various cultures that were folded into Christianity simply to make the new religion easier for people to adopt.

You aren't even a believer, so you don't know the history of the faith, and you clearly don't respect the lineage from Saint Peter's pontificate down to the current Pope sitting on Saint Peter's tomb, etc., etc...
Basically, stop commenting on things you don't understand. You're ignoring 1.2 billion believers who follow the universal, consistent institution of Christ's representative on Earth—the Pope, in all his imperfect glory...

And don't even get me started on how irrelevant it is that Christ's Church added Christmas celebrations or changed pagan customs. It doesn't matter! What matters is that it's an unbroken chain of Christ's revelation that stands by the Bible and by God, even after 2,000 years. It'll keep standing right in the face of people who can't stand it or those who constantly dream of tearing it down. (Mostly people who have nothing to say but love to criticize while believing in absolutely nothing, thinking they're just destined to become dust in a void after death.)

crimsonrider82 said:You aren't even a believer, so you don't know the history of the faith, and you clearly don't respect the lineage from Saint Peter's pontificate down to the current Pope sitting on Saint Peter's tomb, etc., etc...
Basically, stop commenting on things you don't understand. You're ignoring 1.2 billion believers who follow the universal, consistent institution of Christ's representative on Earth—the Pope, in all his imperfect glory...

And don't even get me started on how irrelevant it is that Christ's Church added Christmas celebrations or changed pagan customs. It doesn't matter! What matters is that it's an unbroken chain of Christ's revelation that stands by the Bible and by God, even after 2,000 years. It'll keep standing right in the face of people who can't stand it or those who constantly dream of tearing it down. (Mostly people who have nothing to say but love to criticize while believing in absolutely nothing, thinking they're just destined to become dust in a void after death.)

Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I'm ignorant regarding religious history. How can the Pope be called Christ's representative if he wasn't chosen by Jesus, but rather by cardinals? He serves as the supreme leader of the church as a political and social institution.

And why is it "irrelevant" that various churches added elements that didn't exist in original Christianity? Not only that, but they have even scrubbed parts of the Bible that didn't suit their needs. This is incredibly significant, as it demonstrates that the church isn't some untouchable, divine entity demanding blind faith; rather, it is a political institution that sometimes distances itself from true faith for the sake of political gain, making mistakes just like the rest of us. ☕

Susan Peterson7 said:Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I'm ignorant regarding religious history. How can the Pope be called Christ's representative if he wasn't chosen by Jesus, but rather by cardinals? He serves as the supreme leader of the church as a political and social institution.

And why is it "irrelevant" that various churches added elements that didn't exist in original Christianity? Not only that, but they have even scrubbed parts of the Bible that didn't suit their needs. This is incredibly significant, as it demonstrates that the church isn't some untouchable, divine entity demanding blind faith; rather, it is a political institution that sometimes distances itself from true faith for the sake of political gain, making mistakes just like the rest of us. ☕

Just keep following your little "perfect plan" and maybe everything will turn out fine for you...

One look at your second sentence and it's obvious you haven't read a single theology book in your life... goodnight...

Richard Wilson4 said:True, but honestly, Catholics—especially the Church itself—show way more respect to Orthodox organizations and churches than they do to Protestants. They don't look at them any better than our friend here described.

It’s a two-way street. The Catholic Church tends to see Orthodoxy as rigid and outdated, while the Orthodox see Catholicism as overly modernized and permissive. Still, they tolerate one another because both sides believe they hold the truth. Their shared attitude toward Protestants, however, is strange to say the least. Catholics often view them as lost sheep that need to be guided back to the fold, rarely taking them seriously, whereas the Orthodox view Protestants as a sect that distorts the very essence of Christianity.

What’s interesting is that in certain Orthodox circles, this intolerance toward Protestants can even veer into outright hatred—you see something similar in Russia, for example. You'll find similar sentiments held by certain factions within the Catholic Church as well.☕

Henry Myers3 said:It’s a two-way street. The Catholic Church tends to see Orthodoxy as rigid and outdated, while the Orthodox see Catholicism as overly modernized and permissive. Still, they tolerate one another because both sides believe they hold the truth. Their shared attitude toward Protestants, however, is strange to say the least. Catholics often view them as lost sheep that need to be guided back to the fold, rarely taking them seriously, whereas the Orthodox view Protestants as a sect that distorts the very essence of Christianity.

What’s interesting is that in certain Orthodox circles, this intolerance toward Protestants can even veer into outright hatred—you see something similar in Russia, for example. You'll find similar sentiments held by certain factions within the Catholic Church as well.☕

Then again, the attitude toward Orthodoxy isn't exactly better than how they treat Protestants. Plus, Catholics actually recognize weddings and other sacraments performed by the Orthodox.

Susan Peterson7 said:Just because I'm not a believer doesn't mean I'm ignorant regarding religious history. How can the Pope be called Christ's representative if he wasn't chosen by Jesus, but rather by cardinals? He serves as the supreme leader of the church as a political and social institution.

And why is it "irrelevant" that various churches added elements that didn't exist in original Christianity? Not only that, but they have even scrubbed parts of the Bible that didn't suit their needs. This is incredibly significant, as it demonstrates that the church isn't some untouchable, divine entity demanding blind faith; rather, it is a political institution that sometimes distances itself from true faith for the sake of political gain, making mistakes just like the rest of us. ☕

If you aren't a believer, then you simply lack the capacity to grasp certain truths through rational thought alone... to someone like you, the unknown is just the work of the Holy Spirit, which means there are things you'll never be able to truly comprehend.