Societies Worse Off 'When They Have God On Their Side'

[Nbadan]

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent


RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html)

The author of this study, Greg Paul is a scumbag, so it is unfortunate that such a fascinating study could come from such a tact-less person. Paul is a highly accomplished paleo-artist, and an ameteur paleontologist that actually writes real works in paleontology. He's a smart guy, but also a social nightmare.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

hmm... I don't get it... how can being religious translate into more cases of gonorrhea, teenage pregnancies, syphilis and abortion?? I'm thinking the guy that did that study conveniently disregard other very important factors that make up each society. I'm curious as to how that guy made the connection "more devout = more fucked up" lol.

[jochhejaam]

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.


It seems as if a high percentage of people in any society claim a belief in some sort of God. Given that latitude as basis for a generic study I suppose you could make an arguement for any conclusion you end up with.

The terrorists are quite religious so in that context I wouldn't argue his assertations.

His conclusions are way off base for those that don't venture far from God's commandments.

He's a paleontologist which means there's a good possibility that he's athiest or agnostic so it's not surprising that he would venture into the anti-religion arena and come to conclusions that would attempt to undermine it's virtues.

Here's my own generic assessment based on the people I have met in my lifetime.
Those that are truly Christlike are not prone to criminal behaviour
Those that are unChristlike are prone to criminal behaviour.
(This study is unscientific (yet true) and is to be used for the sole purpose of spurstalk.com discussion). :)

[travis2]

To be fair, the report does state that it makes no cause/effect claim, but merely presents the issue in the hopes it will be studied further.

The report also makes mention of the fact that one can believe in a Creator AND believe in evolution...but it gets short shrift.

There are multiple ways to interpret the graphs in the reports as well.

[Jelly]

there are lots of things wrong with that article, but I'll just make one point. I believe Russia has the highest murder rate and they are hardly a religious country. Britian's crime rate is also fairly high and has been climbing, whereas our's has been declining for the past four decades. Britain is also having a huge problem with its youth culture right now (google yob). It is also misleading - and maybe disingenuous- for him to use Scandinavian countries and Japan as examples of how societies ought to be. These countries are almost entirely homogenous. Homogenous nations do not have the same societal stressors that multi-cultural nations like the U.S. have. Personally, I'd rather live in a melting pot than in Japan or Finland.

I guess that's more than one point.

[SpursWoman]

:)

[Spurminator]

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

[boutons]

Taking the longer perspective, Europe and West exploded in science and technology and social progress (eg, French and American Revolutions, the Industrial Revolution), aka The Enlightenment, after 1000 years of a corrupted Catholic Church dominating European life in power tandem with pre-democratic rulers(royalty). That period was known as The Dark Ages.

The FF were aware of this European church-state amalgam and made it absolutely clear in the Constitution that church and state were to be separated.

The Repubs, whores of the religious fundamentalists, are amalgamating church and state again. The creationism/ID bullshit is taking the US back to its own Dark Ages.

Note that the Repubs are exploiting/corrupting the hurricane disasters by paying back, and continuing to purchase, the religious nuts' loyalty.

Such re-imbursement is a first, and it's ALL MONEY POLITICS:

===================

washingtonpost.com

FEMA Plans to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid
As Civil Libertarians Object, Religious Organizations Weigh Whether to Apply

By Alan Cooperman and Elizabeth Williamson

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 27, 2005

After weeks of prodding by Republican lawmakers and the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said yesterday that it will use taxpayer money to reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have opened their doors to provide shelter, food and supplies to survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

FEMA officials said it would mark the first time that the government has made large-scale payments to religious groups for helping to cope with a domestic natural disaster.

"I believe it's appropriate for the federal government to assist the faith community because of the scale and scope of the effort and how long it's lasting," said Joe Becker, senior vice president for preparedness and response with the Red Cross.

Civil liberties groups called the decision a violation of the traditional boundary between church and state, accusing FEMA of trying to restore its battered reputation by playing to religious conservatives.

"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In those cases, "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney said in an e-mail.

For churches, synagogues and mosques that have taken in hurricane survivors, FEMA's decision presents a quandary. Some said they were eager to get the money and had begun tallying their costs, from electric bills to worn carpets. Others said they probably would not apply for the funds, fearing donations would dry up if the public came to believe they were receiving government handouts.

"Volunteer labor is just that: volunteer," said the Rev. Robert E. Reccord, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board. "We would never ask the government to pay for it."

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, religious charities rushed in to provide emergency services, often acting more quickly and efficiently than the government. Relief workers in the stricken states estimate that 500,000 people have taken refuge in facilities run by religious groups.

In the days after the disaster, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and other Republicans complained that FEMA seemed reluctant to pay church groups. "There are tons of questions about what is reimbursable, what is not reimbursable," DeLay said Sept. 13, noting that Houston alone had "500 or 600 churches that took in evacuees, and they would get no reimbursement."

Becker said he and his staff at the Red Cross also urged FEMA to allow reimbursement of religious groups. Ordinarily, Becker said, churches provide shelter for the first days after a disaster, then the Red Cross takes over. But in a storm season that has stretched every Red Cross shelter to the breaking point, church buildings must for the first time house evacuees indefinitely.

Even so, Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that federal reimbursement is inappropriate.

"The good news is that this work is being done now, but I don't think a lot of people realize that a lot of these organizations are actively working to obtain federal funds. That's a strange definition of charity," he said.

Lynn added that he accepts the need for the government to coordinate with religious groups in a major disaster, but not to "pay for their good works."

"We've never complained about using a religious organization as a distribution point for food or clothing or anything else," Lynn said. But "direct cash reimbursements would be unprecedented."

FEMA outlined the policy in a Sept. 9 internal memorandum on "Eligible Costs for Emergency Sheltering Declarations." Religious groups, like secular nonprofit groups, will have to document their costs and file for reimbursement from state and local emergency management agencies, which in turn will seek funds from FEMA.

David Fukitomi, infrastructure coordinator for FEMA in Louisiana, said that the organization has begun briefings for potential applicants in the disaster area but that it is too early to know how many will take advantage of the program.

"The need was so overwhelming that the faith-based groups stepped up, and we're trying to find a way to help them shoulder some of the burden for doing the right thing," he said, adding that "the churches are interested" but that "part of our effort is getting the local governments to be interested in being their sponsor."

A spokeswoman for the Salvation Army said it has been in talks with state and federal officials about reimbursement for the 76,000 nights of shelter it has provided to Katrina survivors so far. But it is still unclear whether the Salvation Army will qualify, she said.

The Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Save America, an antiabortion group formerly known as Operation Rescue, said, "Separation of church and state means nothing in a time of disaster; you see immediately what a farce it is."

Benham said that his group has been dispensing food and clothing and that "Bibles and tracts go out with everything we put out." In Mendenhall, Miss., he said, he preached to evacuees while the mayor directed traffic and the sheriff put inmates from the county jail to work handing out supplies.

Yet Benham said he would never accept a dime from the federal government. "The people have been so generous to give that for us to ask for reimbursement would be like gouging for gas," he said. "That would be a crime against heaven."

For some individual churches, however, reimbursement is very appealing. At Christus Victor Lutheran Church in Ocean Springs, Miss., as many as 200 evacuees and volunteer workers have been sleeping each night in the sanctuary and Sunday school classrooms. The church's entrance hall is a Red Cross reception area and medical clinic. As many as 400 people a day are eating in the fellowship hall.

Suzie Harvey, the parish administrator, said the church was asked by the Red Cross and local officials to serve as a shelter. The church's leadership agreed immediately, without anticipating that nearly a quarter of its 650 members would be rendered homeless and in no position to contribute funds. "This was just something we had to do," she said. "Later we realized we have no income coming in."

Harvey said the electric bill has skyrocketed, water is being used round-the-clock and there has been "20 years of wear on the carpet in one month." When FEMA makes money available, she said, the church definitely will apply.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[MiNuS]

?

Allah,Buddah,or Jesus Christ?

today's modern "god" is money and greed.

[xrayzebra]

The following editorial kinda reminds me of someone who post, like 14 threads on the first page alone.


The left and hysteria
Dennis Prager


September 27, 2005


If you want to understand the Left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics.

Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria.

The Patriot Act: According to leftist spokesmen and groups, the Patriot Act is a grave threat to liberty and democracy. It is frequently likened to the tactics of a fascist state. This is pure hysteria. The Los Angeles Times recently published statistics concerning the use of the Act. Through 2004, of the 7,136 complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general, one was related to the Patriot Act. The number of "sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject, totaled 155. The number of roving wiretaps was 49, and the number of personal records seizures under Section 215 of the Act was 35.

The war in Iraq: It is not enough for leftist opponents of the war to argue that the war is a mistake, was initiated due to faulty intelligence, or is being poorly prosecuted. Rather they charge that President Bush lied, that the war was waged for Halliburton, and that America is engaged in a criminal and imperialist enterprise. Each charge is a form of hysteria.

Risks to health: Not everyone who believes the hysterical claims of danger made about secondhand smoke, baby formula, dodgeball or Bextra is on the Left. But the Left leads the country in hysteria over dangers to health. That is why leftist organizations are generally incapable of merely saying that something is unhealthy. The danger must be described as the killer of hundreds of thousands and often be ascribed to some murderous corporate conspiracy.

Environment: More people may be attacked by aardvarks in any given year than visit the remote and frozen region of Alaska known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It is the home, however, of vast oil reserves and many caribou. Good people can differ on whether or not to drill for oil there. But the rhetoric of the Left is hysterical. Listening to leftist organizations one would think that drilling would bring no benefit to America and would render the caribou virtually extinct. None of this is true. It is all drama.

Likewise there is largely hysteria over global warming and the charge that man -- especially Homo Americanus -- is the cause of it. The great number of scientists who claim that we are in a normal warming period or in no major weather change at all are ignored. Only the most hysterical scenarios are offered by the Left. Witness the reasons given for Hurricane Katrina. Yet even The New York Times reported that scientists are virtually unanimous in denying that the hurricane has anything to do with global warming.

Animal rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the living embodiment of hysteria. Take their program "Holocaust on your plate," which equates barbecuing chickens with the cremating of the Jews in the Holocaust. It is one thing to be concerned about chickens' welfare, but only hysterics compare eating them with the slaughter of a people.

Racism: There is no worse charge than racism. Acting hatefully toward people because of their skin color is among the most vile acts a person can engage in. Yet the Left throws that charge around as if it were the essence of the American people (which, come to think of it, is what many on the Left believe). Most of the time, however, the charge of racism -- such as when it is directed at opponents of race-based affirmative action -- is just another example of hysteria.

Christianity: Most on the Left really believe that this country is on the verge of a theocracy because George W. Bush is an evangelical Christian, because the words "under God" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, and because most Americans don't think marriage ought to be redefined.

Other examples abound. America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are common accusations of the Left.

No event is free of leftist hysteria. On the third day after Katrina, civil rights activist Randall Robinson reported that blacks in New Orleans were resorting to cannibalism. Indeed, most of the news media coverage bordered on the hysterical. Not to mention the hysterical predictions of 10,000-plus dead in New Orleans.

None of this is to deny that the Right also gets hysterical. Some right-wing reactions to immigration and Terry Schiavo provide such examples.

But the irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally. And that is hysterical.



©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[MiNuS]

can you pleeeeeeeeeease summerize what you read instead of using copy & paste!

[Spurminator]

Note that the Repubs are exploiting/corrupting the hurricane disasters by paying back, and continuing to purchase, the religious nuts' loyalty.

These "religious nuts" played a key role in helping Katrina evacuees. Believe whatever you want about whether or not the government should be reimbursing them, but to insult people who came together so admirably to help those in need, no matter what faith they are, is patently offensive.

Besides, many of the churches and faith based organizations who provided relief were made up of a high percentage of African Americans. I wouldn't say those "religious nuts" have been especially loyal to the Republican Party.

There are plenty of causes for concern relating to the government being involved with religious organizations. Reimbursement for aid rendered after one of America's worst natural disasters is not one of them.

But if any faith based organization comes to your aid during a time of need, do be sure and let them know what you think of them.

[boutons]

agreed, scratch the "nuts" :)

but the point remains, the faith-based orgs, doing wonderful, non-profit charity work, risk being co-opted and turned into just more Repub sub-contractors.

And you know come election time, the compromised reverends will be hyping voting for the "prime contractor".

It's a dangerous precedent, and absolutely "in character" for the all-corrupting Repubs to go there.

[Spurminator]

What's the difference between a secular organization donating time and supplies to a relief effort and a secular organization providing the same supplies? Why should one be reimbursed but not the other? It's not like they're getting money for distibuting Bibles out there. And if they are, then that's a problem.

Instead of looking at this with political tunnel vision, consider the greater good.

[xrayzebra]

agreed, scratch the "nuts" :)

but the point remains, the faith-based orgs, doing wonderful, non-profit charity work, risk being co-opted and turned into just more Repub sub-contractors.

And you know come election time, the compromised reverends will be hyping voting for the "prime contractor".


It's a dangerous precedent, and absolutely "in character" for the all-corrupting Repubs to go there.

You mean like when Clinton and other Demo's make political speechs at black churchs?

[scott]

Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.

[Medvedenko]

Those that are truly Christlike are not prone to criminal behaviour

That quote alone makes me laugh.....remember, you are forgiven of all your sins as long as you ask.

What's truly "Christlike"....like killing in the name of your god...or maybe molesting a young boy. Hey maybe persecuting other humans that don't believe in your ideology.

[SpursWoman]

Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.


No, I believe in prison is where they actually find religion, scott. :lol

[SpursWoman]

agreed, scratch the "nuts" :)

but the point remains, the faith-based orgs, doing wonderful, non-profit charity work, risk being co-opted and turned into just more Repub sub-contractors.

And you know come election time, the compromised reverends will be hyping voting for the "prime contractor".

It's a dangerous precedent, and absolutely "in character" for the all-corrupting Repubs to go there.

http://www.pocketchef.com/fruitcake.jpg

[Jelly]

Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.

umm...have you ever heard of quoting sources? Or should we just accept your ambiguous "research" as fact?

If that's the case, let me join in on the fun......
My research indicates that Canadians commit adultery at a rate of over 200 times that of Peruvians.

[scott]

No, I believe in prison is where they actually find religion, scott. :lol

That is something that I attempted to control for. I estimated that the act of incarceration added to the propensity to "become Christian", but it did not explain away the increased likelyhood of a Christian to be incarcerated.

[scott]

umm...have you ever heard of quoting sources or citations?

It's my own academic research, I made that very clear. No need to cite myself. I have advanced degrees in economics and statistics, you can take that into account and believe me or not believe me.

[SpursWoman]

Maybe or maybe not relevant to the thread, but would this explain that indescribably awesome feeling I get right after a long, hard workout at the gym? The one that's a cross between really good sex and the feeling I get when I just leave church?

:drunk :spin

[jochhejaam]

What's truly "Christlike"....like killing in the name of your god...or maybe molesting a young boy. .

?? One of the dumbest questions I've ever run across...ever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are totally ignorant of the life Christ lived.
If you are aware of the life he lived and still think those assertions represent Christ (Christlike) then you are an utter fool.
Either way, at this point in your life, you're a loser.

[Jelly]

It's my own academic research, I made that very clear. No need to cite myself. I have advanced degrees in economics and statistics, you can take that into account and believe me or not believe me.

Anyone with an advanced degree knows they need to cite at least some sources and data. You offer none. Sorry, but message board claims of "credibility" are meaningless. I choose to not believe you.

[jochhejaam]

It's my own academic research, I made that very clear. No need to cite myself. I have advanced degrees in economics and statistics, you can take that into account and believe me or not believe me.


Second vote for don't believe.

[SpursWoman]

I'm pretty sure he was make a jab at the instances of child molestation in the Catholic church, which, of course, wouldn't be considered "Christ-like".

[Jelly]

What's truly "Christlike"....like killing in the name of your god...or maybe molesting a young boy. Hey maybe persecuting other humans that don't believe in your ideology.

no, no, and no.

What's your point? That human beings are fallible? um....okaaayyy.

[scott]

Primary data sources were the US Bureau of Prisons 1997 report titled "Religious Affiliations of Inmates", the City University of New York 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, and the 2000 Census. Numerous secondary sources.

I really don't care if you believe me. I've posted excerpts of my work on this message board before. More importantly, my work helped me earn my degree. That's all the validation I need.

If you choose to ignore data because it doesn't conform to your existing beliefs, or because you don't want to believe people on the internet, or because you have evidence that explicitly contradicts what I say, it is your choice.

I would invite you too look at statistics that compare the education levels, salaries, home conditions, divorce rates, suicide rates, and crime rates of those people who outwardly identify themselves as "Atheists" versus those who identify themselves as "Christian."

If your reconciliation of the data with your belief is that those identifying themselves as "Christians" aren't "real" Christians, then that is also your choice.

[Jelly]

Primary data sources were the US Bureau of Prisons 1997 report titled "Religious Affiliations of Inmates", the City University of New York 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, and the 2000 Census. Numerous secondary sources.

I really don't care if you believe me. I've posted excerpts of my work on this message board before. More importantly, my work helped me earn my degree. That's all the validation I need.

If you choose to ignore data because it doesn't conform to your existing beliefs, or because you don't want to believe people on the internet, or because you have evidence that explicitly contradicts what I say, it is your choice.

I would invite you too look at statistics that compare the education levels, salaries, home conditions, divorce rates, suicide rates, and crime rates of those people who outwardly identify themselves as "Atheists" versus those who identify themselves as "Christian."

If your reconciliation of the data with your belief is that those identifying themselves as "Christians" aren't "real" Christians, then that is also your choice.


If you are truly a statistician than you would surely have trouble drawing such conclusions amidst the American population, where something like 80 to 90% identify themselves as Christian. If close to 90% of a population identifies with a particular group, how in the hell can you make logical, unskewed comparisons between that group and the remaining 10%? You can't. Any results would be utterly useless and misleading. You would have to find a society that has a reasonably balanced representation of atheist/Christian. Do you have data on such a society?

[scott]

If you are truly a statistician than you would surely have trouble drawing such conclusions amidst the American population, where something like 80 to 90% identify themselves as Christian. If close to 90% of a population identifies with a particular group, how in the hell can you make logical, unskewed comparisons between that group and the remaining 10%? You can't. Any results would be utterly useless and misleading. You would have to find a society that has a reasonably balanced representation of atheist/Christian. Do you have data on such a society?

Well... no. I think you have a misunderstanding of statistics and sampling methods.

[Jelly]

Scott, I pulled up the 1997 report. And all I can say is....what the hell are you talking about? If anything, the percentage of prisoners identifying themselves as Christians appears to be slightly less than the percentage of the overall population identifying themselves as Christian. It also stated that Muslims prisoners make up about 7.4% of the prison population? I'll have to check that against the U.S Muslim population, but I'm pretty sure that would make Muslims disproportionately prone to crime? But that's just based on a cursory glance of your data source. Here is what I found interesting on the same site.

USA Adult religious affiliation:

Year 1990 Year 2001
Christian 86.20% 76.46%
Non-Christians 3.34% 3.72%
No Religion 8.17% 14.17%
Did not state 2.30% 5.41%

So, in a country where close to 90% identify themselves as Christian, that religious group only represents 76% of the prison population. And the "No-Religion" group is in fact over represented at 14%.

(sorry for sloppy "table", I can't seem to format on this site)

[scott]

You can't go from the raw data source to conclusions - which is why I didn't post the raw data sources - they are rather useless until a lot of work is done to be able to analyze the data.

The table you posted looks like the CUNY study, which is the religious affliation of all citizens, not of those incarcerated.


So, in a country where close to 90% identify themselves as Christian, only 76% of said group is incarcerated.

I'm sure you just mistyped here... no, 76% of the Christian population is not incarerated!

A few brief, and non-technical look at statistics comparing Christians to Atheists (which is different than comparing Christians to non-Christians):

in 1997, 1 of every 500 inmates (0.2%) identified themselves as "atheist", "agnostic" or having no religion. On the other hand, 83.3% of the inmates identified themselves as Christian. The ratio of Christian to Atheist inmates, before controlling and adjusting the data for those who said they became Christian while incarcerated, was 419:1.

On the other hand, based on the CUNY survey, 76.5% of American adults (not 90%, as you threw out) identified themselves as Christian. 14.1% identified themselves as atheist, agnostic, or having no religion. That is a ration of about 11 Christians for every 1 atheist. You can see, the "Atheist" group is heavily under-represented in prisons.

That is very superficial and basic look at the data. My research worked, as I mentioned, to control for conversions while in prison (the relative propensity for conversion to Islam is as high as the propensity for inmates to convert to Christianity, and as you can imagine higher for certain inmates).

I'd encourage anyone not to give too much merit to any conclusions you could possible draw from a "cursory" glace at raw data - it will naturally lead to erroneous conclusions. That is why the fields of Statistics exists to begin with.

Edit: I noticed you edited your typo. However, you are confusing the table you posted with the data of incarcerated religious affliation, as I previously mentioned.

[scott]

there are lots of things wrong with that article, but I'll just make one point. I believe Russia has the highest murder rate and they are hardly a religious country. Britian's crime rate is also fairly high and has been climbing, whereas our's has been declining for the past four decades. Britain is also having a huge problem with its youth culture right now (google yob). It is also misleading - and maybe disingenuous- for him to use Scandinavian countries and Japan as examples of how societies ought to be. These countries are almost entirely homogenous. Homogenous nations do not have the same societal stressors that multi-cultural nations like the U.S. have. Personally, I'd rather live in a melting pot than in Japan or Finland.

I guess that's more than one point.

Interesting that you should bring that up, because as our murder rate has been dropping, you will also find the percantage of people who identify themselves as Christians also dropping.

But, that of course doesn't reconcile with certain groups who argue that the lack of Christian values is what is "wrong" with our country.

[Jelly]

Interesting that you should bring that up, because as our murder rate has been dropping, you will also find the percantage of people who identify themselves as Christians also dropping.

But, that of course doesn't reconcile with certain groups who argue that the lack of Christian values is what is "wrong" with our country.

You cannot just connect two random and unrelated facts to reach such dramatic conclusions. It's silly and nonsensical. You have no credible way of drawing cause and effect here. (if you do than please pony up). Just as I cannot draw cause and effect between the rise in cappacino consumption and the increase in divorce filings over the past ten years.

[scott]

You cannot just connect two random and unrelated facts to reach such dramatic conclusions. It's silly and nonsensical. You have no credible way of drawing cause and effect here. (if you do than please pony up). Just as I cannot draw cause and effect between the rise in cappacino consumption and the increase in divorce filings over the past ten years.

I didn't try to imply causation any more than you did in your original post about Russia.

[Duff McCartney]

Those that are truly Christlike are not prone to criminal behaviour

I'm not religious in fact I think it's ridiculous, but nobody is Christlike except Christ no matter how hard they try.

[jochhejaam]

Interesting that you should bring that up, because as our murder rate has been dropping, you will also find the percantage of people who identify themselves as Christians also dropping.

But, that of course doesn't reconcile with certain groups who argue that the lack of Christian values is what is "wrong" with our country.

That should read the lack of adhering to Christian/moral values.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Christians asking for scientific studies! :lol

What evidence will you lot present? That fiction book of yours? :lmao

[Duff McCartney]

That should read the lack of adhering to Christian/moral values.

I think if we all stopped adhereing to Christian values the world would be a better...people would be over sexed and loving it.

[jochhejaam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam Those that are truly Christlike are not prone to criminal behaviour




I'm not religious in fact I think it's ridiculous, but nobody is Christlike except Christ no matter how hard they try.

And no one is Godly except God no matter how hard they try?
No one moves snail-like except a snail no matter how slow they are?


Your arguement has nothing to do with and does not address my post. Do you know what prone means? It does not equate to perfection.

[Jelly]

Edit: I noticed you edited your typo. However, you are confusing the table you posted with the data of incarcerated religious affliation, as I previously mentioned.

No. Actually, that table represents prison population. In any case, after checking out a few other sites, it seems Christians are evenly represented, as are atheists. I don't think your implication that Christians are more prone to crime has any merit whatsoever. I have noticed while attempting to look up data that there is a lot of disparity in the numbers offered by various sites. The sites that claimed only 0.5% of prison inmates were atheists were apparently atheist sites themselves!! Some of the figures I saw that showed 18% of prisoners being atheists were (go figure) related to Christian websites. Frankly, I suspect the 18% figure and the 0.5% figure are both a lot of crap propagated by idealogues on both sides. :td

[scott]

No. Actually, that table represents prison population.

Can you provide a link to that data then. The table you presented happened to match exactly with the CUNY study of the Religious Affliiation of Adults, not the prison study.

And the Bureau of Prisons study was done in 1997, so they wouldn't have 2001 numbers (or 1990 numbers, since it wasn't done in 1990 either). You obviously have your data mixed up. You can continue to support your mix up, but it immediately dismisses any credibility you bring to the argument.


I don't think your implication that Christians are more prone to crime has any merit whatsoever.

I'm not shocked. My study doesn't indicate that Christians are more prone to crime because they are Christians, just that they are more prone to crime, which the statistics show. Whether or not you would like to believe it is your choice. Certain groups (see: Christians) do not have a very good track record of believing things when evidence is right in front of them.


I have noticed while attempting to look up data that there is a lot of disparity in the numbers offered by various sites. The sites that claimed only 0.5% of prison inmates were atheists were apparently atheist sites themselves!!

Why would you believe an atheist site or a Christian site? I used the US Bureau of Prisons, who conducted a scientific study. I don't care if godsucks.com thinks that all murderers are priests or jesussaves.com thinks they are all atheists.


Frankly, I suspect the 18% figure and the 0.5% figure are both a lot of crap propagated by idealogues on both sides.

I agree, so why not use the Bureau of Prison's figure and ignore the hubris?

[scott]

Crickets chirping.

[smeagol]

?? One of the dumbest questions I've ever run across...ever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are totally ignorant of the life Christ lived.
If you are aware of the life he lived and still think those assertions represent Christ (Christlike) then you are an utter fool.
Either way, at this point in your life, you're a loser.
:tu

[Medvedenko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medvedenko




What's truly "Christlike"....like killing in the name of your god...or maybe molesting a young boy. .




?? One of the dumbest questions I've ever run across...ever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are totally ignorant of the life Christ lived.
If you are aware of the life he lived and still think those assertions represent Christ (Christlike) then you are an utter fool.
Either way, at this point in your life, you're a loser.

Obviously Christ is "christlike" like I'm Medvedenkolike....who gives a shit. I am aware of Christ's life probably as much as you or anyone else thats programmed to understand. So since I'm a "loser" that it doesn't matter. Man you Christians are so polite and forgiving...

[smeagol]

Christians asking for scientific studies! :lol

What evidence will you lot present? That fiction book of yours? :lmao
Low blow :depressed

[jochhejaam]

Obviously Christ is "christlike" like I'm Medvedenkolike....who gives a shit. I am aware of Christ's life probably as much as you or anyone else thats programmed to understand. So since I'm a "loser" that it doesn't matter. Man you Christians are so polite and forgiving...


Forgiving? There's nothing in any of your posts about you asking for that.
Forgiving should be second nature for Christians. In lining ourselves up with the life and teachings of Christ It's not an optional aspect and therefore can never be justifiably withheld.



Loser was a little harsh so I'll take that part back and substitute the word misguided in that comment. The rest of my reply stands.

[scott]

I'd like to close the thread out by thanking Jelly for coming along, posting incorrect statistics, defended said statistics when questioned, and then disappearing when questioned again. I'd also like to thank Jelly for doing all this after questioning my credibility.

Have a nice day.

[Yonivore]

I'd like to close the thread out by thanking Jelly for coming along, posting incorrect statistics, defended said statistics when questioned, and then disappearing when questioned again. I'd also like to thank Jelly for doing all this after questioning my credibility.

Have a nice day.
Three cheers for Jelly!
:elephant :elephant :elephant

[Nbadan]

The dark side of faith
By ROSA BROOKS
IT'S OFFICIAL: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.


This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.

Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. <snip>

Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs.

LA TIMES (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-brooks1oct01,1,1240960.story?track=mostemailedlink )

More fuel for the thread fire.

[jochhejaam]

=scott
My study doesn't indicate that Christians are more prone to crime because they are Christians, just that they are more prone to crime,
:wtf That's messed up scott, you say that your study indicates that Christians are more prone to crime then come back and say that it's not because they are Christians. So what's the purpose of the study?
If credibility is what you want you're going to have to do a lot better than that! Clarify that please!




scott: Certain groups (see: Christians) do not have a very good track record of believing things when evidence is right in front of them.
(see: Christians) But that's not because they're Christians, right scott? :rolleyes
A broad and bigoted statement scott.

[Jelly]

I'd like to close the thread out by thanking Jelly for coming along, posting incorrect statistics, defended said statistics when questioned, and then disappearing when questioned again. I'd also like to thank Jelly for doing all this after questioning my credibility.

Have a nice day.

You're welcome! But I haven't visited this thread for a while, so I'm not sure what "questioning" I was subjected to. Will have to review this thread before answering your question. No need to get smug.

and, I will have a great day. Thanks!!

[Useruser666]

God bless you all!

This message was supported by Useruser666

[bigzak25]

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html)

The author of this study, Greg Paul is a scumbag, so it is unfortunate that such a fascinating study could come from such a tact-less person. Paul is a highly accomplished paleo-artist, and an ameteur paleontologist that actually writes real works in paleontology. He's a smart guy, but also a social nightmare.

I read the article. Lots of truth. Biased spin. I'm glad you said the author was a scumbag, I could tell by reading the article, but I'ts good to have my opinion backed up with someone that is more knowledgeable of the man.

When i click on the link, it says 'Britain' on top...

that says it all right there. There is much hate for the US in Britain right now. They are fighting with us in a war they feel is unjust. AND they are VERY INSECURE of their Standing When compared to the United States, so they have a NEED to put us down repeatedly to make themselves feel better.

Why do you think the alot of French hate Americans so much? They resent us cuz they didn't have the power to save themselves. Then America reciprocated and said, you ungrateful bastards, we hate you too now...it's a sad cycle...

but anyway, i digress...

What does America Have More of THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY?

FREEDOM.

With Freedom, comes RESPONSIBILITY.

We all have the freedom to do good. We all have the freedom to do bad.

Too many children out there are LOST because their parents never showed them the Love they desperately needed. Pain leads to the bad things. There is much pain in America.

GUNS, Drugs, Money, Lust!

They are they main cause of such a high murder rate.

And they are all things that Our Blessed Country has in ABUNDANCE!

Hell, even I have Tony Montana as a screenname....WHY?

He is a character that chose Violence, Drugs, Money, and Lust and used it to destroy others for his own sinful pleasures....and what happened to him?
He had a 'little friend' instead of a BIG ONE and he was destroyed. Tisk Tisk.
It happens to many of us.

[xrayzebra]

lol

citizens of a lot of other countries enjoy a better lifestyle than america

which is not a bad thing

it pisses me off when ppl identify america as being about having the best stuff

Depends on how you define "lifestyles". Most "other countries" style themselves after America. America=USA. Thier lifestyles are not better, just different. I enjoyed many of their "lifestyles", but I also enjoy many of our lifestyles. I prefer our, USA, lifestyles. But to each his own.

[gtownspur]

I'd like to close the thread out by thanking Jelly for coming along, posting incorrect statistics, defended said statistics when questioned, and then disappearing when questioned again. I'd also like to thank Jelly for doing all this after questioning my credibility.

Have a nice day.


TO even provide alternative statistics to counter what you're spouting out of your second anus, you've been deceptively been taught by your parents to think its your mouth, would prove to be just as idiotic on the part of your opponent.
I then have decided to just use your own ass-chocolate corn mousse you call a conclusion to derail your whole premise.
Your own data concludes diddly squat! all it confirms is that there are a minute 10% small percentage of atheist in this country. Christ! if one were to hold an atheist rally, the atheist to no surprise would be outnumbered by noodle spined liberal christians who support their political agenda.

Wait! on second hand, maybe your right after all. There are more christians in prison than there are atheist. My God! that also means that if a ship sunk in the ocean somewhere more christians would die than atheist. Kind of like if a missile was to strike Yankee stadium and kill 90 pecent of yankee fans and only 10 percent of REd Sox fans that would mean Boston Red Sox's are more prone to survive castrophe's.

Hey Scott! i bet if you were to go to iraq,... There'd be more muslims than christians in prison.
:lol :lol

wow interesting analysis. RETARD!!!

[bigzak25]

elPimpo, you are very smart, but you do drive by comments with no substance...

bring some Facts, Jack.

Thanks in advance! :)

[scott]

TO even provide alternative statistics to counter what you're spouting out of your second anus, you've been deceptively been taught by your parents to think its your mouth, would prove to be just as idiotic on the part of your opponent.
I then have decided to just use your own ass-chocolate corn mousse you call a conclusion to derail your whole premise.
Your own data concludes diddly squat! all it confirms is that there are a minute 10% small percentage of atheist in this country. Christ! if one were to hold an atheist rally, the atheist to no surprise would be outnumbered by noodle spined liberal christians who support their political agenda.

Wait! on second hand, maybe your right after all. There are more christians in prison than there are atheist. My God! that also means that if a ship sunk in the ocean somewhere more christians would die than atheist. Kind of like if a missile was to strike Yankee stadium and kill 90 pecent of yankee fans and only 10 percent of REd Sox fans that would mean Boston Red Sox's are more prone to survive castrophe's.

Hey Scott! i bet if you were to go to iraq,... There'd be more muslims than christians in prison.
:lol :lol

wow interesting analysis. RETARD!!!

I'll leave you to the intelligent insults that obviously prove that I'm a retard.

Instead, I will just say that you clearly do not have a very good understanding of statistics.

[scott]

:wtf That's messed up scott, you say that your study indicates that Christians are more prone to crime then come back and say that it's not because they are Christians. So what's the purpose of the study?
If credibility is what you want you're going to have to do a lot better than that! Clarify that please!




(see: Christians) But that's not because they're Christians, right scott? :rolleyes
A broad and bigoted statement scott.

jochhe, I am absolutely positive you are smart enough to know the difference between correlation and causation. There is a much higher correlation between inprisonment and being a Christian than there is inprisonment and being an Atheist. There is also a much higher correlation between being a Christian and a Republican, being a Homosexual and a Democrat, being black and poor, etc. None of those relationships are causal, however. The purpose of my study was not to assign blame for crime, but rather to understand statistics.

I'm not a politician, and I'm not out to destroy Christianity, so I don't have an agenda that requires I make bombastic statements like "people commit crime because they are Christian" when in fact that may not be true.

For all the dismissing you do of opinions because of the purported agendas of those who hold them, I find it awefully curious that you want to dismiss the conclusions of my research because I don't have an agenda that leads me to draw unsupported conclusions. It appears that the only thing you are willing to lend credibility to is those opinions which already reconcile with yours. That's your choice, and more power to you for already having superior knowledge to the rest of civilization.

[Jelly]

Can you provide a link to that data then. The table you presented happened to match exactly with the CUNY study of the Religious Affliiation of Adults, not the prison study.

It's been too many days and I can't find the original site. But if they match the Cuny study, than I'll accept that I got the numbers wrong (or maybe the site did, who knows). Either way, my mistake. There. Feel better?



My study doesn't indicate that Christians are more prone to crime because they are Christians, just that they are more prone to crime, which the statistics show.
Then why offer it up as a point of debate on a discussion of whether societies are worse off "When they have God on their side"? That's a cop-out. Whether your study indicates it or not, I suspect that is exactly what you meant to imply, whether you admit it or not.


Why would you believe an atheist site or a Christian site? I used the US Bureau of Prisons, who conducted a scientific study. I don't care if godsucks.com thinks that all murderers are priests or jesussaves.com thinks they are all atheists.

I didn't go to a site that was obviously pro or anti religion. I googled a few words related to prison demographics and checked out the sites that had relevant data. These sites were seemingly neutral "research oriented" sites... until I looked at some of their links and affiliations. That's when it was obvious that they had an angle or belief to promote, whether it be Christianity or Atheism. Regardless, they all (yes, even the atheists) used, misused, and massaged information from various government sources, included the U.S. Prison Bureau, to make atheists or Christians look more prone to criminal activity. Even scientists, academics, and statisticians can be biased idealogues prone to do a lot of cherry picking and distortion in the name of "research". Comments like "Certain groups (see: Christians) do not have a very good track record of believing things when evidence is right in front of them." reveal your own bias on this topic. But yes, if I cared enough to investigate this more thoroughly, than I would sift thru the prison bureau stuff. But I don't. So I'll concede this argument to you. (just the prison stats, not the implication that atheists are more law-abiding.)

[scott]

Then why offer it up as a point of debate on a discussion of whether societies are worse off "When they have God on their side"? That's a cop-out. Whether your study indicates it or not, I suspect that is exactly what you meant to imply, whether you admit it or not.

It is clearly relevant. While I may not be willing to make the claim that Christianity is the reason for more crime, I can say quite sure handedly that Christianity certainly isn't helping to make society any better, if incarcerations is your guide.


Comments like "Certain groups (see: Christians) do not have a very good track record of believing things when evidence is right in front of them."

The Sun revolving around the Earth, witch hunts and the fight against evolution support my statement. Even if I have a bais, that in itself doesn't invalidate my research. You at least appear to be more open to divergent opinion than jochhe.

[bigzak25]

I'm not religious in fact I think it's ridiculous, but nobody is Christlike except Christ no matter how hard they try.

nobody is PERFECT. we are ALL SINNERS. but you can be 'Christlike' if you walk His path of rightchousness and integrity.

you hold onto Lennon's Imagine No Religion a bit too much.

Lennon's Imagine song was all about Peace and Love. Which IS Jesus.

Look at one of the Beatles Albulm Covers...i don't know which one...but Lennon is in White, and he is leading the others. It is CLASSIC.

Then what happened? Lennon, an ANGEL sent from above, was murdered by Evil. Satan does NOT LIKE Angels that SPREAD THE WORD. He might DESTROY me one day...not that i'm an Angel, far from it, but I do speak the Truth!


I think if we all stopped adhereing to Christian values the world would be a better...people would be over sexed and loving it.

Do you know what DESTROYED GUNS N' ROSES?

AXEL HAD A DRUG AND LUST PROBLEM. HE HAD/HAS Alot of problems. It DESTROYED A GREAT BAND! What was their best selling Album? APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION. They got all the money and fame. But it was fleeting. IT DESTROYED THE BAND!

[bigzak25]

oh and one more thing, one of their biggest songs...Paradise City.

TAKE ME DOWN TO PARADISE CITY WHERE THE GIRLS ARE PRETTY, OH WON'T YOU PLEASE TAKE ME DOWN!

he got his wish. :tu

[jochhejaam]

[
QUOTE=scott] While I may not be willing to make the claim that Christianity is the reason for more crime, I can say quite sure handedly that Christianity certainly isn't helping to make society any better, if incarcerations is your guide.
When honesty, integrity and perception are a factor in collecting data how much weight can be put into the conclusions of a study? Do you honestly believe that 90 percent of the prison population are practicing Christians? These studies are asking for truth from the criminal mindset, how naive to believe they are coming up with factual data that can be processed into credible studies!
Is it really a case of naivette or just a blatant attack on the actual transformation that takes place when a person is truly converted to Christianity which translates into another attack on the merits of Christianity itself.
Am I questionity your credibility? Only to the extent that you believe that accurate conclusions can be drawn from unreliable sources, in this case the trust put in the words of those (criminals) that have shown they are not worthy of trust.





The Sun revolving around the Earth, witch hunts and the fight against evolution support my statement. Even if I have a bais, that in itself doesn't invalidate my research. You at least appear to be more open to divergent opinion than jochhe.
There you go again scott, so it was Christians that were fighting for the "sun revolving the earth" theory...??
Witch hunts? how relevant is that to today? Come up with something that is not so preposterously outdated scott. And those that were burning people at the stake weren't Christians regardless of their professions.
The fight against evolution was a fight that was generated and initiated by evolutionists not by Christians. Unfortunately evolutionists purposefully injected agnostic/athiestic beliefs into their theory. Was that actually necessary to fulfill their quest to find the origin of our species?
They picked a fight and a fight they have, it didn't have to be that way.

[scott]

So basically your argument is the old classic, "they aren't real Christians, so they don't count"?

When asked, X% of the incarcerated said they are Christians. It isn't my duty to judge whether or not they are "real" Christians or "real" Muslims or "real" atheists. I'll leave you to make assumptions and judgements to explain away the data.

[MannyIsGod]

umm...have you ever heard of quoting sources? Or should we just accept your ambiguous "research" as fact?

If that's the case, let me join in on the fun......
My research indicates that Canadians commit adultery at a rate of over 200 times that of Peruvians.
I'm catching up on this thread right now, but I had to stop reading just to post that this made me laugh out loud and made the people in my office wonder what the hell was going on.

:lol

Jelly, don't call out Scooter. Ever.

[MannyIsGod]

If you are truly a statistician than you would surely have trouble drawing such conclusions amidst the American population, where something like 80 to 90% identify themselves as Christian. If close to 90% of a population identifies with a particular group, how in the hell can you make logical, unskewed comparisons between that group and the remaining 10%? You can't. Any results would be utterly useless and misleading. You would have to find a society that has a reasonably balanced representation of atheist/Christian. Do you have data on such a society?
:lmao because it continues!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus!

:lol

This thread was great. Good job, Scott. You gave me my laughs for the morning. Maybe tomorrow Jelly will challenge Jim on teeth pulling or FWDT on Texas law.

Good shit.

[Spurminator]

Scott, I think your study (or at least the portion you've discussed here) ignores the relationship between prison and poverty, and between poverty and Christianity. Given that a larger percentage of those below the Poverty Line identify themselves as "Christian" than those above the Poverty Line, it's natural that the same trends would be seen among prison populations. That's to say nothing of other issues like education and profiling.

And if you're not making an argument that Christianity and Crime are related, then I question the relevance of the study anyway. If data citing the disproportionate amount of blacks in prison is dismissed as incomplete and misleading, then so is data concerning Christians in prison, I think.

[FromWayDowntown]

I may be wrong, but I see Scott's point to be that the predominance of Christians does not, standing alone, decrease crime or, more broadly, eliminate social problems that we see in our society. Again, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that one conclusion one might draw from Scott's study is that we won't see wide-spread reductions in crime or whatever based on broader willingness to self-identify as a Christian. Part of that, it seems, doesn't account for the idiosyncracies of individual behavior and the hypocrisy of some who claim to be Christian but act contrarily.

But if the point of one argument is that society is better served if its people are religious, and more specifically, Christian, then Scott's data would certainly seem to present a counterpoint to the idea of any such correlation.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah? Well,

http://img.timeinc.net/time/verbatim/20051003/photo/verbatim_smith.jpg

So there.

[Spurminator]

I may be wrong, but I see Scott's point to be that the predominance of Christians does not, standing alone, decrease crime or, more broadly, eliminate social problems that we see in our society. Again, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that one conclusion one might draw from Scott's study is that we won't see wide-spread reductions in crime or whatever based on broader willingness to self-identify as a Christian. Part of that, it seems, doesn't account for the idiosyncracies of individual behavior and the hypocrisy of some who claim to be Christian but act contrarily.

But if the point of one argument is that society is better served if its people are religious, and more specifically, Christian, then Scott's data would certainly seem to present a counterpoint to the idea of any such correlation.

True, I would probably agree with that. But I do think there is a difference between suggesting societies "are not necessarily improved" and suggesting that they are "worse off."

[bigzak25]

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE WITH THAT PIC MARCUS?

please explain. Thanks. :)

[FromWayDowntown]

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE WITH THAT PIC MARCUS?

please explain. Thanks. :)

That a woman preaching the word of God to a man who had murdered three others, did so while providing him with methampehtamine, which is a crime?

That people claiming to be Christians don't always act like Christians?

[ChumpDumper]

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE WITH THAT PIC MARCUS?

please explain. Thanks. :)Always keeps some drugs handy -- you might be able to get a book deal out of it.

[DrRich]

So basically your argument is the old classic, "they aren't real Christians, so they don't count"?

When asked, X% of the incarcerated said they are Christians. It isn't my duty to judge whether or not they are "real" Christians or "real" Muslims or "real" atheists. I'll leave you to make assumptions and judgements to explain away the data.

Maybe the better question would have been to ask: "If they were Christians at the time they committed the crime?" Many people come to Jesus while they are in prison. The only thing that matters with regard to this thread is what was their belief status prior to committing the crime for which they are imprisoned. Doesn't seem to matter or address the question and topic of this thread if we only look at their beleifs once already in prison.

Maybe the study everyone is talking about asked this question?

[scott]

Maybe the better question would have been to ask: "If they were Christians at the time they committed the crime?" Many people come to Jesus while they are in prison. The only thing that matters with regard to this thread is what was their belief status prior to committing the crime for which they are imprisoned. Doesn't seem to matter or address the question and topic of this thread if we only look at their beleifs once already in prison.

Maybe the study everyone is talking about asked this question?

Dr. Rich, my study controlled for what we could call "in-Prison conversion" but, as a disclaimer, keep in mind that it is all subject to the responses of the incarcerated.

[Jelly]

Jesus!

:lol

This thread was great. Good job, Scott. You gave me my laughs for the morning. Maybe tomorrow Jelly will challenge Jim on teeth pulling or FWDT on Texas law.

Good shit.

oh, give me a break. :rolleyes
Nobody is too "elite" to be questioned on things they post. If you choose to accept everything Scott or anyone else says as gospel, that's your problem.
Frankly, I didn't know you were such a suck-up.

[MannyIsGod]

I think Scott has earned any respect he gets from me. But beyond that, I don't think you should challenge someone on fundemental principles of their area of expertise. It just doesn't make sense.

[SpursWoman]

To be fair, you've had several years around scott....and it's ridiculous to call her out because she didn't know him from Adam.

Do you typically take the first word of some person you never met before or know anything about? Oh, hell no, you don't. :lol

[jochhejaam]

[
QUOTE=scott]So basically your argument is the old classic, "they aren't real Christians, so they don't count"?
No, you have misrepresented and oversimplified what I was saying to the point where it is not accurate.
My arguement was that instead of relying on hard incontrovertible facts or data, your study puts trust in the integrity and honesty of those who are incarcerated because of a lack of integrity and honesty. I think its reasonable to assume that any rational person would question the accuracy of such a study especially when the study seems to be directed at defaming the merits of Christianity.

[scott]

I think its reasonable to assume that any rational person would question the accuracy of such a study especially when the study seems to be directed at defaming the merits of Christianity.

Well jochhe, I must say that I have never before heard the United States Bureau of Prisons accused of trying to "defame the merits of Christianity." Is this part of some kind of liberal conspiracy to convert us all to godless heathens?


your study puts trust in the integrity and honesty of those who are incarcerated because of a lack of integrity and honesty

So you are suggesting that these prisoners feel compelled to lie about their religious affiliation? Are they hoping that a correct answer will result in their release from prison? Or are they part of the liberal conspiracy that is behind the US Bureau of Prison's attempts to defame Christianity?


I think its reasonable to assume blah blah blah blah

Well, I think its reasonable to assume that you are hell bent on disagreeing with anything that doesn't reconcile with your established position on the matter. As I've previously said, more power to you for having superior knowledge to the rest of civilization. Until I can achieve your powers, I will continue on my wayward and meaningless path of letting data and facts guide me to decisions.

And finally...


My arguement was that instead of relying on hard incontrovertible facts or data, your study puts trust in...

My study clearly doesn't have the "hard incontrovertible facts" of the things you believe in like... I don't know... Jesus being the son of God and saviour of Man.

[scott]

I may be wrong, but I see Scott's point to be that the predominance of Christians does not, standing alone, decrease crime or, more broadly, eliminate social problems that we see in our society. Again, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that one conclusion one might draw from Scott's study is that we won't see wide-spread reductions in crime or whatever based on broader willingness to self-identify as a Christian. Part of that, it seems, doesn't account for the idiosyncracies of individual behavior and the hypocrisy of some who claim to be Christian but act contrarily.

But if the point of one argument is that society is better served if its people are religious, and more specifically, Christian, then Scott's data would certainly seem to present a counterpoint to the idea of any such correlation.

Bingo!

[jochhejaam]

I think Scott has earned any respect he gets from me. But beyond that, I don't think you should challenge someone on fundemental principles of their area of expertise. It just doesn't make sense.

Challenging someone doesn't have to equate to disrespecting them Manny. If scott is the expert you say he is then I'm guessing he doesn't feel at all threatened by someone challenging him. I would think it's likely that he may even enjoy the challenge.

Isn't asking challenging questions a right protected by the Constitution? :lol

[scott]

To be fair, you've had several years around scott....and it's ridiculous to call her out because she didn't know him from Adam.

Do you typically take the first word of some person you never met before or know anything about? Oh, hell no, you don't. :lol

On that note, I apologize for coming off as smug, Jelly. You appear to be a fair minded person and I made the mistake of automatically lumping you into the jochhe/Clandestino/xrayzebra/gtownspur class of posters.

Again, sorry.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=scott]Well jochhe, I must say that I have never before heard the United States Bureau of Prisons accused of trying to "defame the merits of Christianity." Is this part of some kind of liberal conspiracy to convert us all to godless heathens?
Well scott, the studies speak for themselves.
Let me be more pointed in my opinion of the conclusions drawn in the so-called studies. (Scott study: "the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.)"
That's some of the most blatant B.S. I have ever heard in my entire life and anyone with a lick of common sense would come to the same conclusion. You'd have to be a blind avowed athiest to even consider such nonsense as truth!

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by scott: So you are suggesting that these prisoners feel compelled to lie about their religious affiliation? Are they hoping that a correct answer will result in their release from prison? Or are they part of the liberal conspiracy that is behind the US Bureau of Prison's attempts to defame Christianity?
Unfortunatley being dishonest is a part of the nature of a large portion of those incarcerated, that's why they are where they are.

Conspiracy? Nah, I'd say (again unfortunately) defaming Christianity or questioning the merits of Christianity is second nature to some individuals (that would be you scott).
You're the one who brought conspiracy into the discussion, not me. And since that's the case you address your issue.
I would label it more of a blatant disregard for Christianity. (not on the part of the Bureau, they are only guilty of conducting a skewed study)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That a woman preaching the word of God to a man who had murdered three others, did so while providing him with methampehtamine, which is a crime?

That people claiming to be Christians don't always act like Christians?


My question is how the fuck this girl got ahold of crystal meth while being held hostage by someone who would readily consume said meth

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, not all self-proclaimed Christians are good.

Big deal.

Oh, and Axl Rose said "Take me home."

[Marcus Bryant]

WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE WITH THAT PIC MARCUS?

please explain. Thanks. :)


Don't stand before God after doing a bunch of ice.

Yeah.

[Jelly]

On that note, I apologize for coming off as smug, Jelly. You appear to be a fair minded person and I made the mistake of automatically lumping you into the jochhe/Clandestino/xrayzebra/gtownspur class of posters.

Again, sorry.

That's nice of you to say, Scott. Thanks for extending the olive branch :)
I apologize if I was a little too abrasive. (and SpursWoman is right, I didn't know you from Adam)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Okay I just read this entire thread, can't believe i let this one slip by.


Congrats, jochhe, you never cease to amaze me.

I love seeing knowledge dropped, thanks Scott.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by scott:Well, I think its reasonable to assume that you are hell bent on disagreeing with anything that doesn't reconcile with your established position on the matter.
My goal is to be rooted into the same rock-solid ground that Jesus Christ is. I certainly wouldn't aquiesce to unsubstantial biased studies that are fundamentally flawed to the point where they're practically begging to be debunked.
I've been around long enough and heard enough to be able to competently and critically examine the thoughts and ideas of others and come out changed only if substantial arguements that would undermine my own philosphy are presented. I'm not "a reed blowing in the wind"

[Cant_Be_Faded]

When was the last time jochehchejadjaaam changed his mind, or admitted he was wrong?

I'd consider myself a spurstalk political regular, and I'd say never.

[MannyIsGod]

To be fair, you've had several years around scott....and it's ridiculous to call her out because she didn't know him from Adam.

Do you typically take the first word of some person you never met before or know anything about? Oh, hell no, you don't. :lol
:lol

Fair enough, but that didn't make it anyless funny.

[scott]

[QUOTE]
Well scott, the studies speak for themselves.
Let me be more pointed in my opinion of the conclusions drawn in the so-called studies. (Scott study: "the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.)"
That's some of the most blatant B.S. I have ever heard in my entire life and anyone with a lick of common sense would come to the same conclusion. You'd have to be a blind avowed athiest to even consider such nonsense as truth!

It doesn't adhere to your existing beliefs, and you are the world's smartest man, so it is obviously BS that only a blind avowed atheist would consider. Thank you for enlightening all of us.

You are like MadeFromDust, without the constant damnation.

[SpursWoman]

You are like MadeFromDust, without the constant damnation.


THAT'S who he reminded me of....thanks! :lol

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't adhere to your existing beliefs, and you are the world's smartest man, so it is obviously BS that only a blind avowed atheist would consider. Thank you for enlightening all of us.

You are like MadeFromDust, without the constant damnation.
Shit, I made that connection back in the first thread we discussed religion with Joch in. :lol

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=scott]It doesn't adhere to your existing beliefs, and you are the world's smartest man, so it is obviously BS that only a blind avowed atheist would consider. Thank you for enlightening all of us.
I get up in the middle of the night (3:15 here) to let the dogs out and I see this...what am I to do, ignore it? :lol
You are overly defensive to have to throw in that sarcastic comment (worlds smartest man), do you have an inferiority complex? My study says most people that have one won't admit it. :lol
You take great exception to having your observations challenged, if there had been even a shred of believability in it, it wouldn't have been.
Christians 200 times more likely to be incarcerated... if I didn't know better I would have thought you pulled that straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Could you throw in a Howard Dean primordial scream after posting such nonsense in the future? If you're going to sashay into the world of humorous writing, do it right. :lol

[jochhejaam]

THAT'S who he reminded me of....thanks! :lol

I've only heard talk of him, MFD, do you have any of his material so I can see if the comparison is accurate? :lol

[smeagol]

For all the dismissing you do of opinions because of the purported agendas of those who hold them, I find it awefully curious that you want to dismiss the conclusions of my research because I don't have an agenda that leads me to draw unsupported conclusions.
I don't agree.

You do have an agenda. You don't like Christianity. You might not want to admit it, though.

[smeagol]

You are like MadeFromDust, without the constant damnation.
Again I don't agree. MFD supported his arguments with quotes from the Bible and insults. Jochhe, although quoting the Bible often, provides much more than that when he defends his point. You may not like his arguments, but you cannot say he does not provide support to his POV.

[smeagol]

When was the last time jochehchejadjaaam changed his mind, or admitted he was wrong?
When was the last time anybody on this board changed his/her mind, or admitted he/she was wrong?

[smeagol]

Hey, not all self-proclaimed Christians are good.

Big deal.
In this simple quote lies the answer to the entire jochhe vs scott discussion.

Proclaiming yourself to be a Christian means little if you are not leading a Christian life. I actually means nothing. 15 years ago, I proclaimed myself a Christian but had no clue what that meant, and I certainly did not lead a Christian life. Therefore, the conclusions from your study, Scott, should be taken with a grain of salt.

[scott]

I get up in the middle of the night (3:15 here) to let the dogs out and I see this...what am I to do, ignore it? :lol
You are overly defensive to have to throw in that sarcastic comment (worlds smartest man), do you have an inferiority complex? My study says most people that have one won't admit it. :lol
You take great exception to having your observations challenged, if there had been even a shred of believability in it, it wouldn't have been.
Christians 200 times more likely to be incarcerated... if I didn't know better I would have thought you pulled that straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Could you throw in a Howard Dean primordial scream after posting such nonsense in the future? If you're going to sashay into the world of humorous writing, do it right. :lol

My crowning you the world's smartest man is based on your ability to see threw my "obvious BS" without providing any facts or evidence to the contrary.

I don't take objection to having my observations challenged - when Jelly questioned them I was happy to provide sources and data. I do take objection, however, to people challeging my work on the basis of "I don't agree with it so it can't be right."

You've managed to build a nice reputation on this board of being someone who readily dismisses everything you don't agree with while staunchly supporting the things you do agree with, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. As I've said numerous times, that is certainly your choice - but it doesn't bode well for your credibility (granted, this is an internet message board and you may not terribly care about your credibility. My "online reputation" isn't a great concern to me either - but I come here to engage in meaningful discussion, which is hard to do without credibility).

As I've also said to you specifically, in more than one thread, if you are interested in engaging in a meaningful discussion supported by facts and data, I would more than happy to participate. But by now I've come to expect the typically jochhe comments like this one:


Christians 200 times more likely to be incarcerated... if I didn't know better I would have thought you pulled that straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales.

[scott]

I don't agree.

You do have an agenda. You don't like Christianity. You might not want to admit it, though.


Had my research shown that Atheists were 32183921312 times more likely to commit crime than Christians, that is what I would report if the topic came up. You may believe that I don't "like" Christianity, but you'd be wrong. I may not be a Christian, but that is not the same as "disliking" it. But I suppose you will chalk that up to "not admitting it."


Again I don't agree. MFD supported his arguments with quotes from the Bible and insults. Jochhe, although quoting the Bible often, provides much more than that when he defends his point. You may not like his arguments, but you cannot say he does not provide support to his POV.

Actually I can say that he doesn't not provide support to his POV, because at least in reponse to me, he never has. Can you point to the support he provided in this thread? Does "they must not be real Christians" count as support? Or is his continued "I don't agree so it must be BS" counted as support?


Proclaiming yourself to be a Christian means little if you are not leading a Christian life. I actually means nothing. 15 years ago, I proclaimed myself a Christian but had no clue what that meant, and I certainly did not lead a Christian life. Therefore, the conclusions from your study, Scott, should be taken with a grain of salt.

I acknowledge that proclaiming to be a Christian doesn't mean you are leading the "christian life" in the eyes of certain people. However, the is a wide disparity among people of what they believe the "Christian life" to be. If you ask a born again Evangelical and a life-long Catholic, they are going to have very different answers. Furthermore, just because you call yourself Christian doesn't mean that even life a "moral" life. I don't think, nor have I ever attempted to claim, that Christianity promotes an immoral lifestyle. Hence where I have made the statements that Christianity hasn't been shown to help reduce crime - but I won't make the statement that Christianity is the cause of crime.

Whether or not the people who claimed to be Christians met the jochhejam/MadeFromDust standard of Christianity is irrelevant to my research. It isn't a study of "which Christian is the right one?" What matters is that they view themselves as Christians, either the "right" version of Christianity, or the "wrong."

Yourself and jochhe want to read into my study more than it implies. Is it possible to get Christian incarceration rates down with more stringent Bible study so that they are "better" Christians? Maybe, I don't know the answer one way or another and I won't pretend I do (I'll leave the unsupported statements to jochhe). But that is neither here nor there, because my study was focused on the facts as they were.

In closing, you can either believe or not believe my research for whatever reason you want. It really makes no difference to me. My data and analysis methods have gone through peer review and passed with flying colors. I'm not overly concerned with the jochhejam smell test. However, if you intend to question my analysis based soley on a "smell test" type approach, prepare to be called out for it.

In the meantime, you are free to join jochhe in judging which followers of Christ are "real" Christians. Are those type of judgements what makes jochhe a real Christian?

[MannyIsGod]

Smeagol, I don't know what board you've been reading but Joch pulls out parts of the bible to support his arguements on a constant basis. Go back and rerread the evolution thread.

[Dos]

I would like to see the stats for christian countries vs communist countries.

[MannyIsGod]

I would like to see the stats for christian countries vs communist countries.
Being in a comunist country does not mean you're secular. Russia was mentioned as a secular country earlier in this thread, but that is far from true. Also, introducing a communist country into the fold would involve changing many of the variables beyond religous affiliation.

[Spam]

Societies are worse off with no common sense.

[Nbadan]

Look at the Catholic church distancing itself from the U.S. religious right...


THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html)

[Shelly]

Are the Christians committing more crimes because they think God will forgive them?

All I know is that I see a lot of people with the fish on their cars speeding and cutting me off in traffic. :spin

[Nbadan]

The problem isn't in democracy, or socialism. It's the very nature of a progressive moral society.

Religious fundamentalism is a fixed moral condition. Its very basis is to hold to a particular doctrine and deny everything else as immoral. But a progressive moral society comes to learn that things may not be as we once thought. As we learn more about ourselves, we discover that some things that were considered moral may not have been and that some things that were considered immoral may have been ill-judged.

Western society underwent a transformative period several hundred years ago. The fundamentalist sects that oncecontrolled our society were pushed aside to make way for a human-based form of governance instead of the god-based. This paved the way for a morally progressive society.

The dominant religions at the time had to adapt. Thus many humanist concepts were folded into the sects that could adapt. Others did what they had to in order to survive.

But the structures that ruled Western civilizations for over a 1000 years do not simply forget about their claims of moral authority. Thus while adherants move further along the path of an intergrated world view, the more orthodox churchs attempt to resist the advances.

Over time we have arrived at a place where the advances of society so threaten the conservative factions in religion that there can be no more compromise. They have dug in their heels and torn up the social contract. They will tolerate no further advances and are going to do their utmost to dismantle the ones they can.

It is within modern religion to be accepting of both faith and reason. But it is a choice. Even fundamentalists can recognise the necessity of a secular society in which they can practice their faith as they see fit without imposing it on other people. It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense or lack of fundamentalist fervor.

[Dos]

It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense or lack of fundamentalist fervor.

how is giving american christians a political voice a problem! Isn't this a country where all views should be expressed or shared without backlash, or are we to deny the christian right a voice in polictical matters... seems that is discriminatory to me to deny a someone a right to voice their opinion..

[Marcus Bryant]

The problem isn't in democracy, or socialism. It's the very nature of a progressive moral society.

Religious fundamentalism is a fixed moral condition. Its very basis is to hold to a particular doctrine and deny everything else as immoral. But a progressive moral society comes to learn that things may not be as we once thought. As we learn more about ourselves, we discover that some things that were considered moral may not have been and that some things that were considered immoral may have been ill-judged.

Western society underwent a transformative period several hundred years ago. The fundamentalist sects that oncecontrolled our society were pushed aside to make way for a human-based form of governance instead of the god-based. This paved the way for a morally progressive society.

The dominant religions at the time had to adapt. Thus many humanist concepts were folded into the sects that could adapt. Others did what they had to in order to survive.

But the structures that ruled Western civilizations for over a 1000 years do not simply forget about their claims of moral authority. Thus while adherants move further along the path of an intergrated world view, the more orthodox churchs attempt to resist the advances.

Over time we have arrived at a place where the advances of society so threaten the conservative factions in religion that there can be no more compromise. They have dug in their heels and torn up the social contract. They will tolerate no further advances and are going to do their utmost to dismantle the ones they can.

It is within modern religion to be accepting of both faith and reason. But it is a choice. Even fundamentalists can recognise the necessity of a secular society in which they can practice their faith as they see fit without imposing it on other people. It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense or lack of fundamentalist fervor.


What happens when "progressives" are wrong? For example, consider the fad known as eugenics...

[boutons]

"how is giving american christians a political voice a problem!"

No problem at all, as long as the Constitutional separation of church and state is rigorously maintained. If the "Christians" want to remove the church-state barrier and install their flavor of Christianity as the USA's official religion, they they will have to go through the democratic processes to amend the constitution so as to overthrow the separation.

[Dos]

Some of these countries are pretty liberal and it's pretty amazing they have state religions...

The following states recognize some form of Christianity as their official religion (by denomination)

Roman Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize Catholicism as their official religion:
• Andorra
• Argentina
• Bolivia
• Costa Rica
• El Salvador
• Liechtenstein
• Malta
• Monaco
• Paraguay
• Peru
• Some cantons of Switzerland
• Vatican City


Eastern Orthodox
Jusrisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their official religion:
• Cyprus
• Finland (along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland)
• Greece


Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as their official religion:
• Armenia


Lutheran
Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their official religion:
• Denmark
• Iceland
• Norway
• Finland (along with the Finnish Orthodox Church)
Until 2000, Sweden had a Lutheran Church as a state church. The Church of Sweden has now been relegated to the status of a national church.


Anglican
Jurisdictions which recognise an Anglican church as their state religion:
• England - Church of England


Reformed
Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their official religion:
• Scotland - Church of Scotland
• Some cantons of Switzerland

[jochhejaam]

Let's check out some other studies and reports regarding Christianity(religion) and Crime.

Substance Abuse

Research on 1,750 urban and rural high school students found that even after controlling for factors like parental control and support, students with no religious affiliation were vastly more likely to be underage drinkers. Among the non-religious, 98 percent of girls and 92 percent of boys were teen drinkers, and 19 percent of girls and 36 percent of boys were heavy drinkers (defined as four or more alcoholic drinks on two or more occasions each week). Among Protestants attending church at least five times per year, the comparable figures were 55 percent and 72 percent, and just 5 percent (boys and girls both) for heavy drinking.
Heavy drinking down from 36% to 5% because of Christian influence

-A study of 2,048 ninth graders in Ontario found that religious behavior was the strongest single discouragement to marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use.

-A major Harvard study of inner-city youth found that those with a “strong religious orientation” were 54 percent less likely to use drugs.
-A report from the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported that religious practice is one of the best predictors of whether a child will stay free of drugs.

-Not only does religion keep people away from drugs, it often brings back to sobriety those who stumble. Carl Jung, the pioneering psychiatrist, failed to cure any chronic alcoholics despite years of therapy and eventually concluded that the only escape for serious alcoholics is “a vital spiritual experience” resulting in “huge emotional displacement and rearrangement.” Alcoholics have “a spiritual thirst for wholeness,” he wrote, that cannot be satisfied by therapy, but only by a genuine religious commitment. Recent research has drawn similar conclusions on the importance of spiritual conversion as a path out of addiction.

[jochhejaam]

And the influence on Marriage and Family.




Decades of academic work show that “in the strongest marriages and families, commitment to God burns bright” (as one research collator put it). A few examples:



The very lowest risk of divorce today, numerous studies show, is among couples who attend religious services together. Only 7 percent of couples who attend church once a month or more will divorce within five years, according to the U.S. government’s National Survey of Family Growth. The rate is 2 1/2 times higher for couples who attend church just once a year or less.

Across the U.S., the prevalence of divorce is 17 percent among weekly churchgoers, versus 37 percent among couples who claim “no religion.”

Sexual satisfaction is higher among religious couples :eyebrows than others. A University of Kentucky study even found that religiously conservative couples tend to share household chores more fairly. <---that's true too :depressed :lol

Pollster George Gallup summarizes that religious people show up in survey research as “a breed apart.” In particular, “they tend to place greater importance on family life than do less spiritually committed persons.”


http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17700/article_detail.asp

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Some of these countries are pretty liberal and it's pretty amazing they have state religions...

The following states recognize some form of Christianity as their official religion (by denomination)

Roman Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize Catholicism as their official religion:
• Andorra
• Argentina


I wish we didn't. State should be separated from religion, unless we are all furiously wanting to go back into the Dark Ages. I don't know if societes are worse when they believe they have God on their side, there are other elements in the table (poverty, income distribution, unemployment, legal guns), but I do know that I don't want the Executive, Legislative or Judicial powers making decisions based on a religion. Laïcité and secularism, or back into the Dark Ages, that is the question.

[jochhejaam]

And the influence on Crime (large blocs of text separated for Manny :lol )


Crime and Delinquency



Dozens of academic studies show that even after adjustments are made for family influence, neighborhood, race, income, and other factors, religious commitment (particularly church attendance) clearly discourages delinquency among youth.
The National Survey of Families and Households tallied adolescent behavior problems like getting into trouble with the police, being suspended from school, running away from home, or developing emotional problems that require seeing a doctor. And researchers found that in every single family type--two-parent, one-parent, married, unmarried, step families, extended families, adopted families, etc.--parental church involvement is associated with significantly fewer behavior problems.

A sampling of 46,000 sixth- through twelfth-graders showed that those who attend religious services at least once a month are only half as likely to engage in vandalism, substance abuse, drunk driving, and other problem behaviors.

Extensive research by Harvard economist Richard Freeman and associates found that, all other factors being equal, inner-city residents who go to church are 59 percent less likely to commit crimes. (Teens are also far less likely to drop out of school, and adults more likely to hold a job, if they are worshippers.)

Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.

Churchgoing is the factor that most affects who escapes urban poverty, and is associated with “substantial differences in the behavior of youth…. [It] affects allocation of time, school attendance, work activity, and the frequency of socially deviant activity,” according to a book-length study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.
.
Historical studies by Christie Davies, James Q. Wilson, and others note that society-wide crime decreases often correlate with religious renewals, and that crime increases often take place when religion is falling from favor.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I've only heard talk of him, MFD, do you have any of his material so I can see if the comparison is accurate? :lol


he was like you, but without the homoerotic avatar

[Cant_Be_Faded]

When was the last time anybody on this board changed his/her mind, or admitted he/she was wrong?



CBF admits his mistakes
i dont know about you

[scott]

The studies you posted seem to address the issue of the degree in religious intensity. I certainly wouldn't deny that people who are more involved with their religion would be less prone to crime (or any immoral act) than someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour (thereby making them a Christian by my standards). My research is not concerned with religious intensity. You may determine that the incarcerated are not Good Christians, but they are Christians none the less.


Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.

This, however, is in direct contradiction with research I have read that states that single parent households, household income, and parental education levels are the most accurate predictors of criminal tendencies.

Do you mind providing links to the studies you quoted? I would like to read them.

And one more thing...


Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.

I could just as easily use the same counter argument you used against Prisoner's responses about their religious leanings. Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that "The more religious people were, the less likely there were to admit to committing these morally questionable acts in our survey." I would argue that a devout Church-goer has as much of or greater an incentive to lie about whether or not they commit morally questionable acts than a prisoner does to lie about his or her religious preference.

I only bring that up because I will chose to believe the survey respondants. It's a statistical no-mans land to try to figure out whether or not survey respondants are truthful.

[smeagol]

Smeagol, I don't know what board you've been reading but Joch pulls out parts of the bible to support his arguements on a constant basis. Go back and rerread the evolution thread.
I have been reading this board, thanks.

On the other hand, Manny, for a guy who always claims that people have a reading comprehension problem, not sure you are doing better on that department. Check out again what I posted:


Again I don't agree. MFD supported his arguments with quotes from the Bible and insults. Jochhe, although quoting the Bible often, provides much more than that when he defends his point. You may not like his arguments, but you cannot say he does not provide support to his POV.
I've bolded the part you seemed to miss.

My point is that quoting the Bible is not the only thing jochh does to support his arguments.

[jochhejaam]

.

Do you mind providing links to the studies you quoted? I would like to read them.



Copy/paste to this post is not working scott, Link is in post #123

[scott]

That link leads me to a "Cannot find server" message.

[jochhejaam]

That link leads me to a "Cannot find server" message.



It's taking me to the site, retry with this scott.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17700/article_detail.asp

[scott]

Same error. Can you provide directions to the article from their main page?

[scott]

Actually, I can't even get www.taemag.com to come up at all... maybe their site is having problems. I'll try again tomorrow.

[MannyIsGod]

I got through on that link. But, it isn't a true academic study persay. It is the research of the articles author. It may be acurate, but he doesn't site sources or show how the raw data was compiled but just provides the results.

[LuvBones]

I will continue on my wayward and meaningless path of letting data and facts guide me to decisions.

You seem to know a lot about Christians in how you talk about what it takes to be one, what they believe, etc.... Can I ask if you have ever called yourself a Christian at any point of your life?

The reason why I ask and quoted your sentence above is because I've had some close people around me say they "tried out religion" and now look for anything and everything possible to disprove Jesus as the son of man. I'm not saying your stats and research are trying to disprove that.. but I've heard it before.

[jochhejaam]

Actually, I can't even get www.taemag.com to come up at all... maybe their site is having problems. I'll try again tomorrow.


copy and paste this sentence from my post into your browser

inner-city residents who go to church are 59 percent less likely to commit crimes


This is the heading of the first result: The American Enterprise: Good Faith That is the link.

[jochhejaam]

Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.
Based on this at least 200 of every 201 people incarcerated would be a Christian.

Facts below refute your research.

National Census of the Jail Population, 1995
According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching). These figures are comparable to the national average as establish by the Gallup organization. [Source: Response to "Christians vs atheists in prison investigation".]

That would be 1 of every 3 instead of 200 of every 201, quite a difference.


The majority of Americans (85%) have a stated religious preference.
2. The majority of American prisoners (between 80 and 100%, depending on the study consulted) also have a stated religious preference.

3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.

Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" or "Religion prevents incarceration" are polemical in nature and are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable. Neither statement is completely true, and both statements ignore the extremely large differences between religions. Each religious affiliation exhibits different statistical properties relating to incarceration.


the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.







Good reading in the website below.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

[jochhejaam]

The most recently posted facts and others posted in this thread offer a sharp contrast to the research/studies offered by the Bureau of Prisons and scott. It should be clear that the closer a person gets to imitating the life of Christ the better off he and society are. Successfully refuting this would be done by proving that adherence to the characteristics Christ exemplified and taught would be harmful to society. The fact that people are incarcerated for committing crimes does not weaken the case for Christianity being a benefit for individuals and society but strenghtens it. I would believe that if the incarcerated were asked "would your crime have been committed if you had followed the teachings of Christianity?" the answer would be overwhelmingly, "No, I would not have"! Strictly following Christ's teaching equates to not commiting crime.

One of the definitions of crime is " a grave offense especially against morality" which is diametrically opposed to what Christ taught. These studies parallel the degree to which a person aligns himself with Christ's teaching reflecting the extent to which he does so. It may expose a persons hypocrisy of claiming to be a Christian or expose his weakness in being committed to adhering to the tenets of Christianity but in no way is it to be construed as adherence to Christian beliefs being detrimental to society.

[jochhejaam]

I find it both annoying and amusing that people violently object to Christianity encroaching on Scientific study, Intelligent Design vs Darwinism , and then they turn right around and attempt to dismantle the merits of Christianity through scientific studies, scott/Bureau of Prisons. :wtf :lol

[smeagol]

CBF admits his mistakes
i dont know about you
I do and I can show you a thread I started calling out myself.

Can you link me to a post of yours were you admit you were mistaken?

[smeagol]

You may determine that the incarcerated are not Good Christians, but they are Christians none the less
There is a world of difference between someone who casually claims he is a Christian and someone who actually lives the Faith everyday of his life. The former is probably closer to you in his beliefs, the latter is the group you should concentrate your research on (I know this is impossible).

[MannyIsGod]

I find it both annoying and amusing that people violently object to Christianity encroaching on Scientific study, Intelligent Design vs Darwinism , and then they turn right around and attempt to dismantle the merits of Christianity through scientific studies, scott/Bureau of Prisons. :wtf :lol
I don't think anyone here minds Christianity going about things in a scientific way. Intelligent design really isn't doing that, however.

[MannyIsGod]

There is a world of difference between someone who casually claims he is a Christian and someone who actually lives the Faith everyday of his life. The former is probably closer to you in his beliefs, the latter is the group you should concentrate your research on (I know this is impossible). What is the difference? Isn't everyone a sinner? Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to a different party?

[LittleGeneral]

This thread doesn't make much sense. It's amazing to me that the people who have objected to scott's study have not tried to question the methods he used when doing his research a single time (unless I missed it). To me, this is the only legitimate way to critique something like that. It is clearly possible to do a similar study using illegimiate, unscientific means and come up with reasonable results. Apparently, coming up with "good" results is all that concerns jochhejaam.

[bigzak25]

That a woman preaching the word of God to a man who had murdered three others, did so while providing him with methampehtamine, which is a crime?

That people claiming to be Christians don't always act like Christians?

1st thing, We are ALL SINNERS. me and you TOO.

you gonna judge this woman now? who are you? Are you Christian? If so, congrats. If now, who are you to judge? Lets look at the TRUTH. An Evil, Lost man walked into this house, could have raped and killed her, but God gave her the tools to 1st, make this man TRUST her, and 2nd to Help This Man! Maybe it was so she could see the light and Never do drugs again...maybe the light was for him...now that we ALL see IT, maybe it was for US!


Always keeps some drugs handy -- you might be able to get a book deal out of it.

Don't worship Drugs is what I get out of it.


Hey, not all self-proclaimed Christians are good.

Big deal.

Oh, and Axl Rose said "Take me home."

yes, take me home...to HELL.

after he said take me DOWN to the PARADISE CITY.

other albums titled Appetite for Destruction.

the Name of the Band was Guns and Roses for crying out loud...

it's about the inner turmoils of man. Good vs. Evil. Get it?


Don't stand before God after doing a bunch of ice.

Yeah.

that is a good point. but you Know all your sins are forgiven as long as you repent. Actually, that's not true. Blasphemy against your own holy spirit is Not Forgiven...so if You Kill yourself with a bunch of ice, yeah, you have a good chance of going to Hell.


Are the Christians committing more crimes because they think God will forgive them?

All I know is that I see a lot of people with the fish on their cars speeding and cutting me off in traffic. :spin

Saved Christians very very rarely commit crimes against humanity. No man is Perfect, but that 1st statement is silly.

As for people with a Jesus Fish speeding and cutting you off? They are not Saved yet. That Fish symbolizes the fact that they are going to School, i.e. Church and are continuing to Learn and Get Closer to Him.

I remember your threads boasting about your driving, and I doubt you got an Audi to got the speed limit sister. Where's your Fish?


"how is giving american christians a political voice a problem!"

No problem at all, as long as the Constitutional separation of church and state is rigorously maintained. If the "Christians" want to remove the church-state barrier and install their flavor of Christianity as the USA's official religion, they they will have to go through the democratic processes to amend the constitution so as to overthrow the separation.

Now THIS IS THE POST I'VE BEEN WATING FOR!

Lets analyze! :)

if the "Christians" (love the use of quotes by the way :lol) want to remove the barrier and install their "flavor" (now i used quotes too!) of Christianity as the USA's official religion, (uhh...which it IS, what religion was this country founded on genius? what does it say on your dollar bill?) they have to go THROUGH THE DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE THE CONSITITUTION TO OVERTHROW THE SEPARATION.

The Dems LIKE THE SEPARATION. THEY DO NOT WANT A UNITED COUNTRY!

THEY WANT A COUNTRY IN CHAOS SO THEY CAN PRETEND TO BE THE ONES THAT SAVE IT WHILE LINING THEIR POCKETS!

There are Corrupt REPUBLICANS TOO! don't think I don't see it.

Lust for Money, just LUST and INSECURITY in general Will Be This Countries Downfall....and why not? It's our Own Downfall as well....:cry

[jochhejaam]

It's amazing to me that the people who have objected to scott's study have not tried to question the methods he used when doing his research a single time (unless I missed it).
Would it be equally amazing to you that scott has not (a single time) offered the methods he used when doing his research in order to quell the objections?




Apparently, coming up with "good" results is all that concerns jochhejaam.Not good results LG, feasible results.

[LittleGeneral]

scott has posted in detail his methods in the past if I'm not mistaken.

[scott]

Based on this at least 200 of every 201 people incarcerated would be a Christian.[quote]

That isn't true. If the population of Christians versus non-Christians were identical, then it would be. But if there is only 1 non-Christian in the world, and he is in jail and there were 1000 Christians, and 200 were in Jail, the non-Christian would thereby be 5 times more likely to be imprisoned than the Christian.

[quote]

Facts below refute your research.

National Census of the Jail Population, 1995
According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching). These figures are comparable to the national average as establish by the Gallup organization. [Source: Response to "Christians vs atheists in prison investigation".]

That would be 1 of every 3 instead of 200 of every 201, quite a difference.



1) I've already established that I make no distinction between what is a "good Christian" versus a "bad" or non-practicing one. The 72% would be the number I am concerned with.

2) Updated statistics published in 1997 (the ones I used) are published on the same page of link you provided shows that only .2% of prison inmates identify themselves as "Atheist", meaning that 99.8% of the prison population identifies with one religion or another (compared to the 14.1% of Americans who identify themselves as atheists, agnostic, humanist, or secular. Of that 99.8%, 83.3% of inmates identify themselves as Christian (compared to the 76.5% of Americans who identify themselves as Christian).




The majority of Americans (85%) have a stated religious preference.
2. The majority of American prisoners (between 80 and 100%, depending on the study consulted) also have a stated religious preference.

3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.



Again, I do not consider religious intensity - only how one identifies themselves. I understand there is a difference between calling yourself a Christian and being a practicing Christian, for the sake of brevity I will say that I was concerned with those who call themselves Christian.




Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" or "Religion prevents incarceration" are polemical in nature and are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable. Neither statement is completely true, and both statements ignore the extremely large differences between religions. Each religious affiliation exhibits different statistical properties relating to incarceration.



Well DUH... that is exactly what I've said, isn't it?



the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.


In direct contradiction to the statistics listed on the website you provided, which says that .2% of inmates identify themselves as Atheist while the remainer of the population identifies with one religion or another.

If you define religious as "someone who actively practices a religion" then I can buy off on the above quoted statement. However, for the purposes of my study, I considered anyone who believes in a higher power/God as a "theist" (note, I did not say "religious).

I would like to point out an blatant liberty that the Author of the website you linked to gave... he took the liberty to lump "no answer" into the same category as "Atheist" in the main body of his text. Only 156 people responded as "Atheist" while over 18,000 did not respond to the survey. The author does post the unadultered data in his appendix, but I find it a bit dishonest that he would lump those two categories together. To me, this is a prime example of unethical data manipulation. Not responding to a survey is surely not the same thing as not believing in God.

Thanks for the website, however. It contains some good links to data.

[scott]

One quick other note about that webpage:


One atheist web page (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm) presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists.

The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God.


The CUNY American Religious Identification Suvery is the source of the 14% for Atheist/Agnostic/Humanist/Secular number. Jelly managed to find it, why couldn't this author?

[scott]

The most recently posted facts and others posted in this thread offer a sharp contrast to the research/studies offered by the Bureau of Prisons and scott. It should be clear that the closer a person gets to imitating the life of Christ the better off he and society are.

Your most recently posted study most certainly does not make it "clear that the closer a person gets to imitating the life of Christ the better off he and society are." In fact, the study which you seem very proud of, makes it quite clear that such a statement CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be made.


Successfully refuting this would be done by proving that adherence to the characteristics Christ exemplified and taught would be harmful to society. The fact that people are incarcerated for committing crimes does not weaken the case for Christianity being a benefit for individuals and society but strenghtens it. I would believe that if the incarcerated were asked "would your crime have been committed if you had followed the teachings of Christianity?" the answer would be overwhelmingly, "No, I would not have"! Strictly following Christ's teaching equates to not commiting crime.

That is your opinion and you are most certainly entitled to it, but I honestly hope you don't think you have "proved" it in this thread. If anything, it stregthens my position that, from a statistical perspective, Christianity and Religion in general is shown not to have an overwhelmingly positive affect on crime - as demonstrated by the low propensity for Athesists to commit them.

[scott]

You seem to know a lot about Christians in how you talk about what it takes to be one, what they believe, etc.... Can I ask if you have ever called yourself a Christian at any point of your life?

The reason why I ask and quoted your sentence above is because I've had some close people around me say they "tried out religion" and now look for anything and everything possible to disprove Jesus as the son of man. I'm not saying your stats and research are trying to disprove that.. but I've heard it before.

LuvBones, I was raised Catholic and attended a High School/Seminary. I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic church and the Oblates who taught me both how to think and how to be a man. I keep in close touch with an Oblate who had a very strong impact in my life - and he continues to be one of the best people I know of to engage in a meaningful debate about Spirituality and Religion with. I also have a very good friend who was ordaned and now serves in the Vatican - he's a rising star in the Church - and he is also I talk to alot about on this topic. Never once have I had an "angry" arguement with either of these people, and we all respect each other a great deal.

I hope that answers your question - I would be happy to answer any others.

[scott]

I find it both annoying and amusing that people violently object to Christianity encroaching on Scientific study, Intelligent Design vs Darwinism , and then they turn right around and attempt to dismantle the merits of Christianity through scientific studies, scott/Bureau of Prisons. :wtf :lol

I don't think I've every objected to the melding of Science and Theism, in fact I have a posting on my blog that states my SUPPORT for the teaching of intelligent design (although not in high school science classes). I think the pursuit of theists to incorporate science is excellent, and I excitedly await scientific evidence/observation of a higher power.

With that said, I don't think that Intelligent Design, in its current form, is science.

[scott]

There is a world of difference between someone who casually claims he is a Christian and someone who actually lives the Faith everyday of his life. The former is probably closer to you in his beliefs, the latter is the group you should concentrate your research on (I know this is impossible).

I acknowledge that difference, smeagol. But as I've stated, my research was not focused on degrees of religious intensity, but rather core beliefs. In my book, believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God and Saviour of Man makes you a Christian, whether or not you lead a moral lifestyle.

[scott]

Would it be equally amazing to you that scott has not (a single time) offered the methods he used when doing his research in order to quell the objections?

I haven't offered them because 1) we've discussed them in other threads before and 2) no one has asked.

I'll offer my methods now - they are plain statistics and have been peer reviewed. Two methods were primarily employed, simple arithmetic and linear regression (on my regressions, I saw adjusted R^2 consistently around .74 for each of the model runs). Controlled for a number of factors that are accessible via the full survey data (available to each American via a FOAA request - I have hard and electronic copies). Surprisingly, a larger portion of the inmates said they converted to atheism (if that is really possible) after their incarceration than those converting to Christianity. There are notable increases in post-incarceration religious participation, however, meaning that people who were non-practicing Christians become more interested in religion after they are jailed.

Anything else?




Not good results LG, feasible results.

To me, this pretty much sums you up, jochhe. You consider "feasible" only those things which are consistent with what you already believe.

If I told you that the the name for white boys that has the highest correlation to maternal education is "Dov" you may or not find that feasible - but it doens't matter, because it is true (Levitt, 2005).

The statistics are what they are.

[jochhejaam]

Prison Incarceration website: Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable.

Originally posted by scott: Well DUH... that is exactly what I've said, isn't it?



Well, no, not exactly scott. read your original quote in this thread below.

Originally posted by scott: the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.
If you had added what is in the first quote in this post to your original post, (you didn't) then that would have been what you were saying.

As the first quote here states your premise that Christians are over 200 times more likely to be incarcerated is "simplistic" and is "not academically or statistically supportable".

Lends credence to smeagol's comment that the study "should be taken with a grain of salt" and my own position that the research is not believable.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by scott: Updated statistics published in 1997 (the ones I used) are published on the same page of link you provided shows that only .2% of prison inmates identify themselves as "Atheist", meaning that 99.8% of the prison population identifies with one religion or another (compared to the 14.1% of Americans who identify themselves as atheists, agnostic, humanist, or secular. Of that 99.8%, 83.3% of inmates identify themselves as Christian (compared to the 76.5% of Americans who identify themselves as Christian).

Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

[scott]

jochhe, I don't know what to tell you except that you are way off base and appear to be going in circles to grasp at straws.

My research does show that Christians are 200 times more likely to be incarcerated - but that doesn't mean that "religion leads to incarceration", in fact I said as much right here:


My study doesn't indicate that Christians are more prone to crime because they are Christians, just that they are more prone to crime...

That is EXACTLY what the study you provided a link to. My two statements are in no way inconsistent. See the difference between causality and correlation. The statement that Christians are more prone to crime is statistically supportable, it is the notion that their religion makes them prone to crime that is not supportable.

Your response only lends credence to the fact that you aren't too bright.

[scott]

Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

I really don't care what two non-academic web pages state, but thanks anyway.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=scott]jochhe, I don't know what to tell you except that you are way off base and appear to be going in circles to grasp at straws.
I didn't ask you to respond scott, I like the thread and I'm posting information I find relevant to the thread, that doesn't equate to grasping at straws.





Your response only lends credence to the fact that you aren't too bright
scott, gratuitous insults tell more about your character than the intelligence of your target, I'll leave the insults to the truly bright poeple. :lol

[jochhejaam]

I really don't care what two non-academic web pages state, but thanks anyway.
I'll edit the paragraph from the Prison Incarceration website so you understand the crux of the post.

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise



scott, are you athiest?

[scott]

I didn't ask you to respond scott, I like the thread and I'm posting information I find relevant to the thread, that doesn't equate to grasping at straws.

You addressed me by name in regards to an issue that was already covered. My statement stands.


scott, gratuitous insults tell more about your character than the intelligence of your target, I'll leave the insults to the truly bright poeple.

I'm not trying to insult you - I really think you are short a few circuits in the reasoning department.

[scott]

I'll edit the paragraph from the Prison Incarceration website so you understand the crux of the post.

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

I'll rephrase my response so you can maybe finally understand what I've said numerous times:

I haven't taken the position that religion leads to crime or incarceration, and I'm not really concerned if some Shmoe on some atheist website has.


scott, are you athiest?

Yes I am.

[Marcus Bryant]

I haven't the time to go through this thread but perhaps the "atheist" (and agnostic?) population and the "Christian" population have distinguishing characteristics (avg income, age, education, family structure) which might shed some light on the results?

Also, if we are going to draw conclusions about the effect of religion on a society wouldn't we compare the social pathologies of a society that is 'religious' (ie US, I suppose) against those of a society that is not (perhaps a Western European nation such as Holland, Denmark, Germany, etc...)?

[scott]

I haven't the time to go through this thread but perhaps the "atheist" (and agnostic?) population and the "Christian" population have distinguishing characteristics (avg income, age, education, family structure) which might shed some light on the results?

The answer is most certainly yes. I imagine that the variances between the two propensities narrows quite sharply once all those variables are controlled for, most notably education - which demonstrates a high inverse correlation with religiousity.

Controlling for these factors was outlined as Phase II of my study, which I may one day find the time to complete - if someone doesn't beat me to it.


Also, if we are going to draw conclusions about the effect of religion on a society wouldn't we compare the social pathologies of a society that is 'religious' (ie US, I suppose) against those of a society that is not (perhaps a Western European nation such as Holland, Denmark, Germany, etc...)?

From a statistical perspective, I think you are better off comparing the religious versus the non-religious in the same country for multiple countries, simply because it is one less variable to control for and because that variable has a significant impact on the other variables you mentioned above. And obviously what holds true for one population may not hold true for another.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=scott]I'll rephrase my response so you can maybe finally understand what I've said numerous times:

I haven't taken the position that religion leads to crime or incarceration, and I'm not really concerned if some Shmoe on some atheist website has.
You missed it again scott, I edited out the part about the atheist non-academic website and you still insist on addressing that aspect.




Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website (not atheist shmoe website): We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise
Paraphrasing the above sentence for clarity; 'presenting statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime and incarceration is folly'.

joch- "scott, are you atheist"
scott- "yes I am"
Raised Catholic, is atheist, say his research show Christians are 200 time more likely to be incarcerated, Prison Incarceration website say that's foolishness, scott has no agenda...

[scott]

Paraphrasing the above sentence for clarity; 'presenting statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime and incarceration is folly'.

You really can't get this through your thick skull, can you?

I haven't presented statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime. You know what else is folly? Presenting statistics that suggest that kangaroos live on Mars. But I haven't presented those statistics either, so who cares?

jochhe, I it is quite clear to me and I imagine to the other readers of this thread that you are not interested in participating in a debate, but justifying your our ignorance. You aren't ignorant because you are a Christian or support Christianity, you are clearly ignorant because you fail to address relevant facts and continue to hark on arguments where there are none.

Just like every other thread I've ever been in with you, it has been a waste of time to try to communciate with you, because you only read what you want to read. Good day.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=scott]You really can't get this through your thick skull, can you?
I'm sorry scott but I can't get myself worked up into a frenzy to respond to your anger.


scott: I haven't presented statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime.

scott quote: I'll offer my methods now - they are plain statistics Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.
^^^That implies the same thing scott,




jochhe, I it is quite clear to me and I imagine to the other readers of this thread that you are not interested in participating in a debate, but justifying your our ignorance.
Like I've stated before, you have great difficulty in maturely handling oppostion or adversity.



You aren't ignorant because you are a Christian or support Christianity, you are clearly ignorant because you fail to address relevant facts and continue to hark on arguments where there are none.
You went 3 consecutive threads and totally avoided the material clearly directed to you and I fail to address facts? okay scott


Just like every other thread I've ever been in with you, it has been a waste of time to try to communciate with you, because you only read what you want to read.
You consider it a waste of time if you can't win someone over to your way of thinking. When I see an avowed atheist post such nonsense as "Christians being 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians" they had better expect to be called on it.

And good night to you too scottie :)

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

From a statistical perspective, I think you are better off comparing the religious versus the non-religious in the same country for multiple countries, simply because it is one less variable to control for and because that variable has a significant impact on the other variables you mentioned above. And obviously what holds true for one population may not hold true for another.

Well, the assertion as I understand it was that a 'religious society' is worse than a non-religious one. What might make sense would be to look at it on a state or MSA level. Perhaps a bit stereotypical, but Texas v. California, Virginia v. Massachusetts, Houston v. Boston, etc...

[Guru of Nothing]

You consider it a waste of time if you can't win someone over to your way of thinking. When I see an avowed atheist post such nonsense as "Christians being 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians" they had better expect to be called on it.


And then?

[smeagol]

What is the difference?
The diffirence between Mother Theresa of Calcutta and any self-proclaimed Christian who leads a noticable un-Christian life.


Isn't everyone a sinner?
Yes. And?


Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to a different party?
Not sure this question fits into our discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.

Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.

But you know, what do I know?

[smeagol]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.
I somehow think this is not difficult for him.



Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.
:lol

You are right, I can never be 100% certain about this, but you probably picked the one person Christians and Atheists would agree led a Christ-like life.



But you know, what do I know?
From your posts I can conclude you know a lot about many things.

[Yonivore]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.
It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.


Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.
I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.

[MannyIsGod]

It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.


I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.
That is a good analogy. I like the way you put that.

[MannyIsGod]

I somehow think this is not difficult for him.



:lol

You are right, I can never be 100% certain about this, but you probably picked the one person Christians and Atheists would agree led a Christ-like life.



From your posts I can conclude you know a lot about many things.
I'm mainly just playing devil's advocate here, but I just feel that Christians shouldn't be so quick to divide themselves into good/bad if they truly understand their faith. And that is what people try to do when to discount Scott's study.

[jochhejaam]

It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.

I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.
:tu




Manny: I'm mainly just playing devil's advocate here, but I just feel that Christians shouldn't be so quick to divide themselves into good/bad if they truly understand their faith. And that is what people try to do when to discount Scott's study.
Correct Manny, it would be incorrect to label Christians as good or bad however they can be categorized as strong and weak Christians supported by "let them that are strong bear the infirmities of the weak".

I can't speak for others regarding scott's research but I took exception to the the absurdity of his statement that Christians are 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians. At face value it's an overt attempt to nullify the positive change that takes place in the heart, mind and lifestyle of those that have genuinely become followers of Christ, and scott being an avowed atheist just adds to the skepticism of his conclusions.

[scott]

^^^That implies the same thing scott,

No, jochhe, it doesn't. One (mine) implies correlation and the other implies causality (the one your website implies as "folly").

I now see the problem here. I have made the mistake of taking for granted that jochhe understands the difference between correlation and causality.

Here is a rather simple explanation of the difference:

http://w-uh.com/posts/030302a_correlation_vs_ca.html

jochhe, you seem to want to insist that I have implied causlity, when in fact I haven't, and in fact I've gone out of my way to say that there is no evidence for causality between Christianity and Crime - my study points out a correlation.

I apologize for making the error of assuming that jochhe had a grasp of this concept.


I can't speak for others regarding scott's research but I took exception to the the absurdity of his statement that Christians are 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians. At face value it's an overt attempt to nullify the positive change that takes place in the heart, mind and lifestyle of those that have genuinely become followers of Christ, and scott being an avowed atheist just adds to the skepticism of his conclusions.

It's only absurd to you because you refuse to believe that such a correlation could be possible, when in fact my peer-reviewed statistics show it to be the case. You may want to discount things you don't like as attempts to discredit something, but you are the only in "folly" - falling victim to the fallacy that percieved bias automatically discredits scientific findings.

And now for a grand prediction: this will once again fall on deaf ears, or more appropriately, blind eyes.

[scott]

Well, the assertion as I understand it was that a 'religious society' is worse than a non-religious one. What might make sense would be to look at it on a state or MSA level. Perhaps a bit stereotypical, but Texas v. California, Virginia v. Massachusetts, Houston v. Boston, etc...

I thought you were refering to my study, rather than the one in the original thread. Sorry.

In the case of comparing religious societies to non-religious ones... it seems like an uphill battle in trying to find seperate societies that are comparable in most ways aside from their religiousity. I don't think you could do it within a given country, because the range of religiousity in comparable cities tends to be rather narrow. I city like, Dallas, for example may rank high on the religiousity scale, but it really isn't significantly more religious than, say, Seattle.

You really would have to compare discrete metro areas in areas with widely different religiousity profiles, which most likely means different countries - probably seperated by a significant geographic boundary. In the process of controlling for all the socioeconomic variables, I suspect the data will be mangled beyond the point of comprehension. University of Chicago Economist James Heckman won a Nobel prize for his work in developing a method for analyzing selective samples, so maybe some of his techniques could be applied to get some meaningful answers.

[MannyIsGod]

:tu




Correct Manny, it would be incorrect to label Christians as good or bad however they can be categorized as strong and weak Christians supported by "let them that are strong bear the infirmities of the weak".

No, they can't. If the measure of a Christian is simlpy their acceptance as Christ as their savior then that is something you have no way of measuring. You want to use the facets of your religion that are convient to you when they are convient and disregard them at all times. If salvation is deterimed by acceptance and if salvation is the only matter of importance then acceptance is the only measure of importance when it comes to Christianity!

It amazs me how someone who feels so strongly about their religion has such a weak grasp on it's fundemental tenet.

[ChumpDumper]

Does that mean God favors a progressive income tax?

[jochhejaam]

Quote=jochhejaam: Correct Manny, it would be incorrect to label Christians as good or bad however they can be categorized as strong and weak Christians supported by "let them that are strong bear the infirmities of the weak".

sidenote- the thumbs up was for yoni's post

No, they can't.

Manny, you're usually on shaky ground when it comes to discussions about Christianity and your comments here indicates that you fall far short of even attaining shaky ground status.

It's a no brainer manny, of course they can be strong and weak.
Are you of the opinion that each convert to Christianity immediately becomes a moral clone of Christ? The thrust of genuine conversion is that it wipes away the sin in a persons life and reserves a place for them with God in heaven, closely following the perfect example Christ set is a life long challenge, one that is constantly sought after but never fully achieved. To paraphrase the words of Apostle Paul, 'it is a life long race, run it well'.

Let me use a worldly illustration for you because it's obvious by your post that you have great difficulty grasping the nature of Christians and that you have serious deficiencies when it comes to understanding the fundamentals of Christianity.

1. We have a college professor who has mastered the subject he is teaching.

2. We have a student who is in his first day of class and has little knowledge of the subject.

That equates to one being quite strong in the area of study and one being quite weak in the area of study.

And in addition to that parallel, after taking a class in a particular study we have students that come out strong in the knowledge that was presented and those that come out weak.


The strong are those whose Christian walk very closely resembles the way Christ lived his life which was a life without sin. That strength comes through a relentless study of God's scriptures, through daily prayer and communion with God, because of a genuine love and admiration for Christ and with a sincere desire to help mankind in the ways that Christ did. First and foremost that would be following the exhortation of Apostle Paul who said, 'I become all things to all men, that by all means some might be saved'.

The weak are those who struggle in their walk with Christ. Becoming a Christian wipes away the past sins of our lives but does not promise total control over the temptation or inclination to sin in the future. It liberates us from the penalty of sin (death) but does not fully insulate us from the tempations of sin. There will always be the struggle within us because we have taken on the nature of Christ but we still have to deal with our carnal flesh.

Becoming a Christian happens in an instant, in the "twinkling of an eye" if you will. Becoming a strong and wise Christian come with time and entails some very hard lessons. Being purified by the fire of adversity and gaining inner strength and resolve by having Christ helping us through the crises of our life which serves to strengthen us. Each tempation or trial that is overcome leads us to the point where (from the writings of Flavius Josephus referring to Joseph's time in prison for a crime he didn't commit) our soul becomes as iron! No longer are we easily sidetracked by the tempations of this world, no longer are we beaten down by those diversions that would distract and limit the effectiveness of the commission given to us by Christ!
The tempations that at one time caused us to stumble are no longer stumbling blocks, we are to the point where we are no longer fazed by them. Our focus becomes sharp and our will to follow Christ is unfettered,uncomprimised, and undeterred










[QUOTE]If the measure of a Christian is simlpy their acceptance as Christ as their savior then that is something you have no way of measuring.

The acceptance of Christ as Saviour is not the measure of a Christian, the acceptance of Christ is the action a person takes that emancipates them from the penalty of sin.







You want to use the facets of your religion that are convient to you when they are convient and disregard them at all times.
??? That read like a riddle Manny, I'm unable to decipher the point you are trying to make here, would you like to attempt to clarify it?





If salvation is deterimed by acceptance and if salvation is the only matter of importance then acceptance is the only measure of importance when it comes to Christianity!
Where oh where did you receive information about Christianity that would lead you to believe that salvation is the only matter of importance in Christianity? That is the most important personal matter and is essential to the what Christ wants us to do after conversion, but it's not anywhere near an end in and of itself! Once we are converted/ transformed we are then told to "Go and preach the Gospel to all nations. Personal salvation is only the starting point Manny.


And a sincere wish from me to you to have a good day Manny. :)