Does religion cause or prevent crime? (1 Viewer)

harpygaggle

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
85
It's a case to case basis. Some religious people are willing to die for their faith. Thus, committing a crime is not a big deal for them when their faith is on the line. While others are attracting people for being religious. Thus, it prevents crime and love prevails. For me, what religion brings is division.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
Point taken on the additional atrocities listed.

This is from Wikipedia, which I shamefully used as the worst source ever (in my own previous words, I must admit). But at the very least it may show Hitler was nothing like a regular, consistent practicing long term believer.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed his highly favorable opinions towards Christianity, but progressively distanced himself from it.[1][2] Some historians describe his later posture as being potentially "anti-Christian".[3] He also criticized atheism.[4]

Hitler was born to a practicing Catholic mother, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1904, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria, where the family lived.[5] According to John Willard Toland, witnesses indicate that Hitler's confirmation sponsor had to "drag the words out of him ... almost as though the whole confirmation was repugnant to him".[6] Rissmann notes that, according to several witnesses who lived with Hitler in a men's home in Vienna, he never again attended Mass or received the sacraments after leaving home at 18 years old.[7]

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, Hitler expressed himself as a Christian.[8][9][10] Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[11] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[12][13] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[14] and Jewish materialism.[15] In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."[16]

Hitler's regime launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church (but this was resisted by the Confessing Church), and moved early to eliminate political Catholicism.[17] Hitler agreed to the Reich concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[18] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military service and allegiance to Hitler's movement. Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, some historians speculate that he could have had the intention to eventually eliminate Christianity from Germany, or at least distort it and subjugate it to a Nazi outlook.[19]

I guess I have to admit, part of the takeaway for me on that quote is the reality that you might have a fringe person (or people) who are loosely associated with a religion, but the more devoted (or something like that) members might totally eschew everything that person stands for and claim he/she is no part of the religion. I suppose some could read that Wikipedia quote and take away from it "so basically he grew to be very non-religious, and then his worst behavior started"--while others will read the same text and take away from it "so basically Hitler was a product of a religious upbringing/background". I admit the truth is not necessarily clear.

So maybe I am back to what I thought when I first read this thread. "religion" is almost impossible to extricate -- extricate meaning, as if we could measure it separate from the rest -- from personal values, beliefs, and leanings. There is the teaching contained in the religion's "curriculum", (if one exists, as it does in many), but then there is the way people claim to be 'following' it, which may have 90% to do with their own personal preferences--leading to behaviors that would be there whether the religion existed or not.

My other thought is how the "times" (old times, modern times) affected all of this. At most points during human history, not doing what was considered the 'right' thing got you put in prison, physically punished, or worse--whether that had to do with something religious or secular. So that's another thing to separate out. Let's just say hypothetically that in 1600, doing anything considered seriously wrong might get you killed. So people applied that to religious identification just like they did stealing a horse. But is that really a product of the religious teaching itself, specifically? I would argue, not very much.

Now fast forward to "today". What should our primary concern be today? And your Darfur comments made me think of my earlier comments where I not-so-subtly implied what I really think of Islam. There are religions which still, TODAY, currently seem to espouse (espouse can be argued about, as there are apparently 1000 interpretations of the Koran, but "lead to", cannot)--or lead to, violence, torture and murder. Then there are religions today, which really can't be fairly said to espouse those things in any significant measure. Ask yourself which ones they are, and you have what to me should be the lens through which we address these questions going forward, unless one of the religions undergoes a radical (no pun intended) change.
 
Last edited:

harpygaggle

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
85
If it is a religion of true faith then good conscience will prevail. Good conscience will safeguard a person from doing bad things such as killings! But if the religion (not to offend anyone's religion) professes a doubtful and bad act then that is not a foundation of true faith.
 

Dick7Access

Dick S
Local time
Yesterday, 23:26
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,901
If it is a religion of true faith then good conscience will prevail. Good conscience will safeguard a person from doing bad things such as killings! But if the religion (not to offend anyone's religion) professes a doubtful and bad act then that is not a foundation of true faith.
Amen, people in all religions do bad things. Human race is what it is. Church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
Church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners.
An excellent expression, one that rewires the mind to a different paradigm.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:26
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
19,384
If it is a religion of true faith then good conscience will prevail. Good conscience will safeguard a person from doing bad things such as killings!

Islam is a religion of "true faith" by most standards I have seen, and truly faithful members of the Wahabbi sect will kill those who are not conformant to their viewpoint. Where necessary they will kill those members by sacrificing themselves with a bomb vest. They do so with good conscience that they are purging apostasy from the world.

Using terms like "good faith" and "good conscience" are all well and good, but you must remember that "good" in this context is relative to the subset of society in which those "good" people live.

I tend to be ecumenical about a lot of things. Part of that is recognizing the incredible variety of people's attitudes. Part of that is realizing that what I think is "good" doesn't align with other societies. For instance, teaching children science and math and language is a good idea, yes? Not according to the Boko Haram group that kidnapped 300 school-age children who were getting a secular education, which is contrary to the teachings of Islam. OF COURSE we know that they are a bunch of raving lunatics - but according to their culture, they are quite sane.

As long religion inspires divisiveness and intolerance for the views of others, there will be evils in the world.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
As long religion inspires divisiveness and intolerance for the views of others, there will be evils in the world.
This is where I disagree. I think Christianity has the potential to shine brightly above the rest in this regard, because the most common interpretation of the Bible in use today teaches that while we can firmly disagree with the views or practices of others (and in that sense 'not accept' them), we can still love and minister to the person or people (and in that sense 'accept' them).

Of course the problem lies in that, in modern secular 1st world societies, most people think that "acceptance" is the key - and to them, "acceptance" means not ever disagreeing with, or especially publicly disagreeing with, other people's lifestyles, viewpoints, or practices, as long as they are within the confines of the law.

But this viewpoint actually undermines religion at its core, which has ALWAYS been about "ought" to-do's/not-do's, rather than "can/can't".

I've listened to the sermons of a LOT of modern churches that I think strikes a good balance. They make no apology about their views on things like abortion or alternative lifestyles, while still not making like "they hate" or "shun" the people themselves. This, precisely, is the exact & proper balance that we all should strike--religious, or no. Because we all have beliefs and personal moral values, whether we say so or not. If they really mean anything to us at all, we ought to be able to separate the person from the act. Because everyone has sin in their life - no one is perfect.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
Here is an example of religion causing a crime:


The crime is hate speech. The hater pointed out that the wife of a prophet was allegedly underaged while consummating the marriage, and therefore earns a particular title. No legal sanction was made but her book publishing contract was extinguished.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
Here is an example of religion causing a crime:

:p:p

As much as I love what you posted, to be totally honest with myself I have to point out something I've often pointed out in certain situations (I'm not necessarily saying your post is one of them - it just reminded me), situations where I feel the term pedo*ile is over-used:
"For 95% of human history, men married girls who were 15-17. It's something we just became self righteous about in the last few years. So...are you saying that 95% of all humankind over time has been pedo*iles?"

Now someone is going to come along and accuse me of being some kind of sympathizer, which of course, would be ridiculous nor am I any such thing - BUT I am sensitive to terms be over-used and re-defined to overly include too many people because I feel it takes away from the effectiveness when it IS used.

Having said all that, I have no idea what the prophet actually was or wasn't, and don't particularly feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt either, LOL - given how much trouble he started!
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
Actually, peado usually refers to those under 12. I didn't know this myself until a few years ago when I tried to get a more accurate definition. The age is an approximation, but technically it refers to the prepubescent. Since we all age at different rates, you cannot pin down the precise age.

So to answer your question, no. In fact, the age of consent in Spain was 13 until about 5 years ago.

The 50-year old prophet married Aisha when she was 6. In those days, the average life expectancy was about 35.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
Actually, peado usually refers to those under 12. I didn't know this myself until a few years ago when I tried to get a more accurate definition. The age is an approximation, but technically it refers to the prepubescent. Since we all age at different rates, you cannot pin down the precise age.

So to answer your question, no. In fact, the age of consent in Spain was 13 until about 5 years ago.

The 50-year old prophet married Aisha when she was 6. In those days, the average life expectancy was about 35.
Yes, I know & agree what it refers to, which is why it's so easy to spot overuse of the term. I personally think that in this specific subject, people feel a quick sense of guilt/rush-to-assure mental reaction, so they use the most condemning word possible. History actually has a number of topics (some of which are now considered good & OK), where the quicker to rush to condemn something in the strongest way possible, the quicker you'd be assured that nobody would suspect you actually thought it wasn't that terribly unusual or unnatural. :) I'll leave you to decipher what those things are.
Interesting psychology on these type of topics IMO.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
What happens if back in 2015 you had a 13 year old girl who was standing in Spain on her side of the border, while in France there was a 17 year old boy standing on his side of the border, but they were having sex? Are any of them committing a crime? Any lawyers in the house?

A friend of mine said its all ok if they were both hovering in the air. :ROFLMAO:
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
What happens if back in 2015 you had a 13 year old girl who was standing in Spain on her side of the border, while in France there was a 17 year old boy standing on his side of the border, but they were having sex? Are any of them committing a crime? Any lawyers in the house?

A friend of mine said its all ok if they were both hovering in the air. :ROFLMAO:
Let's throw another wrench into the mix. Let's say the age of consent in France is actually 18.
Thus, both children were assaulting each other.

OR...would our post-modern emphasis on things result in the boy being persecuted? But that makes no sense if neither of them could consent, then they both suffered a crime and are victims. Of course, in REALITY, (in the USA at least), I often hear of the boy in this situation being persecuted.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
In the UK, if a woman is drunk she cannot consent. So if the drunk man and the drunk woman have sex, the man is a rapist. Nothing like a law that discriminates based on gender. The new woke.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:26
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
19,384
What happens if back in 2015 you had a 13 year old girl who was standing in Spain on her side of the border, while in France there was a 17 year old boy standing on his side of the border, but they were having sex?

They were merely furthering international relations.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 23:26
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,794
Since this thread has taken a turn towards what constitutes "consensual" sex, there is the unfortunate and bizarre case of Julian Assange. Evidently, Assange had consensual sex with a woman, but was still charged by the government with "ra**". It would appear that the charges against Assange may have been politically motivated. This may be the latest news concerning Assange's "ra**" allegations: Sweden drops Julian Assange ra** investigation.

Since Sweden came up in the context of overzealous prosecution, there is the case of Julian Assange. There are a lot of aspects to this case that I won't get into. But essentially, Sweden pressed sexual assault charges despite the murkiness surrounding the incident.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 20:26
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,311
In the UK, if a woman is drunk she cannot consent. So if the drunk man and the drunk woman have sex, the man is a rapist. Nothing like a law that discriminates based on gender. The new woke.
That's exactly the ridiculous, contradictory place that new twists on things go.
Because in your example, the man never consented either!
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:26
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
4,548
The man doesn't need to consent, because one goes in and the other goes out. Whatever difference that makes I am not quite sure! Without getting too graphic about it(!), isn't it about what is in the mind, not the body? i.e. it is about decisions. She didn't consent because she can't because she was drunk. So her brain was malfunctioning and so cannot say yes to the dirty deed. But for some reason, an intoxicated man can make that decision with his brain. Wouldn't that be considered a sexist statement?

Is it about the brain (i.e. decisions), or about the body (one goes in, one goes out)? Quite how the legal profession can justify this is quite beyond me. Or is this the new woke where discrimination between race and gender is not only legal, but encouraged?!
 

NauticalGent

CopyPaster of the First Order
Local time
Yesterday, 23:26
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
3,413
What happens if back in 2015 you had a 13 year old girl who was standing in Spain on her side of the border, while in France there was a 17 year old boy standing on his side of the border, but they were having sex? Are any of them committing a crime? Any lawyers in the house?

A friend of mine said its all ok if they were both hovering in the air. :ROFLMAO:
They should meet in Andorra which is co-govrrned by both countries and all would be well...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom