Does religion cause or prevent crime? (1 Viewer)


Registered User.
Local time
Today, 14:26
Nov 22, 2017
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.


Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 14:26
Mar 14, 2017
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:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom