Does religion cause or prevent crime?

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 18:45
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
8,164
I just read a post by Doc where he referred to the "armour of God". I thought that was such a wonderful turn of phrase. He states you shouldn't walk through a bad neighbourhood and rely on that armour. Then I was thinking that bad neighbourhoods are poor neighbourhoods, that poverty and religion often go together, i.e. the more poor you are, the more likely you are to be religious. Poor areas have high crime. So that led to the question in this thread. Does one lead to the other, i.e. casual. Or are they just correlated. What about Islamist terrorism? Or other wars and violence due to religion?

Does religion cause crime or does it prevent crime through its teachings?
 
Last edited:
First, just to clear the air, I used that phrase in response to a wall of text by Adam (neuroman9999), who used a longer variant of that concept buried in his text wall. Didn't originate with me.

According to Ambrose Bierce, noted USA journalist and satirist, taken from his work The Devil's Unabridged Dictionary:

Religion, n, the daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable

Faith, n, belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Religion has been called "the opiate of the masses" because it gives hope of a better afterlife to those who have no hope of their current existence ever getting better. In the sense that it can be a spiritual placebo for those whose lives are not happy, it can reduce their desire to create or indulge in various types of anarchy. To the extent that it offers some comfort to the masses to quiet them, religion will prevent crimes of violence.

Sadly, it has less effect on theft, robbery, burglary, and similar "deprivation of property" crimes because religion won't help most of the drug victims of the world. Their craving will consume all of their money and more than all of it, leading to desperation to obtain money to get the next "fix" - and by the time the person gets there, religion won't help. Their personal inner demons have already taken over inside them, far closer than any distant and aloof father figure.

The bigger problem comes in when religion starts down the "exclusion" road and names groups that are anathema to the current tenets of the religion. Hate crimes abound that were based on religious rhetoric.

For one egregious example, the way that Matthew Shepard was killed was brought on by religious anti-gay rhetoric. The murders of Drs. George Tiller and and David Gunn and at least nine others in the past two decades were caused by them being abortion providers. That was also indirectly brought on by anti-abortion rhetoric. We don't even need to discuss the atrocities in Kosovo in an "ethnic cleansing" brought about by religious differences but a lot of fatal assaults, arson, maiming, and other criminal atrocities can be laid at the feet of religion.

When religion introduces a "them vs. us" mentality, it invites conflict. The Wahabbi sect of Islam is not at all tolerant of the other sects and thus engages in bombings of other Muslims as well as their non-Muslim targets. The Branch Davidian cult and their "us vs. them" viewpoint led to the Waco tragedy. The Rev. Jim Jones down in Guyana used religion to induce people to drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.

I cannot say with any honesty that I feel religion is a force of good in the world. It induces people to believe in impossibilities when a hard dose of reality is what is really needed to have folks focus on what they must do to survive in the world that we have now. And that is to look within themselves for self-improvement, self-reliance, and self-motivation.
 
Could religion be viewed in the same way you can view a knife? It can help you dice your onion, but it can also be used to kill. You cannot blame the knife itself, only the person who wields it in the way of their choosing?
 
Perhaps in a limited sense, but remember that the person also chooses his own religion just as the chef selects his blade. After all, we have a bunch of basic religions for which we have considerably MORE than a bunch of variations (a.k.a. "denominations" or "sects").

You are correct that not all blame falls to religion. The weaker-minded members of any group (religious or otherwise, consider Antifa as an example) can do terrible things that should not be allowed. However, if religion implicitly starts the divisiveness, human nature will take over to follow that evolutionary imperative, "the ascendancy of me and mine over thee and thine." We are competitive creatures on the best days of our lives and we are positively bloodthirsty on our bad days. To the extent that religion CAN help us to control that tendency, it is a good thing. It is when it tacitly or explicitly promotes the difference as a cause for some action that we have a problem.
 
Does the person choose their own religion? In Pakistan, 98% are Muslim. So I think there is an argument that the religion chooses them, based on location. Same for the US, mostly Christian.

Also, the chef selects his blade. But it is what he intends to do with that blade is the issue, not so much which knife, since most knifes can kill. Same for religion.
 
In the USA, it is not totally unheard of for a person to convert to a different religion. In fact, when the American colonies were founded, it was because people "voted with their feet" to escape religious persecution caused by exclusionary practices among UK religions at the time. The Anglican religion was pretty strict about such things. One would hope it has mellowed by now, but I must admit to not caring enough to follow up on that idea. The point is, people can and do change religions, sects, denominations, ... you name it.
 
Except in Pakistan where apostasy has the death penalty.
 
That is the fault of the Pakistani people for accepting such atrocities.

They've made their bed. Now they have to lie in it.
 
Could religion be viewed in the same way you can view a knife? It can help you dice your onion, but it can also be used to kill. You cannot blame the knife itself, only the person who wields it in the way of their choosing?
My whole life is tied up in helping people in the name of God (not religion) big difference. If somebody doesn't accept what I preach, that's their choice, and it's ok with me. Many have been helped, that's their choice, again. I am in Jackson, MS at this time and have helped many here. To address the wealth/poverty question. Wealth is a relative thing. Next to Bill G. I am poor. Next to foreign places I have preached I am wealthy. I am satisfied with what I have.
 
To address the wealth/poverty question. Wealth is a relative thing. Next to Bill G. I am poor. Next to foreign places I have preached I am wealthy. I am satisfied with what I have.

Interesting comment there. There is research that shows that the influence of money on happiness is more about your relative wealth rather than absolute. So if you are poor and your neighbour is very poor, you are relatively happy (however sick that sounds!!). By adopting your way of thinking, you can ignore the boundaries of your own country or neighbourhood and look around the world. That comparison may indeed make you more happy, despite poverty.
 
Interesting comment there. There is research that shows that the influence of money on happiness is more about your relative wealth rather than absolute. So if you are poor and your neighbour is very poor, you are relatively happy (however sick that sounds!!). By adopting your way of thinking, you can ignore the boundaries of your own country or neighbourhood and look around the world. That comparison may indeed make you more happy, despite poverty.
The richest person in the world is a five years old on a 25 cent allowance that somebody gives him a 10 dollar bill. In his world it will last a lifetime. In my world it's a meal tip.
 
Very good perspective, Dick7Access.

But then, I knew you were level-headed when I met you.
 

Does religion cause or prevent crime?​

It really depends on the religion, and there are a lot of religions out there, and each religion owned by a "God". I would like to share my thoughts, I grew up in Egypt a majority Muslim country, and I understand and speak the native Quran language much better than many Muslims in Asia and even Africa who do not speak Arabic, this religion has commands like any other religion, the commander (God) name is "Allah", he commands his people while they are weak or poor to love and peace but he also commands Muslims while they are strong and rich to kill anyone who is not Muslim, not only that but also to kill Muslims who do not have the same beliefs, and there are many different Islamic beliefs out there in Iran, Iraq, etc.
For that I would say religion cause crime.
comparing to other religions;
Jewish commands are very clear, love God "Yahweh", love your brother, other good commands and DO NOT kill.
Christianity which belongs to "Yahweh" in flesh as "Jesus Christ" exercise full love and showing it by his redemption on the cross to save who believes in him from eternal destruction and he commanded to love all, even the enemy.
I don't think these two religions would cause any harm, if believers understood it correctly.
 
Thank you for your perspective, Sameh101. Sometimes some of us have to guess at religious attitudes because we don't know that many people of a given religion, perhaps because our home area is demographically unbalanced towards a particular group. I live in southern Louisiana where the prevailing religions are Catholic and several Protestant denominations. Other religions are not that extensive here, so our opportunities to meet and interact with some religions are limited.
 
You are welcome, Mr. The_Doc_Man, in the USA they do not like to talk about religions in general, freedom of religion as per the constitution, and that impaired their knowledge of knowing THE creator, if they want to believe that there is a creator. I will respect any belief even if that person would worship a stone as long as he would not hit me with it.
 
Interesting comment there. There is research that shows that the influence of money on happiness is more about your relative wealth rather than absolute. So if you are poor and your neighbour is very poor, you are relatively happy (however sick that sounds!!). By adopting your way of thinking, you can ignore the boundaries of your own country or neighbourhood and look around the world. That comparison may indeed make you more happy, despite poverty.
Just recently finished a study of the Positive Psychology portion of the Psychology field. Many researchers agree that money does lead to happiness, but only up to the point where basic needs are met. After that point, it levels of and has virtually no effect. So in the US, money led to increased happiness up to somewhere between 40,000 and 70,000 $$. After that money was a moot point.

While I totally agree that religions have been used to 'promote' all kinds and sorts of awful things, I do think sometimes the events that people pick to demonstrate their assertion are a bit misguided. For example, religion is often cited as synonymous with hatred and distrust, and the Salem Witch Trials & Spanish Inquisition are the oft-cited "proofs" of this.

Decide for yourself how much sense that makes:

1. # of people died from Salem Witch Trials: 25
2. # of people died from Spanish Inquisition: Somewhere in the 10's of thousands. (It would appear widespread disagreement exists here).

Now let's change gears and mention notable historical figures on the SECULAR side...that is, groups that were explicitly and adamantly anti-God.

1. # of people killed by Stalin: 20 million
2. # of people killed by Lenin: 3-4 million
3. # of people killed by Holocaust period: 6 million + many uncounted non-Jew deaths

Finally, any time you are measuring net harm done, it only makes sense to take into account net benefits, too.
How often is religion a driving force behind benevolence? Reasonable people can disagree on the answer to that, (of course), but it's certainly not nothing, or anywhere close to it.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with many previous commenters. Just throwing this in.
 

Does religion cause or prevent crime?​

It really depends on the religion, and there are a lot of religions out there, and each religion owned by a "God". I would like to share my thoughts, I grew up in Egypt a majority Muslim country, and I understand and speak the native Quran language much better than many Muslims in Asia and even Africa who do not speak Arabic, this religion has commands like any other religion, the commander (God) name is "Allah", he commands his people while they are weak or poor to love and peace but he also commands Muslims while they are strong and rich to kill anyone who is not Muslim, not only that but also to kill Muslims who do not have the same beliefs, and there are many different Islamic beliefs out there in Iran, Iraq, etc.
For that I would say religion cause crime.
comparing to other religions;
Jewish commands are very clear, love God "Yahweh", love your brother, other good commands and DO NOT kill.
Christianity which belongs to "Yahweh" in flesh as "Jesus Christ" exercise full love and showing it by his redemption on the cross to save who believes in him from eternal destruction and he commanded to love all, even the enemy.
I don't think these two religions would cause any harm, if believers understood it correctly.
Great summary, thanks for contributing.
Reminds me how utterly absurd it is for our society to have grown so politically correct that we are sometimes afraid to state the obvious, and rather are encouraged to pretend it doesn't exist. DJT is not wrong in this. His push to limit the migration-based influence of Islam in our society is well warranted, and very rational. Frankly, I don't ever want the makeup of our nation to look like London. Religious tolerance is definitely the ideal, yes, but there are exceptions to every rule. Some religions have well earned their reputation as "violent". Progressives try to make us feel bad for stating the obvious, but somebody has to.
 
@Isaac: Just to be complete in your post #18, throw in the Kosovo atrocities, which were religious and ethnic cleansing examples. And throw in the Crusades, which were religiously based attempts to recapture the Holy Land. Let's not forget that the Darfur tragedies involved religious differences as a component of the greater atrocities happening there.

And one other minor correction: The WWII Holocaust was NOT AT ALL by a group that was anti-God. The soldiers all wore belt buckles stamped with "Gott mitt uns" - "God with us." Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic. Go figure.
 
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.
 
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

Back
Top Bottom