Does religion cause or prevent crime?

[harpygaggle]

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]

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.

 

[Isaac]

Church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners

This is such an important statement I am simply having it repeated here! Thanks Dick

 

[Jon]

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]

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]

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]

Here is an example of religion causing a crime:

Julie Burchill's book contract cancelled after 'Islamophobic' row

Julie Birchill's book, Welcome to the Woke Trials: How #Identity killed progressive politics, was due to be released in March but has now been dropped by publisher Little, Brown.

www.dailymail.co.uk

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]

Here is an example of religion causing a crime:

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Isaac]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.

They should meet in Andorra which is co-govrrned by both countries and all would be well...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is perhaps a matter of degree rather than kind, but a man who is really drunk cannot perform because his blood pressure will be too low to support an erection. As a matter of fact, I was a juror on a trial where that exact topic came up and was relevant to the difference between charging a guy with ra** and charging him with attempted ra**. (The difference in Louisiana law is whether penetration actually occurred.) Intent leads to the attempt; sobriety permits the act itself.

 

[Jon]

and was relevant to the difference between charging a guy with ra** and charging him with attempted ra**.

So he would still have been charged with attempted ra** if he was really drunk? It seems that amounts to the same thing, that the man's brain is able to consent but the woman's can't.