Two problems arise here. The first is the source, which is a conservative think tank, which did little original research upon which to base the claims made, but rather reviewed other research with a view to underpinning positions already maintained by the think tank.
The second, and more significant problem with regard to this "discussion" is what Fox does with an already dubious source: If the rather impressive findings are correct, not only is a religious faith and church attendance important for a more peaceful and orderly society, but we should definitely rethink what it may be doing to our kids when we send signals that God or religion is inappropriate in the schools.
In the first place, Fox attempts to implant the notion that this "study" had "rather impressive findings." If one wishes to be impressed, one is of course free to do so--but there is nothing in the body of the linked summary to suggest that the finding of a slim and questionable correlation between church attendance and "deliquency" and recidivism are impressive. Furthermore, what defines the deliquency alleged (the summary constantly refers to "deviance," and many of the terms used are placed in quote marks, just as i have done, and i have done so because of the questionable and unreferenced nature of the terms)? One can easily manipulate the impression of the significance of the putative results of sociological studies through the manipulation of definitions. Furthermore, the reliance upon outcomes as opposed to activities can be telling--was a "deviant" child made a probationer of his or her parents on the appeal of a congregation's minister, rather than incarcerated, an option which would not be available to the "unchurched?"
Finally, however, note just what a "giant step" Fox has taken beyond the study in asserting that it is possibly evidence that god and religion would be appropriate subjects for public schools. First, she has an inferential allegation which is unsubstantiated to the effect that society willfully sends a signal that god or religion are inappropriate. The manner in which her sentence is constructed is unclear. Does she mean that public schools signal that god and religion are inappropriate? Or does she mean that children are signaled that god and religion are inappropriate in the context of public schools. If the latter, she is, of course and obviously, railing against the separation clause of the first amendment--a favorite stalking horse of conservatives.
But in either case, she extends the conclusions (and in the summary, already dubiously presented) of the authors to suggest that these results suggest the need for god and religion in schools--a conclusion not even hinted at the already tendentious bias of the descriptive language of the report.
The summary itself is the language of propaganda, and relies for the "rather impressive" character of its allegations upon undefined terms. Fox takes this a step further to attempt to let the preacher into the back door of the school based on this questionable work which does not itself mention "god and religion" as putatively "inappropriate in the schools."
Correlation isn't causality.
It might be equally noted that families that spend every weekend (including sundays) fishing have children with lower crime rates/lower drop-out rates/lower drug usage/better school attendance.
You are jumping way ahead thre Dys.
I am still dubious about whether there is even correlation here. It seems like the states in the Bible belt have pretty high incarceration rates (compared to those of us in the Secular humanist Northeast).
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So what do you think?
I have two thoughts about it. (1) I'm not sure that your premise, `more religion leads to less crime', is true. (2) Even if it
was true, I still don't think schools should advocate for or against religion.
(1) To persuade me that more religion does indeed mean less crime, it takes more than a conservative think tank study affirming the conservative think tank's mission. By searching Google Scholar for "religion crime", I tried to get a sense of where peer-reviewed scientific literature comes down on the subject. Judging by the abstracts from the first page of hits, sociologists and criminologists seem about equally divided between two conclusions: Some find a very weak negative correlation between religion and crime, but don't say which way causation goes. Others find that even the correlation goes away if you control for other, secular factors. That's very weak evidence to base social policy on. (Shocked as I am to say it, I agree with Setanta here.)
(2) In my opinion, schools exist to teach the truth, as best they know it. On the other hand, there is no reason to think the key points of the Bible are true. Rather, the existence of the Abrahamic god, and of a Moses who received commandments from him on Mount Sinai, and of a Jesus who is the god's son, who resurrected the dead and died for us on a cross -- they are all just pretty stories without any good evidence to support them. I don't want teachers to teach myths to my child and tell them they're true -- even if the government finds it useful for my child to believe those myths.
The good stuff that's in the Bible -- concepts like the Golden Rule, "love thy neighbor", and grace -- can all be taught as win-win strategies for reasonable humans. To persuade, they need no reference to any particular religion. It's the darker corners of Christianity (and other religions) that need faith to protect them against rational scrutiny. With this in mind, I have no problem with ethics classes in schools where teachers teach the golden rule, conflict resolution, and things like this. Current constitutional law has no problem with it either. But I don't see the value of adding religion to the mix.
I took the writer's premise to be that church attendance/religiosity has a positive effect on behavior and a negative effect on truancy, crime, deliquency, etc.
I didn't take the premise to be that any particular component of religious teaching/theology was the issue but rather the activity of church going and participation in a church itself.
It doesn't matter whether the "think tank" is conservative or liberal or Martian to discuss whether there is any basis to the premise. A good idea or an accurate observation is good and/or accurate no matter who puts it out there.
Nor does the fact that there are other factors that contribute to constructive behavior and appear to be a factor on reduced delinquency, truancy, crime, etc. have any bearing on whether church attendance/religion promotes constructive behavior and/or reduces delinquency, crime, truancy, etc.
A new study shows that adoptive parents are better parents, including that they more often take their children to church:
Quote:The researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria - including helping with homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural activities and family attendance at religious services. The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.
So if going to church means a better life for kids and if adoptive parents are more likely to take their kids to church then everyone should have to switch kids.
Right?
boomerang wrote:A new study shows that adoptive parents are better parents, including that they more often take their children to church:
Quote:The researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria - including helping with homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural activities and family attendance at religious services. The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.
So if going to church means a better life for kids and if adoptive parents are more likely to take their kids to church then everyone should have to switch kids.
Right?
Only if I get to choose which kids.
dyslexia wrote:Correlation isn't causality.
Breathing is inseparably linked to death. Every human being who has ever died first spent many, many years breathing.
Parents who truly love their children will clamp their nostrils and tape their mouths shut.
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Foxfyre wrote:It doesn't matter whether the "think tank" is conservative or liberal or Martian to discuss whether there is any basis to the premise. A good idea or an accurate observation is good and/or accurate no matter who puts it out there.
now there's a keeper
ebrown_p wrote:You are jumping way ahead thre Dys.
I am still dubious about whether there is even correlation here. It seems like the states in the Bible belt have pretty high incarceration rates (compared to those of us in the Secular humanist Northeast).
that's because the good christians of the bible belt can lay hands on more negroes than the secular Northeast.
Them Negroes, they's pretty dedicated church-goers--wonder how come so many of them have permanent reservations at the Gray Bar Motel?
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Foxfyre wrote:It doesn't matter whether the "think tank" is conservative or liberal or Martian to discuss whether there is any basis to the premise. A good idea or an accurate observation is good and/or accurate no matter who puts it out there.
Sure. But you haven't established that the ideas and observations in this article are accurate. You have assumed that they are -- an assumption I'm not willing to make, given that think tanks exist for advocacy, not disinterested research.
Foxfyre wrote:Nor does the fact that there are other factors that contribute to constructive behavior and appear to be a factor on reduced delinquency, truancy, crime, etc. have any bearing on whether church attendance/religion promotes constructive behavior and/or reduces delinquency, crime, truancy, etc.
If this is true, you might as well have said: "Save our kids, send them to a Buddhist temple!" Or (see Boomerang's post): "Save our kids, give them up for adoption!" But that was not your thesis. Your thesis was "save our kids, send them to church!" You specifically singled out one particular, sectarian measure that you contend would "save our kids".
Foxfyre wrote: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
The church lady syndrom strikes again! Phew!
It's just another ploy to cram religion down the throats of the unwilling.
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote:It doesn't matter whether the "think tank" is conservative or liberal or Martian to discuss whether there is any basis to the premise. A good idea or an accurate observation is good and/or accurate no matter who puts it out there.
Sure. But you haven't established that the ideas and observations in this article are accurate. You have assumed that they are -- an assumption I'm not willing to make, given that think tanks exist for advocacy, not disinterested research.
Nonsense. An idea is an idea and a discussion is a discussion. The article makes a case for the thesis and explains why it draws that conclusion as well as cite various studies that contributed to that conclusion. But you or others seem more interested in ripping something or somebody to shreds rather than discuss the idea put forth. Why is that do you think?
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:Nor does the fact that there are other factors that contribute to constructive behavior and appear to be a factor on reduced delinquency, truancy, crime, etc. have any bearing on whether church attendance/religion promotes constructive behavior and/or reduces delinquency, crime, truancy, etc.
If this is true, you might as well have said: "Save our kids, send them to a Buddhist temple!" Or (see Boomerang's post): "Save our kids, give them up for adoption!" But that was not your thesis. Your thesis was "save our kids, send them to church!" You specifically singled out one particular, sectarian measure that you contend would "save our kids
The thesis was that there is evidence that church attendance/religiosity contributes measurably to reduced truancy, delinquency, criminality, recidivism, etc. particularly among the kids. The thread title was a summary of that. Nothing more. It's what the article was about.
If the subject is not of interest to you, you of course have as much right as anybody else to skip over the thread and not post in it.
Of course I find it really interesting that so many seem to want the thesis to not be true and are finding all sorts of ways to denigrate it rather than present any evidence of their own to dispute it. I wonder why the concept seems to bother so many people?
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Foxfyre wrote: If the subject is not of interest to you, you of course have as much right as anybody else to skip over the thread and not post in it.
The subject is of interest to me. That's why I was so disappointed that your exposition of the issue would rely on advocacy groups, as opposed to disinterested social science.
Of course, you have as much right as anybody else to disappoint me.
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote: If the subject is not of interest to you, you of course have as much right as anybody else to skip over the thread and not post in it.
The subject is of interest to me. That's why I was so disappointed that your exposition of the issue would rely on advocacy groups, as opposed to disinterested social science.
Of course, you have as much right as anybody else to disappoint me.
What makes you think the article was from a group that advocates church going? I can't find ANYTHING on their website to suggest that. The reason I used it is it is the first (and only) source I've seen putting out a hypothesis that church attendance has a measurable positive influence on kids. I think, however, that isn't something your average leftwing group, which I presume would have been more acceptable to you, would likely publish even if they had the information.
And what is stopping you from posting your own disinterested social science sources? All I asked of anybody when I started the thread was "what do you think?"
Re: SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!
Foxfyre wrote:In 1998, the Manhattan Institute did perhaps the most exhaustive scientific study ever done on the effect of religion on America's youth with emphasis on delinquency, truancy, criminal recidivism, etc. The study entitled "The Jeremiah Project" seems to conclude that church attendance and/or practicing a religious faith is a significant factor in reducing anti social behavior and also in reducing poverty.
If the rather impressive findings are correct, not only is a religious faith and church attendance important for a more peaceful and orderly society, but we should definitely rethink what it may be doing to our kids when we send signals that God or religion is inappropriate in the schools.
Come on Foxfyre!
You started this thread with excessive hype over "the most exhaustive study" with "impressive findings". It turns out it is not even a study.
Then you you make a controversial unfounded claim that promotes a dubious social policy (pushing religion in schools) that many Americans find both offensive and dangerous.
What do you expect?
If you had refrained from misrepresenting the article... or from pushing your opinion on us so forcefully, you might have received more tempered responses.
Amen, ebrown. Hallelujah.
