SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!

The Jeremiah Project Report wrote:

Black Americans are in many ways the most religious people in America. Some 82 percent of blacks (versus 67 percent of whites) are church members; 92 percent of blacks (versus 55 percent of whites) say that religion is "very important in their life;" and 86 percent of blacks (versus 60 percent of whites) believe that religion "can answer all or most of today's problems."

"although African-American youth age 10 to 17 constitute 15% of their age group in the U.S. population, they account for 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46% of juveniles in corrections institutions, and 52% of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings." http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/overrepresentation.htm (This article used statistics from: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_1/contents.html)

Note that student crime dropped significantly from 1992 to 2004 (reported crimes down from 3.4 million to 1.4 million at school, crime rate down from 144 to 55 per thousand at school, 138 to 48 away from school):
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/table_02_1.asp?referrer=report

It would seem that less religion is better for kids.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

The Jeremiah Project Report wrote:
Black Americans are in many ways the most religious people in America. Some 82 percent of blacks (versus 67 percent of whites) are church members; 92 percent of blacks (versus 55 percent of whites) say that religion is "very important in their life;" and 86 percent of blacks (versus 60 percent of whites) believe that religion "can answer all or most of today's problems."

"although African-American youth age 10 to 17 constitute 15% of their age group in the U.S. population, they account for 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46% of juveniles in corrections institutions, and 52% of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings." http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/overrepresentation.htm (This article used statistics from: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_1/contents.html)

Note that student crime dropped significantly from 1992 to 2004 (reported crimes down from 3.4 million to 1.4 million at school, crime rate down from 144 to 55 per thousand at school, 138 to 48 away from school):
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/table_02_1.asp?referrer=report

It would seem that less religion is better for kids.

A voice of sanity and reason.

0 Replies

It is certainly something to think about. I wonder how many church going black kids get into trouble? Or is there evidence that black kids who get into trouble and then get back into church get away from the truancy, delinquency, etc. more than those who don't?

These are the things we need to know before we can decide that going to church is a bad influence on kids.

0 Replies

I don't think that church going does really some bad re the various points your (your quote) noted.

But I really can't imagine that and why it should have a significant part of doing good re truancy, delinquency, etc.

Might really be that - if we were a nation of church-goers - it would be better. At least, it would be a lot cheaper, just staying 3/4 of an hour in a mass, service and becoming thus a good person.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, I don't think that going to church is necessarily a bad influence on kids, unless the Church teaches them that they are inherently sinful and unworthy, demands that they believe illogical tenets and reject scientific evidence that conflicts with Biblical myths, makes promises it can't keep (God will protect them and answer prayers), or fosters intolerance.

Teenagers tend to live in the present and discount future consequences, so the promise of paradise/punishment after they die is so unimaginably remote to them that it probably has little effect on their behavior. Do you suppose God could be persuaded to provide immediate positive/negative reinforcement for these kids?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Foxfyre, I don't think that going to church is necessarily a bad influence on kids, unless the Church teaches them that they are inherently sinful and unworthy, demands that they believe illogical tenets and reject scientific evidence that conflicts with Biblical myths, makes promises it can't keep (God will protect them and answer prayers), or fosters intolerance.

Teenagers tend to live in the present and discount future consequences, so the promise of paradise/punishment after they die is so unimaginably remote to them that it probably has little effect on their behavior. Do you suppose God could be persuaded to provide immediate positive/negative reinforcement for these kids?

Well we could turn this into a long and, in this context, probably unproductive debate on what God does and does not do for kids, but that really isn't the point the Jeremiah Project was making.

They have looked at a large pile of studies and data and have come to a conclusion that overall--as in all studies there are always exceptions and nothing is absolute, but overall--church going appears to have a significant impact that reduces truancy, delinquency, criminality, and recidivism among juveniles. In other words kids going to church break the rules and get into trouble less than those who don't and/or those who have gotten into trouble are less likely to be repeat offenders if they are attending church.

Again--I think this is the third or fourth time I've said this--the Jeremiah Project did not put any importance on the "brand" of religion offered by the churches nor did they specify that any particular theology was important or that the religion had to be Christian.

I'm sure those who don't believe or don't want to believe that religion is a positive influence take comfort in presenting anecdotal evidence to the contrary and/or changing the subject, but I personally found the Jeremiah Project's thesis to be fascinating.

Your question is one I would really enjoy discussing in another thread.

0 Replies

From Foxfyre's source:

Quote:

[...] single-item measures like church attendance remain a frequently used measure within the literature

And indeed, that's in the title of this thread, too.

I'm waiting for an answer of leading childhood/youth researchers here in Germany (I've worked in one of his research groups re iunevile deliquence ages back), Hurrelmann, about how the relevant situation might be here.

... after I've done some own researches in various databases and the university library, that is.

0 Replies

Got an answer meanwhily by one of the assistent professors at that chair: they don't have nothing more ad hoc as I already found out myself.

Generally spoken:
- I found no studies at all about churchgoing and delinquence etc
This might be reasoned in
a) Germany is not a country famous for chucrh going,
aa) Catholic "have to go" according to Church Law,
bb) (most) Protestants/Evangelicals are "notorious" non-churchgoers
cc) the number of persons attending Muslim or Jewish services is totally unknown.
b) studies only focus on 'religion' as believing in God.

Summarising: those studies I found - all done within the last 15 years, last published 2005/6 - were done with various groups of youth (and not children).
It seems - according to these studies - that traditional values develop an idealistic lifestyle, which later reduces violence.
Same is with any differently acquired orientation on norms.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

I am pleased to hear this. I still give credit to the people, not the insitution. You and your daughter are fortunate then to have a caring faculty. I do share a curiosity with ebrown_p in wondering how much REAL independant thought is being allowed.

For instance, would your daughter be able to question teachings? If she needed to understand "how" and "why" beyond "what," what responce would she get?

If a classmate identified themselves as Gay, what would the responce be by the faculty? How would they model their behaivor? How od you want them to react?

If a classmate was to become pregnant...etc.

I went to public school, and all of my worst senarios have happened there, so I don't mean to suggest that ONLY relgious schools restrict independant thought. The difference is the institution being private versus public. In the public arena you have a better platform to fight/think for yourself.

You bring up some interesting questions and I am not sure how to answer 100%. It is an elementary school so these types of questions and pregnancy sort of issue are unlikely to occur. Although this particular school does not believe it is o-k to be gay (not my personal opinion), they do believe you should not judge others. They wouldn't support the gay actions, but would support the person in other words.

If this would happen to my child, I would take her out of the school as it wouldn't be appropriate for her. Not that they would be mean to her, just not supportive of her decision.

I have heard one parent refer to this school as "Baptist Light". Meaning they are not so Conservative or uptight as many. You really need to look around - not all Christians are so closed minded.

I have attended Christian Churches, however, that are supportive of the gay lifestyle and even have attended services lead by a lesbian minister. So there is some openness out there.

If I've lead you to think that I believe Christians are inherently close minded or cruel, I apologize. Christians are no more of the above as any other group including secular groups. I went to a church as a child, and even though I don't believe in the church's teachings anymore, I still thin that it was a positive part of my development. Emphasis on "PART" though. I credit my family and other positive infuences such as my teachers to my holistic development.

I'm writing "baptist light" in my journal. This is a totally new term for me. I think of light beer, and chuckle.

I think your assesment of your child's school and their predicted actions as well as your own are honest. Your responce in particular I think is the most child centric and suportive.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

"If I've lead you to think that I believe Christians are inherently close minded or cruel, I apologize. Christians are no more of the above as any other group including secular groups. I went to a church as a child, and even though I don't believe in the church's teachings anymore, I still thin that it was a positive part of my development. Emphasis on "PART" though. I credit my family and other positive infuences such as my teachers to my holistic development.

I'm writing "baptist light" in my journal. This is a totally new term for me. I think of light beer, and chuckle.

I think your assesment of your child's school and their predicted actions as well as your own are honest. Your responce in particular I think is the most child centric and suportive."[/quote]

I loved that quote too when I first heard it - "baptist light". And agree completely with your thinking - both that no matter what you believe - Christian or otherwise - there are both closed minded and open minded. And that part of your development - you need close family support and understanding along with other outside influences.

I do not agree 100% with the church associated with my child's school, however, one thing I really like is that the minister once stated that the most important part of the religion is the belief in Christ and all the other stuff - like women can/can't be a religious leader; gay/lesbian issues, etc. are different interpretations of the Bible. So even though he is very Conservative, he is still open minded.

0 Replies

At the end of the 80's/beginning of the 90's here in Germany, we prepared a project of "new methods of prevention", which finally started in 1992 under the leadership of the city of Nuremberg's youth and health departments as a federal model-project.
[In the collection of papers/reports from the opening congress is a full page photo showing me (and a smaller one on the cover page) Embarrassed

]

Projects developed then are still running successfully, although funding was stopped in 1995.

However, we were only more or less copying what had been done successfully already before in the USA, like by the various programs promoted by the Aspen Education Group (one of my certificates actually is according to their program).

So, I'm certainly biased because I think this to be a better idea than just going to church - and I developped quite a few outdoor programs together with collegues from church youth organisations.

0 Replies

But why does the debate have to be cast into an "either or" thesis? Nothing in the Jeremiah Project says that it is the ONLY effective means of helping kids stay out of trouble. It only says that it appears to be effective.

Does anybody think only one method should be the approved one and all others cast aside?

0 Replies

I don't know it has to be so.
At least not in my opinion and to my experiences.

I just think (like even most church professionals - the above mentioned seminar was co-organised by the Evangelical Church of Bavaria) that a focus on personal activities BY the youth THEMSELVES is better than just listening, singing and perhaps praying.

No doubt, as said above, that such works as well.
But only with very few it seems.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But why does the debate have to be cast into an "either or" thesis? Nothing in the Jeremiah Project says that it is the ONLY effective means of helping kids stay out of trouble. It only says that it appears to be effective.

Does anybody think only one method should be the approved one and all others cast aside?

That's rich. You are the one who wrote, in your initial post:

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.

Even your source, the conclusions of which are highly questionable, does not jump to any conclusion about religion in schools. It seems that you only approve of methods which entail your imaginary friend, and that all others ought to be cast aside.

0 Replies

Inn a 2005 study published in the Journal of Religion & Society "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" independent scholar Gregory S. Paul found an inverse correlation between religiosity (measured by belief in god, biblical literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance) and societal health (measured by rates of homicide, childhood mortality, life expectancy, sexually transmitted diseases and teen abortions and pregnancies) in 18 developed democracies. "In general, higher rates of belief in a worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. Paul found Indeed the US scores the highest in religiosity and the highest (by far) in homicides, STD's, abortions and teen pregnancies.

According to Harvard University professor Pippa Norris and University of Michigan professor Ronald Inglehart in their book Sacred and Secular. In the 2000 US presidental election "religion was by far the strongest predictor of who voted for Bush and who voted for Gore--dwarfing the explanatory power of social class, occupation, or region."

0 Replies

Good one Dys.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

aperson wrote:
reply to original post:
Foxfyre, even though I am not Christian, I agree with you entirely. Children don't get enough moral education. In fact, it doesn't have to be Christianity, they just need to learn basic values. Believe it or not, some atheists have values as well!

Aperson,

You are making a logical mistake. We all believe that chidren should be taught values. The point is that in a secular diverse society, these values should be taught without religous baggage.

There is a difference between "moral education", teaching the basic values that are generally accepted in society (i.e. service and respect) and indoctrination, teaching one set of rules from from a particular part of society (i.e. homosexuality is a sin).

Religion is very good at indoctrinating kids. If you only want to give them a basic "moral education' religion is completely unecessary.

ebrown,
the other day I heard a sermon (from the chaplain which you may have heard me talk about before) which very nearly converted me. He said that people should stop arguing over the small things, but remember the teachings of Jesus which are as clear as day. Love, kindness etc. If I want I can believe these parts of Christianity, and be undecided about others. You don't have to take Christianity as a whole package.

And if you believe that homosexuality is ok then teach your kids that! Not all churches interperet the Bible the same way! In fact, you are bound to find one which almost perfectly matches your views on hmomsexuality and other disputed matters.

Thanks Foxfyre.

PS Yes, it's a little bit weird: I'm an atheist and I go to church, but don't worry about that for the moment.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
aperson wrote:
reply to original post:
Foxfyre, even though I am not Christian, I agree with you entirely. Children don't get enough moral education. In fact, it doesn't have to be Christianity, they just need to learn basic values. Believe it or not, some atheists have values as well!

Aperson,

You are making a logical mistake. We all believe that chidren should be taught values. The point is that in a secular diverse society, these values should be taught without religous baggage.

There is a difference between "moral education", teaching the basic values that are generally accepted in society (i.e. service and respect) and indoctrination, teaching one set of rules from from a particular part of society (i.e. homosexuality is a sin).

Religion is very good at indoctrinating kids. If you only want to give them a basic "moral education' religion is completely unecessary.

ebrown,
the other day I heard a sermon (from the chaplain which you may have heard me talk about before) which very nearly converted me. He said that people should stop arguing over the small things, but remember the teachings of Jesus which are as clear as day. Love, kindness etc. If I want I can believe these parts of Christianity, and be undecided about others. You don't have to take Christianity as a whole package.

And if you believe that homosexuality is ok then teach your kids that! Not all churches interperet the Bible the same way! In fact, you are bound to find one which almost perfectly matches your views on hmomsexuality and other disputed matters.

Thanks Foxfyre.

PS Yes, it's a little bit weird: I'm an atheist and I go to church, but don't worry about that for the moment.

You're welcome. And I'm not worried in the least. If it was only the 'converted' attending church there wouldn't be anybody to convert. And if Church was designed only for non sinners, none of us could go. Smile

I am one who doesn't much advocate all the silly additions, absolutes. rules, thou shalts and thou shalt nots that are built into so many Christian sects these days. When somebody who is on the fence or a skeptic or agnostic or Atheist asks me what I believe, I try to have a copy of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity to give them. It's one of the best discussions I've seen that breaks Christianity down into its simplest components in a reader friendly format. And Lewis may be even a bit more doctrinal than I am.

When the Jeremiah Project talks about Church attendance, they seem to be pretty careful not to attach any dogma or theological strings to that nor specificy that it has to be some particular form of religiosity that is experienced. I think they did a good job of emphasizing that it isn't how religious somebody is or isn't but rather the activity of church attendance and being exposed to religiosity that seems to make a difference.

I also don't think they are using 'religiosity' as a synonym for 'religion'.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think they did a good job of emphasizing that it isn't how religious somebody is or isn't but rather the activity of church attendance and being exposed to religiosity that seems to make a difference.

Exactly that's what I don't understand at all.

If we don't speak about 'wondes' that might happen in 45 mins to an hour when someone attends a chucrch service that is.

Most here suspect - that may be partly at least very correct - that church goers just show their religiosity in public - but mustn't necessarily have some.

I just doubt that it can be a measurement about how "good" or "bad" people are or will develop.

I believe - and that's what several works found out - that reliosity indeed may back morality and give some straightforwardness in morality etc.

That surely may be backed by very religious with going to churches services regularily - but that alone? You can listen to an organ and a choir in a concert hall as well and meditate afterwards.

0 Replies

You can do all those things and perhaps someday somebody will do studies and somebody else will evaluate them for their benefit on human social behavior.

The Jeremiah Project was interested on the net effect of church attendance and exposure to religiosity on human social behavior and that is all they were dealing with. They conclude that it produces a measurable positive benefit in reducing truancy, delinquency, criminality, and recidivism.

If they had been evaluating the effect of eating bread or drinking cokes, they would not have seen the same results as it is a pretty good bet that people demonstrating more positive social behavior and more negative social behavior all consume bread and cokes in more or less equal proportions overall.

0 Replies

SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know