0
   

SAVE OUR KIDS: GET THEM TO CHURCH!!!

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 09:28 am
aperson wrote:
Quote:
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.


(Foxfyre)
Maybe I didn't want to attend church for some or other reason, but had to. Maybe I just wanted to hear his sermon. Maybe I'm in the church choir. Maybe the reason is something else entirely.


That makes my point. Not all people attend church because they are religious or even believers. But that wasn't included in the thesis of the Jeremiah Project either. Their conclusion seems to be that just exposing kids to church and religiosity on a regular basis will have a positive effect on behavior. Their conclusions didn't include any comment on whether the kids had to be religious.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 09:38 am
Terry wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
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.


Jeremiah Project wrote:
Two years earlier, the cover of U.S. News & World Report asked "Can Churches Cure America's Social Ills?," and the story answered largely in the affirmative.

While such "faith factor" journalism is out ahead of the empirical research on religion and social action, it is hardly pure hype. As UCLA's James Q. Wilson has succinctly summarized the small but not insignificant body of credible evidence to date, "Religion, independent of social class, reduces deviance."

So who do we believe? Is religiosity a good thing for society, or detrimental?

And if churches can cure social ills, why haven't they? Perhaps they are just too busy fleecing their flocks, harassing heathens and molesting minors.


I am impressed by the time you took to analyze the statistical data utilized in the Jeremiah Project.

I don't think it is necessary to denigrate the churches in order to have a discussion on this, however. Why should the Atheists or anti-religion set care if kids go to church and that this activity produces lower levels of truancy, delinquency, criminal behavior? If true, what reasonable people would not acknowledge that as a good thing?

I have seen many studies produced by those hostile to religion that try to make the case that a belief in God produces more anti-social behavior. But I think they might be stretching it considering that more than 90% of Americans profess belief in some kind of deity. It would naturally follow that a good percentage of convicted criminals would also believe in some kind of deity.

As for curing social ills, that is not what any church I have ever attended has been about. At the same time, a few decades ago when the large majority of Americans were affiliated with a religious denomination and a majority of Americans did attend church at least on Easter and Christmas--perhaps this was more the case in small town America than in the big cities--there did seem to be far fewer social ills.

Maybe the Jeremiah Project will take on a study about that sometime in the future.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 09:57 am
"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."

If most Americans believe in God, America has higher rates of social ills than more secular countries, and (according to you) many convicted criminals probably also believe in God, then why would you think that belief in God was a good thing for society?

Do you have any statistics to back up your assertion that there were fewer social ills decades ago, or that it had any relation to church attendance? Crime rates and juvenile delinquency have been dropping, so what social ills do you think are increasing?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 10:14 am
One point to notice certainly is that the USA tend to imprison more people for acts which aren't imprisoned in a lot of other countries.

The other is that chucrh visits are declining, e.g. extremely in Europe. (Both, the Evangelical as well as the Catholic church have no departments for overlooking the selling/closure of churches!!!)

I don't doubt at all that relgion gives some moral guidelines.
I doubt that going to church (for a service/mass) is a major factor for that.

Churches here in Europe - but that's another topic and not related to crime etc prevention - are trying to stop these trends: at first and primarily by getting adults back to church life (not mass/service = not 'church going') and giving a lot of services where you really only notice 'church' in the distance and 'relgion' not at all (= it's not a topic).

When adults set an example, might be their children will join them.

(Social) Work with children is done traditionally by churches and due to the subsidiarity princip in our relevant laws: churches act instead of state organisations .... without any religious teaching.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 10:30 am
Terry wrote:
"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."

If most Americans believe in God, America has higher rates of social ills than more secular countries, and (according to you) many convicted criminals probably also believe in God, then why would you think that belief in God was a good thing for society?

Do you have any statistics to back up your assertion that there were fewer social ills decades ago, or that it had any relation to church attendance? Crime rates and juvenile delinquency have been dropping, so what social ills do you think are increasing?


Yes, but I have neither the time nor a compelling interest to hunt them up at this time. I am not the one who brought up the 'social ills' issue. You did. I was just responding to it.

It is obvious that you are making a case for religion being a negative factor. I disagree with that, at least where the most prevalent religions in America are concerned, and will expect any studies asserting that to be biased to the point the results are not credible. But again that is not the focus of my interest in this thread, nor do I want to see this thread become another religion-bashing thread.

Lets focus on whether church going and religiosity has a positive effect on juvenile behavior and the social implications for that.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 11:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, but I have neither the time nor a compelling interest to hunt them up at this time. I am not the one who brought up the 'social ills' issue. You did. I was just responding to it.

It is obvious that you are making a case for religion being a negative factor. I disagree with that, at least where the most prevalent religions in America are concerned, and will expect any studies asserting that to be biased to the point the results are not credible. But again that is not the focus of my interest in this thread, nor do I want to see this thread become another religion-bashing thread.

Lets focus on whether church going and religiosity has a positive effect on juvenile behavior and the social implications for that.

You start a thread claiming that sending kids to church will reduce delinquency with a link to the article from which I posted the quote about social ills, and then say that you are not the one who brought up the subject?????

Going to church may be good for some children (I suspect that those whose parents take them to church also do other things for them which have a positive effect), but the most religious group in the most religious country has the higherst juvenile delinqency rate. How do you account for that fact?

If you refuse to post any statistics to back up your position and insist that any contradictory studies are hopelessly biased, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 11:56 am
Terry wrote:
Going to church may be good for some children (I suspect that those whose parents take them to church also do other things for them which have a positive effect), but the most religious group in the most religious country has the higherst juvenile delinqency rate. How do you account for that fact?


I think very similar. And it's at least true for Germany.

Studies show that religion seems to give some moral strength [as said a couple of times, church going isn't seen as a main indicator for that here due to e.g. already mentioned reasons]. But the influence on those children/youth isn't only and/or primarily 'religion' but other factors have to looked at as well - like sports, other activities ... .

There's no doubt as well that such children are easier to persuade to do that. (And that isn't only my own personal experience but it is generally accepted.)
On the other hand, it not that easy to work with them because many are not open for other ideas then those 'legalised' by church. (That is, however, more based on experience and that mainly with Catholic children/youth. Evangelicals are a lot more modern and open here.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:21 pm
Terry wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, but I have neither the time nor a compelling interest to hunt them up at this time. I am not the one who brought up the 'social ills' issue. You did. I was just responding to it.

It is obvious that you are making a case for religion being a negative factor. I disagree with that, at least where the most prevalent religions in America are concerned, and will expect any studies asserting that to be biased to the point the results are not credible. But again that is not the focus of my interest in this thread, nor do I want to see this thread become another religion-bashing thread.

Lets focus on whether church going and religiosity has a positive effect on juvenile behavior and the social implications for that.

You start a thread claiming that sending kids to church will reduce delinquency with a link to the article from which I posted the quote about social ills, and then say that you are not the one who brought up the subject?????

Going to church may be good for some children (I suspect that those whose parents take them to church also do other things for them which have a positive effect), but the most religious group in the most religious country has the higherst juvenile delinqency rate. How do you account for that fact?

If you refuse to post any statistics to back up your position and insist that any contradictory studies are hopelessly biased, then there is no point continuing this discussion.


Terry I am not in the mood for a fight with anybody on this and I won't be drawn into one. I do request that you deal with what I actually said rather than what you want me to have said. Meanwhile I stand by my previous statements.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Linkat, Please show(tell) me how I'm "closed minded?"


To me the biggest two examples:
6. They will turn into homophobic bigots. POOF!
7. They'll end up believing only their religion is the "true" religion. POOF!.

You believe that being Christian = being a homophobic bigot. Many Christians completely support homosexual relationships in fact there are a gay and lesbian ministers.

Believing only their religion is the true religion - also not true for all Christians. Most ministers study various religious beliefs and are open minded to others thoughts. Many believe their point of view, just as you seem to believe your own point of view.

Your narrow imagine of Christians is what makes your statements closed minded.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Linkat, Please show(tell) me how I'm "closed minded?"


To me the biggest two examples:
6. They will turn into homophobic bigots. POOF!
7. They'll end up believing only their religion is the "true" religion. POOF!.

You believe that being Christian = being a homophobic bigot. Many Christians completely support homosexual relationships in fact there are a gay and lesbian ministers.

Believing only their religion is the true religion - also not true for all Christians. Most ministers study various religious beliefs and are open minded to others thoughts. Many believe their point of view, just as you seem to believe your own point of view.

Your narrow imagine of Christians is what makes your statements closed minded. And your belief of what you say is the only "true" way is also closed minded.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:47 pm
aperson wrote:
ci,
you show your closed mind because of the obvious mistakes which I have pointed out. Mainly the religion is about perception and that people believe in many different interpretations of the Bible.

I'm an atheist, but at least I'm humble about it.


See aperson and I can agree because we are open minded. I may feel and believe a certain way (i.e. Christian), however, I respect his opinion and feel he is entitled to it. In retrospect, although not agreeing with my belief, he respects mine. You don't have to agree, but be willing to see another point of view.

CI's pointing out any negative thing about Christians has the look of I am right - you are wrong - ironically just the thing he is accusing Christians of.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I ask Linkat to provide why I'm "closed minded," and aperson gives an answer after he says "I don't know."

Ya just gotta love their logic; different perceptions of the bible is supposed to mean they have open minds?


Actually being open minded does in part mean looking at different perceptions..."having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments. "
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 02:07 am
While I still think, religion (not necessarily 'church going'!) can be one of many possible ways, especially for religious kids, I still prefer a different approach.

I like the way very much done by outlaw or similar (following more less the 'Aspan educational way').
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 05:30 am
I agree that Church isn't the only answer, Walter. But neither does there have to be only one way or even a best way. I know of a couple of non-church-affiliated programs here in Albuquerque that are doing good work with kids too, but they sure can't/aren't reaching all troubled or at risk Albuquerque kids. And if the Jeremiah Project has reached an accurate conclusion, it certainly is not setting up church participation as the ONLY way to help kids.

But given the trend, however, at least in some quarters, to demonstrate and express increased hostility to religion, to demand that no evidence of it be expressed in the schools, to denigrate and/or belittle it as some seem compelled to do these days, the Jeremiah Project does suggest that this could have unintended negative consequences.

Nobody is suggesting that the schools become purveyors of religious teaching, activity, or expression. But neither should the schools be hostile to that or overtly or inadvertently convey negative impressions of religion or religious activity.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 07:21 am
I don't know (enough) the Albuquerque porjects to get a real opinion - only that, what some told me, who work there.

I know, however, how 'outlaw' works ...

Quote:
Tolerance
We have respect for all varieties of living concepts. We do not want to force biographies but support people, to find their own way in the society.


... and how I (and most here) work and worked.
This was and is welcomed by the churches - here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/13/2025 at 11:07:11