Isis,

[Euler]

As I have stated in my previous post, criminological studies seem to indicate that Christian faith (and all other faiths analyzed) is protective against violent delinquency, whereas Islamic faith is not.

I would therefore welcome more true Christians, Buddhists and Hindus and at the same time applaud the fact that more and more Muslims are going "marketplace".

Your stats are at odds with wider findings. World-wide, the pattern is very much one of increasing secularism/decreasing religiosity having a direct relationship with less violent societies.

That German study is very narrow. It focuses on youth delinquency only. I could see some sense in encouraging youths to be a part of ANY organization which would discourage them from joining delinquent gangs.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Your stats are at odds with wider findings. World-wide, the pattern is very much one of increasing secularism/decreasing religiosity having a direct relationship with less violent societies.

Although it may be true that secular societies tend to have lower rates of violent crime than societies consisting of very devout individuals, I believe that this could easily be explained away by the confounder of economic prosperity.

It would be, however, very interesting to see a study that compares different religious adherence to violence while keeping economic disparaty in both compared groups at a minimum. That would be scientifically sound.

That German study is very narrow. It focuses on youth delinquency only. I could see some sense in encouraging youths to be a part of ANY organization which would discourage them from joining delinquent gangs.

The largest part of violent delinquency is perpetrated by suspects under the age of 30. While I agree with the idea that "anything" is good to keep kids off the streets, it does strike me as somewhat odd that every other faith besides Islam had a protective effect, whereas Islamic organizations seem to be detrimental.

You may consider the study too narrow in the sense that it registers only German youth delinquency - but given the fact that it is representative for a country for more than 80 million citizens, I am very keen to hear how you interpret the data.
In other words: why do you think that devout Muslims are more likely to commit violent crimes than non-Muslims?

 

[Strathos]

I dont even know if this is a topic that should be here, if its not, then please remove it.

Isis is horrible, the news i've seen, the things i've heard.

As long as i live, i'll never forget what they have done to children, i am not a killer, but I would kill an Isis!! Which is sad for me, because i really do want to kill an Isis for what they do to kids, this might make me a bad person, i accept that.



My real question is, are they truly just crazy murderers or do they truly believe in their cause? War is war, bad things happen in war, but is Isis just a bunch of killers? Do they truly believe in their own cause?

I dont believe they do, i believe they use the Muslim religion as a scapegoat to justify their own greed. Because who in this world, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, who could find justification in their scriptures to harm a child? Even the Muslim Bible forbids that.




And i meant it, yeah, i would kill an Isis,

Would waste no time doing so.

Probably a lot of the rank-and-file recruits believe they are fighting for some great cause, but their leaders are more cynical and manipulative. That's usually the way it is.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your stats are at odds with wider findings. World-wide, the pattern is very much one of increasing secularism/decreasing religiosity having a direct relationship with less violent societies.

Do you think that people who are forced to give up their values for a little more safety is a free people?

 

[Euler]

Do you think that people who are forced to give up their values for a little more safety is a free people?

Forced?? I am currently living in one of those countries which have a much lower level of religiosity and a much lower level of violent behavior. I would challenge you to find me ONE person who was "forced" to give up their religious beliefs.

It's almost a ridiculous proposition.

 

[Euler]

Although it may be true that secular societies tend to have lower rates of violent crime than societies consisting of very devout individuals, I believe that this could easily be explained away by the confounder of economic prosperity.

It would be, however, very interesting to see a study that compares different religious adherence to violence while keeping economic disparaty in both compared groups at a minimum. That would be scientifically sound.





The largest part of violent delinquency is perpetrated by suspects under the age of 30. While I agree with the idea that "anything" is good to keep kids off the streets, it does strike me as somewhat odd that every other faith besides Islam had a protective effect, whereas Islamic organizations seem to be detrimental.

You may consider the study too narrow in the sense that it registers only German youth delinquency - but given the fact that it is representative for a country for more than 80 million citizens, I am very keen to hear how you interpret the data.
In other words: why do you think that devout Muslims are more likely to commit violent crimes than non-Muslims?

No problem at all in accepting that, currently, Islam is probably the most dangerous religion worldwide. However, that doesn't let all other religions off the hook. And yes, I agree that more research needs to be done in the relationship between religion and violence. I've said many times that there is a clear correlation, but we need to ask more questions to determine causation.

And let me ask you this. Pick the 5 most religiously observant States in the US - how peaceful and tolerant are they compared to the rest of the nation?

 

[Cearbhall]

Did Mohammed do that when he executed male prisoners of war in order that his men could rape their wives? Or when he wrote of trees and rocks calling out that Jews were hiding behind them and that a muslim should come along and kill the Jew?

Did Saladin do that when he expanded the caliphate?

Did the Moguls? The Umayyads? The Abbasids? The Fatimids? The Almohads? The Ottomans?

Do Saudi do that when they whip and behead people?

Do Pakistan and Iran do it when they stone rape victims?

ISIS are not unusual in Islam. They are not an extremist twisting of Islam. They ARE Islam.

Oh, would you like to make a similar list of the Church's crimes against humanity throughout history for us? It's quite similar.

I don't hold Christianity or modern Christians responsible, no need to worry.

 

[Senator Cheese]

No problem at all in accepting that, currently, Islam is probably the most dangerous religion worldwide. However, that doesn't let all other religions off the hook. And yes, I agree that more research needs to be done in the relationship between religion and violence. I've said many times that there is a clear correlation, but we need to ask more questions to determine causation.

And let me ask you this. Pick the 5 most religiously observant States in the US - how peaceful and tolerant are they compared to the rest of the nation?

That's quite an intelligent objection, and yes - as you would expect, it is also my own perception that these states (I'm thinking of Texas and co.) are more prone to violence and intolerance.

I oftentimes get the feeling that the evangelical churches of the United States teach a Christian lifestyle that is very far from what Christianity means to many individuals in Europe. I would argue that many European churches are far more progressive both in rituals (i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, divorced couples, etc) and in teaching (i.e. a heavier focus on teachings of the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament).

As such, if we go back to our initial assumption, which is that scriptural basis is cause for contemporary violence, we might construe that much of the "intolerance" found in the areas you mentioned might be due to a focus on the Old Testament laws that condemned homosexuality and promoted views that do not match progressive views.

In my opinion, the difference would once more be that these misconceptions could be cleared up by encouraging Christians to look into their Bibles more, not less. The NT details the new covenant, which is -no matter what biblical interpretation you follow- the successor to the covenant of the OT.
In Islam, the more contemporary Hadiths and Suras paint a picture that is more violent than those during the initial stages of Mohammads expansion. There is no real hierarchy that would set the Meccan surahs above the Medinan ones.


---

As for religion and crime, at the risk of going too far off-topic, I do believe that this is a very interesting and relevant topic.
I am no expert on the subject. An interesting article I found was a review that entailed 60 studies on the effects of religion on criminal behavior, which found a protective effect (negative correlation of median r=-0.12). The review itself noted that one of the shortcomings of many studies was the lack of differentiation as according to denomination.

When looking at other parts of contemporary scientific literature on the subject, the effects range from "no deterrent effect" to "deterrent effect", but I have yet to see a study that indicates an increase in violent behavior, apart from the criminological data I provided earlier.
I am somewhat surprised to see that there are no follow-up studies or studies from other areas that actually take the time to plot denomination versus crime data. I would bet that Islam (and perhaps the "OT-Christians" you spoke of) would significantly increase the risk of delinquency.

 

[Inkfingers]

Oh, would you like to make a similar list of the Church's crimes against humanity throughout history for us? It's quite similar.

The difference is that those acts were largely by Catholicism, and they were utterly against what Christ taught.

The Muslims however were completely in line with what Mohammed taught and practiced because he was a warlord and robber of caravans.

 

[ebia]

The difference is that those acts were largely by Catholicism, and they were utterly against what Christ taught.

The Muslims however were completely in line with what Mohammed taught and practiced because he was a warlord and robber of caravans.

From someone who wants Mexicans shot on sight...

 

[Inkfingers]

From someone who wants Mexicans shot on sight...

If you expect people to engage you in conversation, at least make the effort to understand rather than emotively misrepresent what is being said to you.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Oh, would you like to make a similar list of the Church's crimes against humanity throughout history for us? It's quite similar.

I don't hold Christianity or modern Christians responsible, no need to worry.

At the risk of repeating what has been stated before and before, the difference is the scriptural basis: Christ teaches to love your neighbor, and any Christian will agree that we are to follow Christ both in words and in actions.

Mohammad, on the other hand, both committed genocide (decapitating 900 prisoners of war during one of his bloodthirsty tours of conquest) and called for the slaughter of unbelievers. Not to mention his little sexual adventures with a nine-year-old.
I challenge you to find a Muslim that will agree that Mohammad is not a role-model in every regard. He is, by definition, considered infallible - just as much as the Quo'ran is considered the unaltered, infallible word of God.

If Christians kill innocents, then they are not taking their faith too seriously, but not seriously enough.

 

[Inkfingers]

At the risk of repeating what has been stated before and before, the difference is the scriptural basis: Christ teaches to love your neighbor, and any Christian will agree that we are to follow Christ both in words and in actions.

Mohammad, on the other hand, both committed genocide (decapitating 900 prisoners of war during one of his bloodthirsty tours of conquest) and called for the slaughter of unbelievers. Not to mention his little sexual adventures with a nine-year-old.
I challenge you to find a Muslim that will agree that Mohammad is not a role-model in every regard. He is, by definition, considered infallible - just as much as the Quo'ran is considered the unaltered, infallible word of God.

If Christians kill innocents, then they are not taking their faith too seriously, but not seriously enough.

Maybe we should call all "Radical Islamists"...."Mohammedans" because they are following his example utterly. Bet they would get stroppy if we did that though....even though it is completely accurate.

 

[ebia]

If you expect people to engage you in conversation, at least make the effort to understand rather than emotively misrepresent ...

Oh, the irony is so cute.

 

[Euler]

That's quite an intelligent objection, and yes - as you would expect, it is also my own perception that these states (I'm thinking of Texas and co.) are more prone to violence and intolerance.

I oftentimes get the feeling that the evangelical churches of the United States teach a Christian lifestyle that is very far from what Christianity means to many individuals in Europe. I would argue that many European churches are far more progressive both in rituals (i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, divorced couples, etc) and in teaching (i.e. a heavier focus on teachings of the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament).

As such, if we go back to our initial assumption, which is that scriptural basis is cause for contemporary violence, we might construe that much of the "intolerance" found in the areas you mentioned might be due to a focus on the Old Testament laws that condemned homosexuality and promoted views that do not match progressive views.

In my opinion, the difference would once more be that these misconceptions could be cleared up by encouraging Christians to look into their Bibles more, not less. The NT details the new covenant, which is -no matter what biblical interpretation you follow- the successor to the covenant of the OT.
In Islam, the more contemporary Hadiths and Suras paint a picture that is more violent than those during the initial stages of Mohammads expansion. There is no real hierarchy that would set the Meccan surahs above the Medinan ones.


---

As for religion and crime, at the risk of going too far off-topic, I do believe that this is a very interesting and relevant topic.
I am no expert on the subject. An interesting article I found was a review that entailed 60 studies on the effects of religion on criminal behavior, which found a protective effect (negative correlation of median r=-0.12). The review itself noted that one of the shortcomings of many studies was the lack of differentiation as according to denomination.

When looking at other parts of contemporary scientific literature on the subject, the effects range from "no deterrent effect" to "deterrent effect", but I have yet to see a study that indicates an increase in violent behavior, apart from the criminological data I provided earlier.
I am somewhat surprised to see that there are no follow-up studies or studies from other areas that actually take the time to plot denomination versus crime data. I would bet that Islam (and perhaps the "OT-Christians" you spoke of) would significantly increase the risk of delinquency.

You're going to get into trouble 'round these parts if you keep making this much sense!

I agree strongly with just about all you have to say. If I could direct you to the work done by Ryan T. Cragun, in his analysis of the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey, you'll find that you and he have much in accord.

While an atheist, he recognises that most of the harm in terms of violence, discrimination, prejudice, etc, comes from the thinking promoted by religious fundamentalism, whereas religious moderates and liberals tend to be on a par with non-believers in eschewing these negative behaviors.

One point on which I would disagree with you. You want more people of faith to read the Bible more closely? You know that's probably the best way to create more atheists, don't you?

 

[ebia]

At the risk of repeating what has been stated before and before, the difference is the scriptural basis: Christ teaches to love your neighbor, and any Christian will agree that we are to follow Christ both in words and in actions.

In theory.
In practice most christians are no better at that than most muslims, who's faith also directs them to help others.

If Christians kill innocents, then they are not taking their faith too seriously, but not seriously enough.

Depends how you cherry pick the teachings of each faith.

To be honest, I don't think the hate filled misinformation spreading is any less violent than actually waving a gun around.

 

[orangeness365]

I'm against ISIS. Everyone is against ISIS. I think they should be treated as war criminals and thrown into prison.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My real question is, are they truly just crazy murderers or do they truly believe in their cause?

The last one. It's the extreme example of what fundamentalism can do to a person. Although I also think a lot of young "lost" people go there for an excuse to play.

There was a time when judeo-christian society wasn't much different.

I dont believe they do

Why not?
What other explanation is there?
That thousands of psychopaths and sick individuals got together in Iraq/Syria to build a brutal islamic state just for the fun of it?

Fundamentalism is very ugly.

I'ld even say that only unquestioned, dogmatic belief in an ideology can make such large groups of people behave like this. A single serial killer, or a handfull at most, can be "explained away" by saying that they are just murderous psychopaths.

But here we are talking about thousands and thousands of people who got together to raise uup a "country" under the banner and law of a religion that can't be questioned. I mean, seriously... The answer to your question is quite obvious.

i believe they use the Muslim religion as a scapegoat to justify their own greed.

Greed?

Most of the army of these folks are all people that left everything behind in their home countryies to come fight and live in miserable circumstances.
What greed?

Because who in this world, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, who could find justification in their scriptures to harm a child?

1 Samuel 15:3New King James Version (NKJV)
3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Even the Muslim Bible forbids that.

It's called the quran and, just like the bible, it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever you want it to mean.

And i meant it, yeah, i would kill an Isis,
Would waste no time doing so.

So, whatever happened to "love your enemy" and "do not kill"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sounds like they need to stop following the wrong god.

Yep. There you have it. The only argument you can really put to ISIS types as a theist: "well, they have the wrong god".

Implying that if they had the RIGHT god, then what they are doing would be actually fine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm against ISIS. Everyone is against ISIS. I think they should be treated as war criminals and thrown into prison.

I think that's a pointless exercise for most of them.

I'm usually against death penalty in every possible way. But with these guys... I must say....

Keeping them in prison is pointless. They will never rehabilate. They will never change their minds. The only thing that will stop the bulk of them is exactly what they want: a martyr's death.

They actually want to die.

Which is exactly what makes them so dangerous. I say: grant them their final wish.