EPTAlabama City Allows Church as Alternative for Jail - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AutomatonOmega
United States706 Posts
| ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart. Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it. Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail. PS: I am agnostic. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes. Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart. Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it. Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail. PS: I am agnostic. Can you provide a citation for the first claim? | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 29 2011 22:03 hummingbird23 wrote: Can you provide a citation for the first claim? No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On September 29 2011 22:42 sluggaslamoo wrote: No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes. It's unlikely caused by any sort of understanding of Christian religious beliefs that they did so. Rather, it was more likely a cultural influence that exists independently of Christianity. Christianity does not teach good morals, it teaches that feelings (not actions) are morally condemnable. That's right, every time you feel sexual desire, doubt (guess we just threw science out the window), apathy, anger, pride in your accomplishments... you are sinning. You should repress your feelings. It is a hostility against the very essence of life, devaluing our humanity (emotions are WRONG) so that we may live "better" in the "afterlife". It is NOT so that we live better in this life. The "good morals" that people get from Christianity (stealing is wrong, murdering is wrong) are really projections of their own cultural and biological drives that they then claim to see in the Bible. So as not to derail the thread, if you wish to debate this particular point, send me a pm. Ultimately, the only thing we need is a group of people that have a culture that promotes preferable actions, not necessarily Christianity. So I must disagree with this claim that atheism can't do this. There are quite a few secular groups that promote values that you may consider good, and warn against values that you consider bad (that is to say, against crime). If you honestly believe that only Christianity/Buddhism is capable of teaching people that crime is wrong (edit: or at least not in their best interests), well, then that is a sad state for humanity indeed. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote: Didn't see a thread on this. A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000). The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause). http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/26/jesus-or-jail-alabama-town-offers-options-for-serving-time/?hpt=us_t2 This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail. But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe. And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though. What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary. This is blatantly unconstitutional, regardless of what the police chief says (and he's not qualified to defend it.) This is just a badly veiled technique to try to convince more people to go to church. Figures that it would happen in Alabama. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On September 30 2011 00:54 shinosai wrote: It's unlikely caused by any sort of understanding of Christian religious beliefs that they did so. Rather, it was more likely a cultural influence that exists independently of Christianity. Christianity does not teach good morals, it teaches that feelings (not actions) are morally condemnable. That's right, every time you feel sexual desire, doubt (guess we just threw science out the window), apathy, anger, pride in your accomplishments... you are sinning. You should repress your feelings. It is a hostility against the very essence of life, devaluing our humanity (emotions are WRONG) so that we may live "better" in the "afterlife". It is NOT so that we live better in this life. The "good morals" that people get from Christianity (stealing is wrong, murdering is wrong) are really projections of their own cultural and biological drives that they then claim to see in the Bible. So as not to derail the thread, if you wish to debate this particular point, send me a pm. Ultimately, the only thing we need is a group of people that have a culture that promotes preferable actions, not necessarily Christianity. So I must disagree with this claim that atheism can't do this. There are quite a few secular groups that promote values that you may consider good, and warn against values that you consider bad (that is to say, against crime). If you honestly believe that only Christianity/Buddhism is capable of teaching people that crime is wrong (edit: or at least not in their best interests), well, then that is a sad state for humanity indeed. We can send all the criminals to Japan and it probably won't change them. You are right about culture but they need to be in a very powerful environment, Countries with Confucian cultures work because people in that culture have been brought up and slowly been instilled with Confucian ideals since they were born. If you place a criminal in such a country, it won't change them, there is already a correlation between burglaries and the amount of foreigners in Japan (cbf citing, I just hear it on the news in japan sometimes). I don't honestly believe that Christianity and Buddhism are the only ones capable, but I mentioned them because they have produced results. I honestly doubt however that a religion like atheism could do the same, there isn't a framework for self-control, I'm pretty sure it supports the opposite. In summary, its horses for courses. You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing, it can be a good thing for people who don't know how to control their emotions. For other people they may prefer to let their emotions run wild. A religion like buddhism teaches you how to control your emotions through discipline, there are benefits to this, and it is complicated. Christianity gives you a much more dogmatic view of the world, and may be easier for people to control their emotions that way. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing, To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive. Chastity is a virtue, ha. Then let us all practice chastity and see where it leads us in a single century. Let us recognize doubt as the ultimate sin and veto against science. I must simply disagree with you that atheism lends itself to the opposite of self control. Rather than appealing to the next life by disvaluing this life, atheism is solely concerned with this life, and is thus rather adept at dealing with the concerns of this life. If atheism truly supports a lack of self control, my experience in the secular community must be an odd one. For I have witnessed no such thing. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
We just can't win. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
On September 30 2011 12:11 shinosai wrote: To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive. Chastity is a virtue, ha. Then let us all practice chastity and see where it leads us in a single century. Let us recognize doubt as the ultimate sin and veto against science. I must simply disagree with you that atheism lends itself to the opposite of self control. Rather than appealing to the next life by disvaluing this life, atheism is solely concerned with this life, and is thus rather adept at dealing with the concerns of this life. If atheism truly supports a lack of self control, my experience in the secular community must be an odd one. For I have witnessed no such thing. Chastity and celibacy are not the same thing. A woman can be a mother of 10 and still be chaste, she just needs to have had sex only with her husband, after getting married. As for repressing emotions: imagine if my emotions consisted of lust, hatred, rage. In this case, repressing my emotions might be bad for my mental health, but would be very, very good for all the women I would have raped. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 29 2011 22:42 sluggaslamoo wrote: No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes. Then its not been proven. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
What? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prove People are constantly picking parts of my point and arguing it out, when it has no context in the case of my argument? People have been documented to have been completely transformed through religion, what is so hard to understand about that? Again its horses for courses, there are people on this forum who think everyone should live a certain way because it works for them, but they don't realise it doesn't work for everybody. So what's the alternatives that other people have come up with? - Made up religion with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (retardology) - An existing body with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (atheism) - Jail (justice baby!), and ruin any prospect of them being successful in life I think the benefits of sending a criminal to a Christian Church over jail outweigh the odds, and its a great idea for an experiment. And this is coming from a non-Christian. On September 30 2011 12:11 shinosai wrote: To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive. . I disagree. I think one of the most undervalued traits of western society is discipline of the mind. We already act completely differently from when we were cavemen, are you suggesting that we revert back to that and rape and pillage because we should succumb to our innate drives? Its part of human nature to evolve, and to thrive in today's society requires a completely different type of human-being to that of caveman times. We already in your words "repress our emotions" a lot, and we do it to survive. Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today? How much do you think Steve Jobs is suffering because he has to have top notch emotional control, because big brother is watching him? I dunno, but certainly not enough to make him give up his millions until he got cancer, and even then ... Which gets back to my main point, that it may not be a bad thing for criminals to be even forcefully guided towards self discipline, even via dogmatic means. Its absolutely crucial for them in order to be able to function in this kind of society. There's benefits to learning to control and repress ones emotions, and the suffering you mention doesn't really appear to be a problem if at all. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On September 30 2011 15:15 vetinari wrote: Chastity and celibacy are not the same thing. A woman can be a mother of 10 and still be chaste, she just needs to have had sex only with her husband, after getting married. As for repressing emotions: imagine if my emotions consisted of lust, hatred, rage. In this case, repressing my emotions might be bad for my mental health, but would be very, very good for all the women I would have raped. Yes, but she cannot have sex with her husband because she enjoys it, that would be lust. She must do so only for the sake of procreating. If one is truly chaste they would feel so negatively about sex that they would never do so willingly, for all sex that is enjoyable involves some sort of lust, and that is the problem. As for your argument for repressing emotions: Here you're not arguing against emotions, but the actions that are consequences of emotions, which are entirely, completely, absolutely different. And it is the consequences of emotions that we should guard against, not the emotions themselves. Lust is not bad, it aids in our survival. Anger is not bad, it aids in our survival. Compassion is not bad, it aids in our survival. But the situations in which we utilize these are varied, and based on culture. I'm not arguing against behaving rationally. Rather, that all actions that are rational are based in emotions themselves. And to deny them is to deny life. "It is not contrary to reason that I should prefer the destruction of the whole world, to the scratching of my finger." You talk of rationality, but all rationality is a slave to emotion to begin with. Everything is based on sentiment. You cannot behave "rationally" if you repress your emotions. Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today? But not frequently blowing up the television is also one of his drives. It is a stronger drive than the drive to destroy things. At least, it is for Steve Jobs. Also, Norway's prison rehabilitation has been extremely successful. I thought you said jail couldn't fix criminals? | ||
|
Generic SC
New Zealand179 Posts
On October 01 2011 01:26 sluggaslamoo wrote: What? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prove People are constantly picking parts of my point and arguing it out, when it has no context in the case of my argument? People have been documented to have been completely transformed through religion, what is so hard to understand about that? Again its horses for courses, there are people on this forum who think everyone should live a certain way because it works for them, but they don't realise it doesn't work for everybody. So what's the alternatives that other people have come up with? - Made up religion with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (retardology) - An existing body with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (atheism) - Jail (justice baby!), and ruin any prospect of them being successful in life I think the benefits of sending a criminal to a Christian Church over jail outweigh the odds, and its a great idea for an experiment. And this is coming from a non-Christian. I disagree. I think one of the most undervalued traits of western society is discipline of the mind. We already act completely differently from when we were cavemen, are you suggesting that we revert back to that and rape and pillage because we should succumb to our innate drives? Its part of human nature to evolve, and to thrive in today's society requires a completely different type of human-being to that of caveman times. We already in your words "repress our emotions" a lot, and we do it to survive. Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today? How much do you think Steve Jobs is suffering because he has to have top notch emotional control, because big brother is watching him? I dunno, but certainly not enough to make him give up his millions until he got cancer, and even then ... Which gets back to my main point, that it may not be a bad thing for criminals to be even forcefully guided towards self discipline, even via dogmatic means. Its absolutely crucial for them in order to be able to function in this kind of society. There's benefits to learning to control and repress ones emotions, and the suffering you mention doesn't really appear to be a problem if at all. I find it hilarious that the person who is the closest to mainstream anthropological and sociological thought is the one that keeps being hacked down in this thread. People need to stop being so narrow minded. Sure he didn't give any good citations or sources to back up his claim, but there is a lot of information and research out there regarding this topic. To start with I would point you towards David Émile Durkheim's social theory of suicide as a good place to begin, as a section of the research done is around religion at its effect on human behaviours within a social context. And remember kids, Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses for a reason. | ||
|
tMomiji
United States1115 Posts
| ||
|
Moonling
United States987 Posts
| ||
| ||
