The decline of Religious influence and the increase of Police

[suanni]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I couldnt have said it so well and Im in agreement. This generation has failed to learn or have healthy respect for the consequences of their decisions.

Oh they learned the consequences of their actions, they were rewarded for them, not severely punishment as previous generations would have been. And for their future, they didn't screw their employment prospects up totally, they're given a helping hand to gain employment.
Those who 'kept their noses clean' are given no help nor reward. This is wrong.
Morality and the responsibilty of the person has to be taught from the cradle but how to do it is a tough one apart from scrapping the laws that are hindering a moral/lawful society and returning to the tougher ones of our forefathers.
I certainly do not want to see a return of the minister/priest coming round to the house midweek to ask where the occupants were on a Sunday (my parents day) nor for children to be caned in school for missing mass on a Sunday. Religion/faith should be voluntary not enforced or we could see a return to the nastier side of faith.

I like your balance Wil. That is also the right balance for the planet.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by suanni

If a woman found herself pregnant before marriage, the baby would either be raised by the family or given up for adoption, or aborted.

How can it possibly be a good thing to take a baby away from it's mother, or to abort it? To be a single mother may not be an ideal situation, but at least the child is alive and with it's mother.

Originally Posted by suanni

It was considered bad to be a single mother and the children who were born to such were given some nasty names.

Why the hell should the child suffer because of his parentage, it isn't his fault that his parents weren't married.

Originally Posted by suanni

Corporal punishment still existed in all schools, ranging from the cane to the strap. Rarely used but it was a sufficient deterrent to prevent the vast majority of kids going off the rails in school.

To be honest, if a soldier in war was taken captive and beaten with a stick or a leather strap, his captors would probably be convicted of war crimes, and you want to do it to unruly children?

Originally Posted by suanni

It was no longer shameful to be a single mother.....and the children didn't carry any stigma either.

Thank god!

Originally Posted by suanni

Borstal was removed and given a softer option...and from those kids I've spoken to who've been in such places, it was a holiday camp. The kids don't fear it and gain respect by their peers by being in it.

I do sort of agree with you there, I'm not sure I'd use the words holiday camp, but there isn't much of a deterrant.

Originally Posted by suanni

If an adult attempts to defend themselves from the kids they're charged with assaulting a minor.

Spot on again, I have family who work in schools and are not even allowed to hug a child for fear of child abuse claims.

Originally Posted by suanni

As far as I'm aware both state and religion are still combined in the UK. The monarch is head of the church/defender of the faith.

I disagree. Semantically, yes, the Queen is both the head of state and defender of the faith, but realistically, she has no power at all in either institution. Let's be greatful for that at least.

Originally Posted by suanni

I agree that the old system should have been adherred to. Why mend something when it wasn't broken? And it did work for hundreds of years.

Large parts of the old system were fine IMO, but beating children in schools, stigmatising them because of their parentage and forcing abortions on single mothers is not acceptable in any moral world.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by suanni

Oh they learned the consequences of their actions, they were rewarded for them, not severely punishment as previous generations would have been. And for their future, they didn't screw their employment prospects up totally, they're given a helping hand to gain employment.
Those who 'kept their noses clean' are given no help nor reward. This is wrong.
Morality and the responsibilty of the person has to be taught from the cradle but how to do it is a tough one apart from scrapping the laws that are hindering a moral/lawful society and returning to the tougher ones of our forefathers.
I certainly do not want to see a return of the minister/priest coming round to the house midweek to ask where the occupants were on a Sunday (my parents day) nor for children to be caned in school for missing mass on a Sunday. Religion/faith should be voluntary not enforced or we could see a return to the nastier side of faith.

that is some strange combinations...the priest come looking for you cause you missed church & then the school giving a detention to the kids because you missed church. that just makes no sense. they are supposed to work together not against each other & be seperate at the same time. i guess it is different everywhere.

i remember we would get these little post cards in the mail if we missed sunday school. for years... every teacher sent them at my church saying how they missed us that sunday & they were real sincere about it.
my church started up a day care recently because they saw a real need in this generation to get some kind of important foundation in the children at that young age. where parents are both working or single parents need to work & this way there kid is a good safe place plus getting the attention they need.

i also know what you are saying about those who keep their nose clean seem to get the raw end of the deal lately. i see all that stuff, like the law tends to be leaning toward the bad guy as the victim.

[suanni]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

How can it possibly be a good thing to take a baby away from it's mother, or to abort it? To be a single mother may not be an ideal situation, but at least the child is alive and with it's mother.

Whilst its not acceptable to stigmatise those who have been unfortunate, neither is it acceptable for those young women who purposely choose to be a single parent from a very young age. Nor is it acceptable for the young woman to 'con' a man into this and then live off the state forever more.
Accidents happen and I certainly wouldn't like it to go back to the times when a young woman was locked away in a mental institution because she was caught. But there has to be some kind of balance. It doesn't help when big celebrities are choosing this way of life, deliberately taking the second parent out of the equation.

Why the hell should the child suffer because of his parentage, it isn't his fault that his parents weren't married.

True but at the same time many children are suffering, not through the stigma but in the way in which they are raised

To be honest, if a soldier in war was taken captive and beaten with a stick or a leather strap, his captors would probably be convicted of war crimes, and you want to do it to unruly children?

I wouldn't have thought a quick slap across the palm of the hand and a verbal dressing down would be constituted as a war crime. Then again I would consider a serious kicking that ends up in hospitalisation, where the victim is so traumatised that they can't return to school for psychiatric reasons a close comparison to war crimes but that's what unruly kids exact upon other pupils just for the 'kicks'. What unruly children are exacting upon teachers and other elders and 'good kids' could be classified as torture. An example (and there are many more)
http://education.guardian.co.uk/clas...067169,00.html

Then suggest another way in which to keep school children in order. The cane was there when I was at school. It was rarely used and only used as a last resort. For the vast majority of children the mere presence of it is enough to prevent them from misbehaving. The vast majority covers over 60% of kids at school.There are the other ends of the scale too, the small minority; those who do not need threats (of whatever nature) to keep them in line and the other end where no matter what you threaten them with will still misbehave.
To threaten them with suspension or expulsion don't work. For those kids who detest going to school its just an incentive to misbehave. What's being chosen now? Put the parent into jail. Do all parents deserve this for their unruly children?

I do sort of agree with you there, I'm not sure I'd use the words holiday camp, but there isn't much of a deterrant.

Its so horrible that I know a number of kids who will deliberately get themselves sent down for Christmas so that they have a good Christmas. For those youths who have a miserable time because of any variety of reasons find that a spell inside is a good holiday, they enjoy it. The discipline and all the activities that are in there....their words. Where I live (Consett) there is a harder detention centre but its not as hard as it once was. Boot camp was considered too tough by the 'do-gooders' and that was not as tough as the old borstal.

Spot on again, I have family who work in schools and are not even allowed to hug a child for fear of child abuse claims.

I wouldn't fancy being a teacher now. Its unsurprising that schools have a hard job recruiting staff. The stress rates for those who are teachers must be astronomical. Its not just teachers who fear child abuse claims. It goes across the whole sector of society. Why should people fear being friendly/caring towards children for fear of being accused of such a damning thing? Because false accusations have been laid so many times. And its those bad seeds who know how to use the law to exact as much torture/punishment to their elders out of sheer spite/malice who lay such accusations. The bad seeds that the cane/strap was kept in school for, the bad seeds that borstal was reserved for...that small sector of kids that no matter what you do they will be a menace to others. But this sector know the law inside out, they know they call bully, assault, cause as much mayhem as they like and know they can turn on the tears to a social worker/tell a pack of porkies and get away with the lot. They might even receive a reward for all their bad behaviour, could be an adventure holiday, a trip away. These are the ones who claim abuse, police brutality etc etc when it never happened and they are the ones leading other kids astray.
School days used to be the teaching of the 3 Rs....reading, writing and arithmetic...and those subjects are still concentrated on but they forget that there were another 3 Rs taught at school: respect, responsibility and righteousness. All 3 seem to be lacking today.

Sorry Bandit, I unintentionally misled there.
If a child failed to attend church (not the parent) they would be caned. I am only repeating a tale here that I was told by many of my elders who attended Catholic school as youngsters. And the priest would also go round to the house to inform the parents that the youngster had missed church.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Path of One presented a stupendous thought about today's society and the lawlessness we suffer from. With the decline of religious influence in today's society, wroughts the increase of lawlessness, the increase of society's police forces, and the losing battle over violence.

Wouldn't it be prudent to consider that religion does in fact have a more powerful influence over society than that of no-religion, but having a "police force" to effect the same socially accepted behaviors?

Instead of having the social civility enforced from without, why not stick with that which has worked more or less for thousands of years (religious convictions enforcing the social civility from within)?

Of course this would require our social leaders changing course in mid-stream, but what they are cowtowing, isn't working (obviously), and prior to at least the 50s, the influence of basic religious principles did more or less maintain society within acceptable boundaries...

what do you think?

v/r

Q

Not sure... Take twenty police officers in full riot gear with full equipment... and take twenty people with bibles... Or whatever... Go into the most "evil" hood... And see which can gain more control over the hoodlums... hmm... I think this is promising, might make my own tv show...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Not sure... Take twenty police officers in full riot gear with full equipment... and take twenty people with bibles... Or whatever... Go into the most "evil" hood... And see which can gain more control over the hoodlums... hmm... I think this is promising, might make my own tv show...

Lean not unto thine own understanding...

besides, the officers (how many) may have pocket bibles on them as well...just in case.

[wil]

Is it true?

Is there a higher percentage of police officers in states with less religion?


I would think the numbers of police would actually more corelate to wealth and disparity of same. As long as there is large lower class and a significant middle and upperclass we have potential for all sorts of crimes.

Lot of religious tats in prisons....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

Is it true?

Is there a higher percentage of police officers in states with less religion?


I would think the numbers of police would actually more corelate to wealth and disparity of same. As long as there is large lower class and a significant middle and upperclass we have potential for all sorts of crimes.

Lot of religious tats in prisons....

I am inclined to agree with you... I don't see a *direct* correlation between lack of religion and increase in police presence. However, the overall point of "religion" (state sanctioned or otherwise) providing a moral basis and foundation for the people to lean on instead of demanding "safety" from a secular police power to enforce the same seems to me a valid observation. As other simplistic studies and observances have noted; when a society becomes immoral, it is usually a prelude to collapse. Rome being the type example, but there are others that can be equated (Babylon, Greece, Nazi Germany....). And while "which" religion is an important point to those who feel their particular religion in jeopardy, I am speaking more in terms of cultural preference.

Even within cultural preferences though, there is an ideal, and there is reality. The '50's US is sometimes held out as an ideal, and for some living the American dream in the suburbs, it was. However, this was also a time of civil unrest, inequality, lynchings, cross burnings and more social atrocities. So "ideal" is still relative, even in "religious" cultures. But the basic point, that you could trust your kid playing in the street, that the neighbor wasn't going to kidnap and molest the child, was better then when "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It To Beaver" were playing on TV, than it is with "The Sopranos" and all kinds of killer/murder/mayhem movies playing. The "police presence" is only one aspect, and a minor one at that, of the whole social disease process.

[wil]

Namaste 123,

I still wonder...In the 60's and 70's there were plenty of guns and drugs and alchohol in school...but none of it made the papers.

I think the change in what and how news is reported as created an environment of crime. We had our murderers and bank robbers in the old west, but news traveled awfully slow.

Now more than the Sopranos we watch gore on the the news everyday. If one never traveled to Israel one would think all that happens is bus bombings, mortar launchings and rock fights...we get 30 seconds of mayhem every night.

Any where on the globe it is nightly news headlines and internet headlines...50 years ago you would have never even heard of 1/100th the events which happened...I don't believe they didn't happen, we just didn't hear of them.

Crime has a lot of reasons, population density, disposable income, class and income disparity....

I don't crack it all up to the Sopranos or lack of morals...but there does exist a trend.

If we followed the 10 commandments....as three major religions, most of the world supposedly does what laws more do we really need?

Yes most religious law was a form of gov''t and control prior to govt and control....even to the sacred cow...

[cyberpi]

The measure of a LAW is NOT the number of citizens who dishonor it.
The measure of a LAW is NOT the number of citizens employed to enforce it.
The measure of a LAW IS the number of citizens who form and agree to it.
The responsibility of LAW is on every citizen.
It is oppression to enforce a LAW on citizens who do not agree with it.

The measure of religion is NOT the number of people who dishonor it.
The measure of religion is NOT the number of people who minister it.
The measure of religion IS the number of people who choose it.
The responsibility of religion is on every person.
It is oppression to enforce religion on people who do not agree with it.

I submit that anyone who thinks people must lose their soul... their freedom and power of choice to become rightful is NOT of any law or religion involving God.

The heart of an alledged police state is taxation without representation. If no taxes, then no police. If you give your taxes, your heart and soul willingly, then you are responsible for it. In the USA most people are giving up 1/3 of themselves without taking responsibility for it. But at least there is a measure of it in the democracies and it can be argued over by the people. That voice needs far more power... the missing 1/3. A person, a people, or their governments are hypocrites if they proclaim one thing to others and yet themselves still do the other. I think every person needs to demand 3,000 more times the representation over LAWS for the 1/3 of their hearts they are submitting to an Empire.

As for the other 2/3... if it is Politically Correct to NOT personally use it either then what is left? I take note that in Christianity the goats refer to people who do NOT do something.

[Virtual_Cliff]

There is still plenty of implied violence in schools today. Threats start at government level and pass down through the head to the staff to the children who then threaten each other. It's like Martin Luther King said, violence begets violence.

Physical punishment could be effective when I grew up because there was a consensus. These days it would simply not work.

Someone remind me who said "Without vision the people perish". When I grew up there was a vision; we believed that civilisation and science would end all wars, feed the poor and make all people free. It didn't happen. Instead now kids are being urged to work hard, not to make the world a better place, but to make more money for themselves. But this is impossible, as for each winner there have to be ten losers to pay for their lifestyle. As a result our schools are stuffed with kids who know they're only there so their parents can go out and work. They know that scarcely a tenth of what they learn will help them in any way in their lives. They know that even their teachers are disillusioned and want to leave. They know that their only role is to be work-fodder. We are sowing the seeds of despair. We will reap the harvest of social breakdown.

Now is the time for a new vision. I think it can be done, and I think that those with a religious faith already have the vocabulary to express it. To borrow Schumaker's phrase, we should remake our society "as if people mattered". That means acknowledging that more money is not necessarily better. That community, love and hope matter much more than MP3s and playstations. And we had better learn this quickly before the oil runs out and our consumer culture hits the rocks.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Bandit and Taijaisi, I was really moved by what you wrote. Thanks -VC

[Virtual_Cliff]

I have been very privileged to see firsthand a number of Communities that also managed to beautifully and wonderfully embody the ideals of a Sustainable Society (being discussed in this, and other threads at present) ... perhaps decades (or even centuries) ahead of the rest of us! I learned a great deal by being among these people, and by sharing something of the Heaven on Earth which they truly live, every day. Interestingly, not a one of them are founded on conventional religious principles, at least not as embodied by any one religion. Yet they are by no means secular, either, welcoming all, but being extremely principled, and quite spiritual. Perhaps it has something to do, with getting beyond the stage where we try to dictate to others, what they should believe, and lording our particular religious choice(s) ... over others. That - will never work. Surely we know this by now ....

Andrew I have tried to PM you but I couldn't. would you please PM me as I am interested in your experiences with these communities. Cliff

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

And to those Christians who support this idea I ask this, would you still support it if this new state religion required you to renounce Christ?

I think there are some Christians that might actually be insulted by that kind of idea -- the idea of a state religion that promotes the agenda of "Christianity." Not all Christians would agree to the idea of changing an entire legal system and political system in the name of their own religion.

If may be seen as offensive in that Christianity is seen as a personal relationship with God through Christ. That doesn't mean we should try and change the legal system and political system that runs our lives. I've never found it being said anywhere in the Bible that we should create and modify legal systems and herald a political system in the name of our religion.

I personally don't like the idea myself. I think it distorts the whole idea of my religion. A legal system is a structured approach to the ideals of Justice. A political system is a structured approach to controlling a nation state. But if Christianity is sacred and personal than it doesn't rely on administrative compartmentalisations.

I am sure people of other religions would be insulted as well, if their religion was "catapulted into power" as the state religion. I am sure, Jews, Buddhists and Wiccans, for example, would be offended if anyone tried to make Judaism, Buddhism and Wicca the state religion. It would distort the concept of Judaism, Buddhism and Wicca. It would be like desecrating the religion itself.

I don't think it's just about a state religion imposing its agenda on others. The religion you follow is usually something sacred and personal. Making it a state religion makes it impersonal. That gives the impression that your religion is impersonal and is only effective when spear-headed as ideology.

Ideology is a powerful concept. It's where people align themselves to a system of concepts and start believing that this system of concepts, on its own, has some special power. It sounds almost like a kind of idolatry. Spear-heading any religion as a "state religion" makes it impersonal in the sense that the religion is now implemented by political structures.

When religion is "personal" it is the knowledge that the religion itself has no power of its own, but is completely driven by the individual. Mounting religion on top of a political system conveys the idea that even the individual is inadequate. That's an even more cynicalised view of a religion -- that it's an only organisation that can make it work. The religion itself completely loses its meaning. That's because the political system itself becomes the religion.

If that happened to Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism what you'd have is something completely different to the original religion. In a sense, State Christianity, State Judaism, State Buddhism and State Wicca are all oxymorons. All of these religions are personal. Mounting them on top of a political system makes them impersonal. Some adherents of these religions might actually be insulted, though others might be celebrating.

For any of us Christians here, we have to realise that by mounting Christianity on top of a political system, we are actually adding elements outside of Christianity. That's because political systems have structure. They have their own principles and concepts. What we have instead is not Christianity, but a mixture of Christianity and political science. Political science is the science of organising and controlling societies and nation states. That is the reason why State Christianity is an oxymoron. That's also why I don't like the idea.

Sorry if any Christians are offended here. Not trying to pick a fight here or criticise anyone for their views. It's just that I see Christianity as something sacred and personal that doesn't need to be mounted on top of a political system. I don't believe Christianity needs political science to make it work.

My point is, do we really think we're properly representing our religion by mounting it on top of a political system?

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

When religion is "personal" it is the knowledge that the religion itself has no power of its own, but is completely driven by the individual. Mounting religion on top of a political system conveys the idea that even the individual is inadequate. That's an even more cynicalised view of a religion -- that it's an only organisation that can make it work. The religion itself completely loses its meaning. That's because the political system itself becomes the religion.

But that is exactly what did happen to Christianity, originally under Constantine then under every "Christian" regime ever since. And Christianity has come out of this the loser. It has become both a tool of oppression and a convenient sanctifier of state crimes. And at the same time it has been forced to become purely a personal relationship with God.

But Christianity does not seek to redeem individual people, but the whole world. This world. The one we live in now. Up to now Christianity has had the "salt of the world" effect, maintaining enough goodness to prevent a complete melt-down. But it now needs to provide an alternative vision, a different world-view that challenges the established money-worhip regimes.

But to do this it needs to reclaim the common ground. Christianity has enthusiastically co-operated in its own side-lining. I have heard it said that there is no real goodness unless it's Christian goodness, no love unless it's holy love, no good people unless they're Christians. This is a culpable distortion of what Christ actually said. The angels said "Peace on Earth to men of good will". That is, all men (and women) of good will. Real Christianity embraces all that is good, wherever and however it happens. This could genuinely become more than a "new state religion". It could be a new consensus that would be willingly consented to by all citizens, and which could bring about a new and better world.