Jesus rides with the cops—and taxpayers foot the bill

reply to post by SevenThunders


Hear, hear. The ONLY thing they need to change is that the only ride alongs can be Jehovahs Witness. All others are as serpents, right? In fact all those ministers are as wolves in sheeps clothing. So, they should be limited one sect only. SevenThunders and I agree on this.

reply to post by godlover25


That's one hell of an interpretation you made there. Where EXACTLY does he say for others to follow those 10 however I did read him say give away all worldly possesions. Why do Christians ignore that?

You didn't need to give me a summary of your life but my take on what you wrote. You were borne and baptized into it you had doubts at some point and it then became easier to just stick with it.

Grimpachi
reply to post by godlover25

 

That's one hell of an interpretation you made there. Where EXACTLY does he say for others to follow those 10 however I did read him say give away all worldly possesions. Why do Christians ignore that?

You didn't need to give me a summary of your life but my take on what you wrote. You were borne and baptized into it you had doubts at some point and it then became easier to just stick with it.

give away all worldly possessions? Where does one pull that from? The rich man that kept the law but wouldn't part with his possessions? If that's where you're getting it...then you're sadly mistaken. the Bible does not say that all Christians should sell everything they have. It is in accordance with the heart of each individual what they do with their worldly possessions...that is to say, some people have the heart to be giving and thankful and gracious with what they have...and to them even more is given....THAT is the biblical context.

On the other hand, individuals like the rich young ruler have "masters" like money that they refuse to part with...and God will not play second fiddle. Thus Jesus was basically telling the man "If you're sincere about wanting to know how to enter into heaven, give away what you have..." but the rich man's response shows his insincerity...His heart is focused more on the money/possessions than on God...

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Thank you,

Perfectly worded my dear brother,

God bless

reply to post by xDeadcowx


Sounds a million times less dangerous than them bringing APCs and rifles.

Our system needs more psychological counciling options and less weaponization.

I do think the chaplans should be versed in multiple schools in order to be accessable and effective.

Also they should bring a lawyer everywhere too.
We really need one of those to tag along with the police that is for sure!!

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


If you learned that in church it must be true.( end sarcasm)

Alternate there is a thread speaking about that sort of thing. You should read the source article.

reply to post by xDeadcowx


Well I'll try.
Hindus are such a tiny demographic of the American south ,I wouldn't see why.Not to mention not many people who are of that faith get arrested.
Muslims have Jihadists amongst their ranks,they aren't doing much to change that,they still want revenge.

Agree2Disagree
Source

In this article, we have analyzed the effect of religion on crime as reported in previous empirical studies.
We examined data from 60 studies, and we found that religion had a statisitically significant, moderately sized effect on crime
of about r= -.12. Since Hirschi and Stark's (1969) finding of religious nondeterrance, many sociologists
have questioned whether religion has any effect on crime. Our findings give confidence that religion does
indeed have some deterrent effect.

Now I've provided my case study. Can you provide yours?

That study has a pile of problems I'd have to look at more to take seriously:

* It's a meta-analysis of other studies
* The collection of studies have different standards of what qualifies as religious and what doesn't
* Studies were focusing on vastly different things ... for example some studies focused on alcohol use by minors and marijuana whilst others discuss murder and robbery. What if all the people who didn't rob or murder were smoking pot?
* Some of the studies are significantly larger than others. Larger sample sizes mean a smaller effect. To quote Wells and Rankin: "the most substantial correlations are produced by the smallest, least reliable, and least representative studies". The author of the study states that the negative effect of the sample size might be due to the file drawer problem. 'Journal editors ... are simply more likely to believe and publish null findings derived from larger samples'. I'm not sure that makes sense ... because if anything the file drawer problem would imply there are more null finding studies that haven't been published, it wouldn't support the study.

There is also very little discussion of cultural factors in relation to sample size. The author makes a point that white people are less effected by religion and tries to tie this to African American church practice but I'm not sure that applies here. Given that white people are 70% ish of the population of America, you would expect to find a wider variation in demographics. African Americans are disproportionately poor in the United States, and therefore it doesn't take a big leap to point out that more African Americans are likely to be actively attending and having ties to the local church. More African Americans attending church = the 'deterrence' factor is higher but only because more African Americans from various demographics are attending. The author acknowledges this but tries to tie it into moral teaching when in actual fact given most people aren't criminals a generic rise in church attendance would seem significant in a small population.

It's not the worst study ever I don't think ... it's honest about a lot of its problems, but I think it needs a fair bit of academic interpretation. Studies for publication do have a tendency to play down their problems (especially meta-analysis) and this one seems to fall into that category. I especially find that explaining away of large sample sizes having close to null effects as 'hand waving'.

Peer review for a lot of these journals is really just two academics doing a blind review. Especially in social science areas they can be a little lax on empirical evidence; really they're just confirming that the author of the journal has something relevant to add to the discussion ... they're not endorsing the findings 100%. The author actually acknowledges eight articles that disagree with their findings soooooo ...

Sorry for the rambling, I just find persons put too much faith in these types of articles and, at the end of the day, the author points out that the 'type' of religion didn't change their findings ... so it may be there needs to be a secular equivalent service made available to the community at large for gatherings and the discussing of moral questions; that's if all the problems I mentioned in this study aren't enough to deem it inconsequential.

I personally wouldn't have the bones to put pot smoking and under age drinking in the same category as robbing and murder in a meta study about morality and crime frankly.

Why is it suspicious to help?
On the congested cities of the coasts trust seems to be GONE.
Now they are attributing that to Christianity? No I don't fear God.God loves me I'm cool with that,although I am HERETICAL in many way I ask that God forgive me and please help me understand.
Too bad my ego and anger get in the way.
That doesn't mean EVERYBODY should be like me I don't want that,how would I learn of others? But some are somehow insulted and demand things of others.
It isn't working.
Remember "I'm Ok You're OK?"
Real Christians get it.It isn't about putting the other guy down,if it is,congratulations you would be right at home in the Westboro Church.
We are about FELLOWSHIP.
And if the majority aren't I AM.