Why are religious people filling up prisons?

graniteowl88 said:Look, we already get that—we know exactly what American prisons look like compared to how things were under those old atheist regimes.

I mean, we're fully aware of how communism essentially perfected a specific kind of tolerance—one built entirely on its own unique logic and worldview.

It’s basically applied philosophy put into practice.

Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble here, but a quasi-communist stalinist dictatorship isn't actually representative of communism, let alone atheism.
Besides, equating all atheists with communists is just as flawed as saying all Christians are fascists. You simply can't claim that a subset defines the entire group.

I hate to be the one to disappoint you, but a quasi-communist stalinist dictatorship is not the same thing as communism, let alone atheism.

Fine! Stalin isn't the first or the last!

Besides, equating all atheists with communists is just like equating all Christians with fascists. You simply cannot claim a subset equals the whole.

Oh, you poor thing...

Secundus said:Out of that 8%, 99.9% are criminals. Nobody even cares about the other 0.1%!
What kind of documentation are you working with? Unbelievable!
S.🙂

How exactly do you define "criminal character"? Based on your logic, are we saying that if you don't believe in God, you're automatically a felon?😕

Nicole James, I have to say—really solid points there.

illegale said:It’s like when a kid looks up at his grandfather and says, "Gramps, who cares about everyone else? I’m just looking out for number one."

You really need to grasp the metaphorical weight of what I am saying here.

When a man begins to contemplate the idea that the true retribution for immorality must originate from within his own soul, then everything changes... because if you watch all those mobsters and white-collar criminals living their lives in total luxury without ever facing a single consequence, well, it makes you wonder why on earth anyone wouldn't follow suit, doesn't it?

However, if you view theft through a different lens—as the moment you violated your OWN internal moral compass and betrayed the very principles you preach to everyone else—then we are discussing an entirely different level of existence altogether...

Superskeptik said:.

Back in 1990, atheists and agnostics made up about 8.0% of the population, but by 2001, that number climbed to 14.2%. If anyone wants to dive into the rest of the data, you can check it out here.

😉

Why do the pious end up behind bars?

I suppose it’s because they just love contemplating the nature of God in the absolute silence of a prison cell. 🤣

What kind of question is that, and isn't the answer blindingly obvious? It’s all part of God's will, plain and simple. And let’s face it, God certainly knows His own flock best, and He tends to be particularly hard on those who go out of their way to claim they belong to Him. You have believers who worry that God is too strict, fearing His divine judgment will catch up to them in heaven if they live in sin, but it seems their deserved punishment arrived a little early, right here on Earth. Everyone gets exactly what they deserve, doesn't anyone else agree?

As for the non-believers, well, maybe God turns a blind eye to them, since they never actually made any formal promises to follow His laws to the letter.😬

What really seems to irritate Him, though, are those who swear blind loyalty while breaking His commandments the moment they step out the door. Take our friend Second's, for example:

Second's says:
It's because there are almost no non-believers left in the USA, you fraud! b> In one single, incredibly brief sentence, he managed to commit three of the seven deadly sins— pride, wrath, and sloth. If he hadn't been so lazy and arrogant, he might have bothered to look up some actual statistics to realize that non-believers in America make up about 14 percent of the population (atheists, agnostics, and the religiously unaffiliated). So, if he weren't so slothful, he wouldn't be lying so shamelessly and violating the eighth commandment:

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness! b>

After being caught red-handed in a lie by Super-skeptic, he immediately tries to swap one falsehood for another, even more egregious one, claiming:

Second's:
Of these 8% (atheists and agnostics) 99.9% are of criminal character. b>
Once again, with just one solitary sentence, he has thoroughly violated the eighth commandment, and to top it off, he’s tacked on several other sins—gossip, hatred, slander, intolerance, and passing unfair judgment on his neighbors.🙂
There’s no need to even mention his wrath; it's a constant companion for Second's. Don't blame him, though—whenever someone attacks an opposing view with that much passion and fury, it’s usually just a subconscious sign that they know they lack any solid foundation for their beliefs. Deep down, he knows his only real argument for his faith is the one famously uttered by the church father Tertullian:

. . I believe because it is unbelievable. b>

Second's anger is the clearest indicator that his views are upside down. The only real problem with fools and fanatics 🙂 like him is that they are always so certain of themselves, which often leads people much wiser than Second's to simply walk away from the argument just to avoid being spat upon. But, we don't want the loonies taking over b> as Slartibartfast would say.

After dissecting Second's—a textbook example of a fanatical Catholic and a blinded believer par excellence—it becomes perfectly clear why Catholics often lead the pack in the criminal population of America. So many of these people operate under two different sets of morals: one set they preach and advocate for but never actually practice, and another set they live by, but rarely ever speak of or dare to preach.

Yet, far worse than crimes committed due to a failure to follow one's religious convictions are the crimes committed specifically *in the name* of those very convictions. Or, as Blaise Pascal, a deeply devoted believer, once put it:

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. b> 👎

.

Essence said:Why do the pious end up behind bars?

I suppose they just enjoy contemplating God in the silence of a prison cell. 🤣

What a question, though the answer is actually quite straightforward. It’s all part of God's will, plain and simple. I truly believe God knows His flock best, and He tends to be especially demanding of those who claim to follow Him. Some believers worry that God might be too harsh, fearing divine judgment in heaven if they live in sin—but sometimes, that deserved justice arrives a little early, right here on Earth. Everyone gets what they deserve.

As for non-believers, God is a bit more lenient; after all, they never made a formal commitment to follow His laws.😬

.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

While this data doesn't track religious affiliation, there's something quite striking about these figures:

It’s a sobering reality that Americans hold several unfortunate global records, including one for incarceration rates.
Currently, one in thirty white people and one in nine Black people are behind bars. The number of men incarcerated is ten times higher than that of women.

In total, we're looking at 2.3 million people in custody.

swiftcobra15 said:It’s a sobering reality that Americans hold several unfortunate global records, including one for incarceration rates.
Currently, one in thirty white people and one in nine Black people are behind bars. The number of men incarcerated is ten times higher than that of women.

Americans hold several infamous global records, including an unprecedented incarceration rate.
One in thirty white people and one in nine Black people are currently behind bars. Men outnumber women in prison ten to one.

The total number of incarcerated individuals stands at 2.3 million.

It makes me wonder why a nation where believers hold positions across all government institutions—from administration and the judiciary to education—ranks as one of the most repressive in the world.

Without getting too deep into sociology or philosophy, I would say this society's morality is lagging far behind modern ethics. Is faith acting as a brake on this behavior, or has imperialist policy blinded us to the welfare of our own people? I suspect it's the latter.

🙂🙂🙂

I remember sitting in a small cafe back in Chicago, listening to an old veteran talk about how much things have changed since the days of our Founding Fathers. It really makes you think about the weight of history we carry today. swiftcobra15 says:
It makes me wonder why, in a country where every single government institution—from the courts to the school systems—is staffed by people of faith, repression somehow takes center stage on the global map. 🙂🙂🙂

It feels to me like the most defining trend across the USA over the last few decades has been this massive wave of desekularization.
The Founding Fathers were largely secularists, and the colonies were primarily settled by regular people.
They were people who fled religious persecution in search of true freedom.
Ever since the nation broke free from the rule of the Crown, it seems like we're on a fast track to becoming an imperial power ourselves.
And then, following World War II, the nation truly ascended to become the global Hegemon.
They have far surpassed the UK, which has essentially become a debtor to the USA following the Bankrupt War.

It’s only on our currency that you see "In God We Trust" printed there, yet every major politician seems to lean on it constantly.
They’re suddenly becoming "devout" believers—just more hypocrites like most people around here who love to call themselves "God-fearing, tax-paying" citizens.

By practicing this kind of practical secularization, we’re actually violating the Constitution every single day, yet it seems like nobody even cares.
It doesn't bother me particularly. My only issue is that all these different "Dawkins" types start popping up, who, on...
It feels like a circus to me—this constant, aggressive crusade against religion in the name of pursuing scientific "truth." 😁

swiftcobra15 said:The USA is essentially a nation of inmates and convicts. We have more prisoners per capita than anyone else on the planet.
But who actually ends up behind bars? Take a look at these figures:

STUDIES: ATHEISTS SUPPLY LESS THAN 1% OF PRISON POPULATIONS
by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

I’m often surprised by people telling me, "You're an Atheist? You probably don't feel any guilt when committing a crime." That couldn't be more wrong. If we actually take a close look at our prison populations, the reality tells a completely different story.

In "The New Criminology," Max d. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith note that after analyzing data across two generations of statisticians, the ratio of convicts lacking religious upbringing is roughly 0.1%. Furthermore, W. T. Root, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, studied 1,916 inmates and observed that "indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character." He noted that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are almost entirely absent from our penitentiaries.
During 10 years in Sing Sing, among those executed for murder, 65% were Catholics, 26% were Protestants, 6% were Hebrew, 2% were Pagans, and less than 1/3 of 1% were non-religious.

I don't think a word-for-word translation is necessary here. Essentially, there is a very distinct religious makeup among inmates. While we shouldn't treat these specific numbers as absolute law—since they represent a specific sample rather than the entire country—the ratios remain fairly consistent across various parts of the USA.

So, looking at the data from Sing Sing, we see that 56% of murderers were Catholic (given that about one in four Americans is Catholic), 26% were Protestant (roughly one in every two Americans), 6% were Jew, and everyone else was a tiny fraction.
Non-believers are represented in prison at a rate a hundred times lower than their actual share of the general population.

How do you all make sense of this? Why does it seem that Catholics are significantly more prone to crime, while Atheists are quite the opposite? 😕

I mean, I get the feeling you already know the answer.

In Christianity, you can mess up. You just go to confession, repent, and boom—your sins are wiped clean.

swiftcobra15 said:The USA is essentially a nation of inmates and convicts. We have more prisoners per capita than anyone else on the planet.
But who actually ends up behind bars? Take a look at these figures:

STUDIES: ATHEISTS SUPPLY LESS THAN 1% OF PRISON POPULATIONS
by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina Director
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

I’m often surprised by people telling me, "You're an Atheist? You probably don't feel any guilt when committing a crime." That couldn't be more wrong. If we actually take a close look at our prison populations, the reality tells a completely different story.

In "The New Criminology," Max d. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith note that after analyzing data across two generations of statisticians, the ratio of convicts lacking religious upbringing is roughly 0.1%. Furthermore, W. T. Root, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, studied 1,916 inmates and observed that "indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character." He noted that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are almost entirely absent from our penitentiaries.
During 10 years in Sing Sing, among those executed for murder, 65% were Catholics, 26% were Protestants, 6% were Hebrew, 2% were Pagans, and less than 1/3 of 1% were non-religious.

I don't think a word-for-word translation is necessary here. Essentially, there is a very distinct religious makeup among inmates. While we shouldn't treat these specific numbers as absolute law—since they represent a specific sample rather than the entire country—the ratios remain fairly consistent across various parts of the USA.

So, looking at the data from Sing Sing, we see that 56% of murderers were Catholic (given that about one in four Americans is Catholic), 26% were Protestant (roughly one in every two Americans), 6% were Jew, and everyone else was a tiny fraction.
Non-believers are represented in prison at a rate a hundred times lower than their actual share of the general population.

How do you all make sense of this? Why does it seem that Catholics are significantly more prone to crime, while Atheists are quite the opposite? 😕

You’re missing a huge part of the equation here—why are Protestants less likely to commit crimes than Catholics, or put another way, why are Catholics more criminal than Protestants? (In America, obviously 🙂). I mean, even Protestants seem more prone to crime than atheists, so I get the feeling you weren't actually asking what you phrased... maybe you were hinting at something else. Like... maybe—just maybe—is it just that religious people in general are more prone to crime than non-believers?.. 🙂

Are they, though? What even defines a believer versus a non-believer? Just claiming to belong to a religion doesn't necessarily make someone a true believer. Right?

Or maybe the question is exactly what it looks like, and the answer is simply that Catholicism is the most hypocritical religion on the planet, and its followers are the biggest hypocrites of all... 🙂 It’s not surprising, really. Catholics basically feel like they have a free pass for everything because everything is "forgiven." They have this strict Bob who yells and makes threats, but he’s actually just a big softie because He forgives everything in the end... maybe He’s just having some identity issues... 😁

adriatic, if we look at this through the lens of that other thread regarding how abortion legalization correlates with crime rates in the US, then maybe there isn't a direct link between being Catholic and the percentage of people behind bars; instead, what we might actually be seeing is a correlation between the neglect of unwanted children and the fact that certain religions—well, I assume most of them—prohibit abortion rights.

Now, if there really is a significant overlap between belonging to a specific religion and ending up behind bars, I don't think it has anything to do with actual piety, but rather its total absence—meaning religious affiliation is just purely performative, much like what Vergilius suggested (and by the way, 👋 a quick shout-out to Vergilius).

Or, looking at it a third way, if a religion’s concept of forgiveness is set up such that you can use it as an excuse to dodge personal accountability—as if someone else can forgive you for something that only you can truly reconcile within yourself—then it seems like the whole thing has been fundamentally misunderstood on a surface level.

steelridge58 said:adriatic, if we look at this through the lens of that other thread regarding how abortion legalization correlates with crime rates in the US, then maybe there isn't a direct link between being Catholic and the percentage of people behind bars; instead, what we might actually be seeing is a correlation between the neglect of unwanted children and the fact that certain religions—well, I assume most of them—prohibit abortion rights.

Now, if there really is a significant overlap between belonging to a specific religion and ending up behind bars, I don't think it has anything to do with actual piety, but rather its total absence—meaning religious affiliation is just purely performative, much like what Vergilius suggested (and by the way, 👋 a quick shout-out to Vergilius).

Or, looking at it a third way, if a religion’s concept of forgiveness is set up such that you can use it as an excuse to dodge personal accountability—as if someone else can forgive you for something that only you can truly reconcile within yourself—then it seems like the whole thing has been fundamentally misunderstood on a surface level.

There’s likely a connection there, though I don't think anyone has actually studied it yet.

steelridge58 said:adriatic, if we look at this through the lens of that other thread regarding how abortion legalization correlates with crime rates in the US, then maybe there isn't a direct link between being Catholic and the percentage of people behind bars; instead, what we might actually be seeing is a correlation between the neglect of unwanted children and the fact that certain religions—well, I assume most of them—prohibit abortion rights.

Now, if there really is a significant overlap between belonging to a specific religion and ending up behind bars, I don't think it has anything to do with actual piety, but rather its total absence—meaning religious affiliation is just purely performative, much like what Vergilius suggested (and by the way, 👋 a quick shout-out to Vergilius).

Or, looking at it a third way, if a religion’s concept of forgiveness is set up such that you can use it as an excuse to dodge personal accountability—as if someone else can forgive you for something that only you can truly reconcile within yourself—then it seems like the whole thing has been fundamentally misunderstood on a surface level.

If we take the title strictly, I wasn't being accurate. By "pious," I meant those who declare themselves believers.

True piety can never be quantified or measured (it's internal).
For sociological research, what matters is how one declares their affiliation.

When Hitler claims to be Catholic, I take that at face value.
Of course, I don't mean he shares the same values as Mother Teresa and such,
but simply that they formally belong to the same church—meaning, they are believers.

You know, 🙂 I honestly have such a soft spot for those little little snippets you put in your titles, like when you write things like "Mary walks through the countryside..." and it’s just like this time. 🙂 It always makes me chuckle, and once I start laughing, all that heavy seriousness just evaporates, which actually makes it so much easier for me to see how being relaxed and lighthearted feels far more natural and beautiful than trying to carry around a heavy, serious attitude all the time. 🙂

But alright, let's get serious for a second...

swiftcobra15 said:If we take the title strictly, I wasn't being accurate. By "pious," I meant those who declare themselves believers.

That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.

steelridge58 said:You know, 🙂 I honestly have such a soft spot for those little little snippets you put in your titles, like when you write things like "Mary walks through the countryside..." and it’s just like this time. 🙂 It always makes me chuckle, and once I start laughing, all that heavy seriousness just evaporates, which actually makes it so much easier for me to see how being relaxed and lighthearted feels far more natural and beautiful than trying to carry around a heavy, serious attitude all the time. 🙂

But alright, let's get serious for a second...

That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.
That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.
That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.
Before the era of democratic revolutions, freedom was reserved for the nobility and the clergy. Everyone else was left with nothing but duties and obligations. Rousseau noted that man is born free, only to spend his entire life in chains. His friend and chess rival, Diderot, once remarked that true freedom would arrive only when the last king is strangled by the guts of the last priest. Why mention this? Because even today, the church hasn't quite grasped that kings are nothing more than historical relics, and the clergy—by embracing democracy and exercising their right to vote—have become part of the general citizenry. This lack of understanding shows in the way they still reserve the reward of virtue solely for the clergy by declaring them saints, while focusing almost exclusively on the sins of everyone else—sins which, mind you, are generously forgiven.

If they focused on promoting virtue instead of obsessing over sin, we would see positive change within the church. Until then, I doubt it. 🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂

Harold James9 said:

That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.
That brings us to the question of how the church, or religion in general, relates to its members—whether they claim the faith or not, since, as you pointed out, you can't really measure someone's level of piety—and how that relates to the core values being championed, which ultimately leads to the question of the institution's relationship with itself.
Before the era of democratic revolutions, freedom was reserved for the nobility and the clergy. Everyone else was left with nothing but duties and obligations. Rousseau noted that man is born free, only to spend his entire life in chains. His friend and chess rival, Diderot, once remarked that true freedom would arrive only when the last king is strangled by the guts of the last priest. Why mention this? Because even today, the church hasn't quite grasped that kings are nothing more than historical relics, and the clergy—by embracing democracy and exercising their right to vote—have become part of the general citizenry. This lack of understanding shows in the way they still reserve the reward of virtue solely for the clergy by declaring them saints, while focusing almost exclusively on the sins of everyone else—sins which, mind you, are generously forgiven.

If they focused on promoting virtue instead of obsessing over sin, we would see positive change within the church. Until then, I doubt it. 🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂
Before the era of democratic revolutions, freedom was reserved for the nobility and the clergy. Everyone else was left with nothing but duties and obligations. Rousseau noted that man is born free, only to spend his entire life in chains. His friend and chess rival, Diderot, once remarked that true freedom would arrive only when the last king is strangled by the guts of the last priest. Why mention this? Because even today, the church hasn't quite grasped that kings are nothing more than historical relics, and the clergy—by embracing democracy and exercising their right to vote—have become part of the general citizenry. This lack of understanding shows in the way they still reserve the reward of virtue solely for the clergy by declaring them saints, while focusing almost exclusively on the sins of everyone else—sins which, mind you, are generously forgiven.

If they focused on promoting virtue instead of obsessing over sin, we would see positive change within the church. Until then, I doubt it. 🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂
There really is only one true "virtue": Piety. And that manifests itself through humility and submission to the Church authorities.😁
Everything else is just window dressing—mere empty platitudes, like putting flowers on a heavy chain. 👎

swiftcobra15 said:Before the era of democratic revolutions, freedom was reserved for the nobility and the clergy. Everyone else was left with nothing but duties and obligations. Rousseau noted that man is born free, only to spend his entire life in chains. His friend and chess rival, Diderot, once remarked that true freedom would arrive only when the last king is strangled by the guts of the last priest. Why mention this? Because even today, the church hasn't quite grasped that kings are nothing more than historical relics, and the clergy—by embracing democracy and exercising their right to vote—have become part of the general citizenry. This lack of understanding shows in the way they still reserve the reward of virtue solely for the clergy by declaring them saints, while focusing almost exclusively on the sins of everyone else—sins which, mind you, are generously forgiven.

If they focused on promoting virtue instead of obsessing over sin, we would see positive change within the church. Until then, I doubt it. 🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂

There really is only one true "virtue": Piety. And that manifests itself through humility and submission to the Church authorities.😁
Everything else is just window dressing—mere empty platitudes, like putting flowers on a heavy chain. 👎
That means there is the exhausting task of modernizing the list of virtues ahead. 😁

🙂🙂🙂

swiftcobra15 kaže:
Non-believers are represented hundred times less than you'd expect based on their share of the total population.

Battleship X said:The US doesn't have many atheists in the general population, so there shouldn't be many among prisoners either.

😁

Are you having some trouble with your eyesight? 😕

I don't recall the exact figures, but those who (in various ways)
identify as non-believers number around 30 million. 🙂