The Lack of Christian Values

[Vanguard]

Since 1960, crime rates nationwide (USA) have tripled. What is the catalyst for all of this crime and downfall of society?

The lack of Christian values.

For the last 50 years, "people" have been working to remove religion from public life. No more school prayers, the removal of religious emblems from public offices, the minority groups' rights taking center stage and the silencing of Christian foundations. The petitions to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, and the word "God" from our PoA.

We have gone from prayers to moments of silence. Children are punished for kneeling/praying as athletes after they score in a game. The proliferation of alternative "Christian" churches that say it is ok to be gay. "We can't offend anyone in this country, [except] the Christians."

Non-Christians are not the only ones to blame.

Priests/Pastors that get caught up in sex scandals or fraud. Demonizing every aspect of life in an age when people don't like to be told what to do (or what they can or can't do). Constantly reminding church members that their tithes are due, to the point that it becomes a centric theme. The arrogance and pride of those in the churches (well I belong to such and such!). The separation of denominations (splinter groups) and their mixed messages.

The two-faced Christian. This is the person that gets all dressed up for church, sings the songs, prays to God, goes through the motions, but then come Monday morning they are cussing people out while driving, giving people the finger, cutting people off, and adding to the road rage commute. This is also the person that tells others how they should live and act, but then doesn't follow their own advice.

People have gotten to the point where they no longer care. It's no wonder 20% of the USA's population now identify themselves as atheist or agnostic.

It's also no wonder crime rates have tripled in the last 50 years. The lack of true Christian values and morals.


Just a rant...

 

[AirDancer]

It may be just your rant .... but what you have written is an observation in frustration shared by many of us.

And what's so sad about it: it's going to take a while for society to be put on proper course again.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It may be just your rant .... but what you have written is an observation in frustration shared by many of us.

And what's so sad about it: it's going to take a while for society to be put on proper course again.

I doubt that it will ever be put on proper course until after the Tribulation and the Thousand Year Reign. Jesus can't be tarrying too much longer.

 

[Aardverk]

It would be interesting to do a detailed study on this. Where are you getting the statistics?

These two graphs show a slightly different picture and I can't find reliable stats for anything earlier.

There seems to be an improvement in progress. We could assume that the drop is just because people can't be bothered to report the crime - and that was certainly the case in the 50's and 60's with open police corruption. The other thing that needs to be set against the stats is the unemployment rate and the political 'atmosphere'. We did go through a nasty phase of 'greed is good'. I wonder if that accounts in any way for the peak in property crime?

 

[Aardverk]

It could be that the fall in violent crime is related to the level of lead in our bodies. Maybe that is why country folk tend to be calmer than city folk?

"Even low levels of lead can cause brain damage, increasing the likelihood of behavioral and cognitive traits such as impulsivity, aggressiveness, and low IQ that are strongly linked with criminal behavior. The NYTimes has a story on how the phasing out of leaded gasoline starting with the Clean Air Act in 1973 may have led to a 56% drop in violent crime in the US in the 1990s. An economics professor at Amherst College, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, discovered the connection and wrote a paper comparing the reduction of lead from gasoline between states (PDF) and the reduction of violent crime. She constructed a table linking crime rates in every state to childhood lead exposure in that state 20 or 30 years earlier. If lead poisoning is a factor in the development of criminal behavior, then countries that didn't switch to unleaded fuel until the 1980s, like Britain and Australia, should soon see a dip in crime as the last lead-damaged children outgrow their most violent years."​

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/10/23/1839245/crime-reduction-linked-to-lead-free-gasoline

 

[Mike]

I see the decline stemming from one man and his book; Charles Darwan. The sanctity of our own lives and the lives of others forever changed as more people accepted it. I agree with those who say man will not improve if left to his own means.

 

[Grazer]

I see the decline stemming from one man and his book; Charles Darwan. The sanctity of our own lives and the lives of others forever changed as more people accepted it. I agree with those who say man will not improve if left to his own means.

I see it stemming from people using his book to propagate their own ideology. Darwin is not to blame, he was just publishing his findings and his theory.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

I see the decline stemming from one man and his book; Charles Darwan. The sanctity of our own lives and the lives of others forever changed as more people accepted it. I agree with those who say man will not improve if left to his own means.

I thought for moment that you were veering off-topic Mike. I had never considered 'creation' as a 'Christian Value'. I honestly think most Christians accept it as allegory these days.

If, just for the purposes of argument, we were to assume that the evidence presented for evolution was overwhelming, how would that detract from Christianity? We accept so much of The Bible as allegory, parable, proverb, etc so why not creation and some of the other more questionable tales that many do and many don't take literally? I don't think it detracts at all from what I consider to be the 'Christian Values' - love, peace, friendship, goodwill, caring, tolerance, non-belligerency, consideration, etc.

I can't remember who said it but there is a very sensible saying, 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. In the case of evolution, there is a great deal of evidence but I have never seen anyone seriously challenge the evidence. What we do still hear, quite frequently, is people rubbishing poor old Darwin even though knowledge and evidence has moved on a thousandfold since his day. Darwin is old hat. Genetic theory has now been proven, literally, by gene mapping. We now know that we share 70% of our genes with worms and yet people still question the concept of common ancestry. I really don't know why; to me it is rather like believing that the sun goes around the earth.

Darwin always get picked on but there were three main people at the time with the same theory, Darwin wasn't even the first to publish but he was the one chosen to be ridiculed by clergymen. Their jeers were basically that 'Darwin says we evolved from monkeys/apes' and we still hear people making exactly the same jeers today. The daft thing is - Darwin never said that. All that seems to be known about Darwin, by most people, are inaccurate 150 year old jeers and taunts.

I wish we could all concentrate of the good Christian Values and keep in mind, 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. This thread is a good example of evidence being important. The claim made in the OP may or may not be true - I don't know. I looked for the evidence to support it and found something rather different. Isn't that what we should all be doing? I think we should always look at the evidence and consider what, if any, conclusions to draw from it rather than coming up with a theory and then making everything else fit the theory.

From his book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' - 1844

....the organic creation was thus progressive through a long space of time, rests on evidence which nothing can overturn or gainsay. Some other idea must then be come to the mode in which the divine author proceeded in the organic creation'.​

Darwin didn't publish until the end of 1859.

 

[farouk]

A: While from an evidentialist point of view, the existence of a Creation requires a Creator, yet connected to this is the matter of coming to terms with moral responsibility toward the Creator.

The believer should in any case be looking at the matter from a faith perspective (Hebrews 11.3).

 

[stovebolts]

It could be that the fall in violent crime is related to the level of lead in our bodies. Maybe that is why country folk tend to be calmer than city folk?

"Even low levels of lead can cause brain damage, increasing the likelihood of behavioral and cognitive traits such as impulsivity, aggressiveness, and low IQ that are strongly linked with criminal behavior. The NYTimes has a story on how the phasing out of leaded gasoline starting with the Clean Air Act in 1973 may have led to a 56% drop in violent crime in the US in the 1990s. An economics professor at Amherst College, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, discovered the connection and wrote a paper comparing the reduction of lead from gasoline between states (PDF) and the reduction of violent crime. She constructed a table linking crime rates in every state to childhood lead exposure in that state 20 or 30 years earlier. If lead poisoning is a factor in the development of criminal behavior, then countries that didn't switch to unleaded fuel until the 1980s, like Britain and Australia, should soon see a dip in crime as the last lead-damaged children outgrow their most violent years."​

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/10/23/1839245/crime-reduction-linked-to-lead-free-gasoline

That is very interesting. You know they used to paint houses with lead based paint... To my point, we have a friend who has a child with autism. They moved into an old house and renovated it when he was a child (I helped) and it has been affirmed that his anger outbursts are linked to the amount of lead in his body from his infancy during the time of the renovations.

To the OP's Point though, we may be a "calmer" more "gentle" nation, but our morals and values are out the window. One only has to look at the divorce rate to see this. If you believe that the family structure is the backbone of this country, then you can clearly see that as the family structure erodes, so does the values.

 

[farouk]

...If you believe that the family structure is the backbone of this country, then you can clearly see that as the family structure erodes, so does the values.

S: Well, exactly.

But in any case, whatever secularists do when they do their own thing, at least Christian people who bear the Lord's testimony, know what they should be practising; it's not difficult to figure what the Bible teaches about families.

Blessings.

 

[Carolyn]

Ok, vanguard, I was with you till you talked about being two faced. You got to medling when you started talking about driving habits. OK, I don't
give the finger, and I don't cuss when I get cut off, but I do yell "you stupid idiot!!!!" which qualifies me for road rage and might qualify
me for hellfire. Our son once told me he was embarrassed to ride with me. Well, we were in 5 oclock traffic in a large city and it was nearly
dark, I was trying to follow my husband on a freeway in fast traffic and I didn't know where we were going. This guy kept cutting me off
and then he would slow down so that I would lose sight of my hubby. Road rage. Finally my husband slowed down to 45 till everyone passed
us and I was behind him again. Smart Husband! But he had to do that several times till the guy stopped finding me and cutting me off.

 

[Mike]

If, just for the purposes of argument, we were to assume that the evidence presented for evolution was overwhelming, how would that detract from Christianity?

I'll just focus on this question, because I don't think the validity of either theory is the focus of this discussion. I believe your question above, Darwan, and his book are, because I believe the ultimate questions that people want to know are, "How am I here?" and "Why am I here?". Furthermore, I believe the answers to these questions heavily influence how they view the sanctity of all human lives and their responsibility to them. I believe the belief that we were Created is an underpinning of all aspects of our faith. They don't necessarily depend on it, but they are built on it. Some do have strong faith in the Gospel while believing in evolution, but I believe it has driven more people from faith than left it untouched.

Intelligent design evolution aside, and focusing on either theory alone, you are left with randomn chance or meaningful purpose. I believe the one who believes we are Created with a meaningful purpose is more likely to treat others with Christian Values than those who believe we are here by chance.

Darwin's theories most definitely were not original. Maybe it was the timing of his work or other factors, but his theories were a catalyst for doubters in a belief that was much more predominant at the time it was published.

There are many directions our difference of opinion could go, such as "Where do morals come from?" or "Is there such a thing as absolute truth?", but I believe they all can be drilled down to answering the questions of how and why we are here.

The answer to those questions should impact our commitment to our marriage, our neighbors, and our enemies. I would submit that they impact our values in every regard. I know there are evolutionists who treat others very well and Creationists who do so very poorly, but overall, I believe the belief that we were Created drives what we deem to be Christian values.

 

[Vanguard]

Ok, vanguard, I was with you till you talked about being two faced. You got to medling when you started talking about driving habits. OK, I don't
give the finger, and I don't cuss when I get cut off, but I do yell "you stupid idiot!!!!" which qualifies me for road rage and might qualify
me for hellfire.

There's a big difference between someone intentionally messing with you, and you having road rage (acting on it) every time you get behind the wheel. I was referring to the latter.

I too get frustrated with drivers. In Alabama, we have a state law that requires slower traffic to move to the right on the interstate. The left lane is the passing lane for faster traffic, regardless of speed limit. So many people REFUSE to move over, and continue to go slow in the left lane, while traffic piles up behind them. I actually give tickets for it. I may get angry with people that do that, but I don't act out in rage. I can't imagine you do either, based off what you said.

 

[Aardverk]

..........I know there are evolutionists who treat others very well and Creationists who do so very poorly, but overall, I believe the belief that we were Created drives what we deem to be Christian values.

OK Mike, understood. My guess would be that the majority of Christians do not believe in literal Genesis style creation but that does not detract from their, or my, 'Christian Values'. The SoF very sensibly leaves that question open to interpretation.

I find Robert Chambers approach admirable (see my last post); it obviously didn't alter his Christian values. He didn't coin the phrase 'intelligent design' but 'the Natural History of Creation' amounts almost exactly the same thing. He very clearly pointed out in 1844 that the evidence is there for all to see.

 

[Mike]

OK Mike, understood. My guess would be that the majority of Christians do not believe in literal Genesis style creation but that does not detract from their, or my, 'Christian Values'.

Well, we have different perspectives on the state of our society. I believe we are in steady decline, so for me, it would support my stance if most Christians do not believe in a literal Creation story. There are exceptions. I was born in '67, so I didn't live through the 60's, but I've seen and read enough to acknowledge that America was a cesspool. We seemed to bounce back some after that, but it went back in decline.

You might be right in saying the majority don't, but I'm sure we'd agree that checking a box on a survey indicating the participants' religion is not a reliable indicator of their faith. It would make no difference to me if I were in the minority.

If there's no Creation, I don't see how there is original sin. If there's no original sin, then we are not inherently evil. If we're not inherently evil, there is less caution to guard against our nature, and less reliance on the Lord to steady our behaviors follows, IMO.

 

[Aardverk]

Well, we have different perspectives on the state of our society. I believe we are in steady decline, so for me, it would support my stance if most Christians do not believe in a literal Creation story. There are exceptions. I was born in '67, so I didn't live through the 60's, but I've seen and read enough to acknowledge that America was a cesspool. We seemed to bounce back some after that, but it went back in decline. ...................

If there's no Creation, I don't see how there is original sin. If there's no original sin, then we are not inherently evil. If we're not inherently evil, there is less caution to guard against our nature, and less reliance on the Lord to steady our behaviors follows, IMO.

As someone who was there the 60's, yes, we do have different perspectives. As a very active Christian back then I honestly felt that the 'love', 'peace' & 'ecology' messages were far closer to the teachings of Jesus than the B52s etc - but that is getting too far off-topic.

Do bear in mind that I did not say there was no creation. The case I was making was the case made by Robert Chambers in 1844. His view was that no-one could deny his findings and, as far as I know, no one has ever tried to deny them. That leaves the rest of your speculation about original sin intact.

The thread is about the causes of crime. The original speculation was that it was caused by a 'lack of Christian Values'. It would indeed be interesting to get the data used by the OP and seek out a 'Christian Value' causal link - if there is one. Unfortunately, the only data I could find showed that crime was dropping and there is some hard evidence for why that may be.

 

[Vanguard]

It would be interesting to do a detailed study on this. Where are you getting the statistics?

These two graphs show a slightly different picture and I can't find reliable stats for anything earlier.

There seems to be an improvement in progress. We could assume that the drop is just because people can't be bothered to report the crime - and that was certainly the case in the 50's and 60's with open police corruption. The other thing that needs to be set against the stats is the unemployment rate and the political 'atmosphere'. We did go through a nasty phase of 'greed is good'. I wonder if that accounts in any way for the peak in property crime?

Two things:

1. Your first graph only shows property crimes. PC's have gone down because of advanced measures in security (house alarms, car alarms, special ignitions or keys, etc.). It is harder to steal technology ladened cars, bypassing burglar bars, getting around ADT, and dealing with people who carry debit cards instead of cash (and they can quickly be canceled).

2. Your second graph shows a population density, and the ratio of violent crimes to the overall population. What it doesn't factor is that as your population increases, the ratio per 1,000 will decrease because it is being diluted more and more.

I can't link the FBI files on the crime stats database (nor can I access it at home). Just know that violent crimes have risen sharply over the last 50 years (and that's only counting the ones that are actually reported).

 

[Aardverk]

1. Your first graph only shows property crimes. PC's have gone down because of advanced measures in security (house alarms, car alarms, special ignitions or keys, etc.). It is harder to steal technology ladened cars, bypassing burglar bars, getting around ADT, and dealing with people who carry debit cards instead of cash (and they can quickly be canceled).

2. Your second graph shows a population density, and the ratio of violent crimes to the overall population. What it doesn't factor is that as your population increases, the ratio per 1,000 will decrease because it is being diluted more and more.

I can't link the FBI files on the crime stats database (nor can I access it at home). Just know that violent crimes have risen sharply over the last 50 years (and that's only counting the ones that are actually reported).

I'm shocked to hear from you that the FBI has violent crime data that has not been released to the public nor even to the Bureau of Justice. That's criminal! It makes the Bureau of Justice Statistics and all their hard work meaningless! Unbelievable.

Looking at your points:
1. Vehicle crime has remained pretty level so car improvements are not a factor. Burglary seems to have gone up at periods of high unemployment and residential locks haven't really changed very much in the last 50 years. Larceny similarly and larceny is the biggest factor by a long way, unaffected by locks and alarms.
2. The Violent Crime stats are quoted per 1,000 simply to give a consistent reporting method - same as a percentage (hundredth) but a thousandth instead. The graph actually shows male violent crime reducing from 7% in 1973 to 2.5% in 2003. When considered as a percentage or a 'permillage', population growth becomes irrelevant. If it really were being 'diluted more and more', that would be a good trend but the graph does not indicate that.

More interesting, I think, is that the US population has gone up by an incredible 100 million in the last 50 years (about 60%) yet some areas, New York is a good example, have a lower crime rate now than then. Something must be working.

As a matter of interest, where did you get the causal link to a 'lack of Christian Values'? Is there some data available on that or was it just an assumption?

 

[Vanguard]

I'm shocked to hear from you that the FBI has violent crime data that has not been released to the public nor even to the Bureau of Justice. That's criminal! It makes the Bureau of Justice Statistics and all their hard work meaningless! Unbelievable.

I can also guarantee those graphs don't include juvenile based data. Those records are sealed and not public domain. Hence the discrepancy between your data and mine.