Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[The Thinker]

I did no such thing. I always use the quote function for direct quotes. On top of that, you've admitted here that I wasn't even wrong about what you were saying.

Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

[shunyadragon]

Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?

Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

is not meaningful.

[Littlejoe]

Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

Source: atheismandthecity.com

...So you have to consider whether doing this may be a chance to kill two birds with one stone for the secular, liberal, progressive advocate like myself: Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that. It's a win-win situation!"

© Copyright Original Source

Source of Quote

That seems pretty clear cut. Destroy and eradicate are certainly close enough synonyms here that you owe Carrikature an apology.

[Carrikature]

Yes you did. You quoted me saying "eradicate religion". I wrote no such thing either on this thread or in that blog post I linked you to. You're being dishonest and now you're lying to get out of it. I challenge you to find where I wrote "eradicate religion" anywhere on this thread.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. I do not use " " in an attempt to portray direct quotes. I use the quote and cite functions for that. It is why we have them, after all. There is no lying here nor is there any possible benefit to me to do so. I don't care that much. I paraphrased what I took to be your meaning from the things you said. You haven't bothered to challenge that meaning; you're just mad about how I expressed it. Do so if you wish, but don't expect me to care.

For what it's worth, you should be careful with accusations of lying on this website. Once upon a time, the rules required demonstrating the lie in the same post where you call someone a liar. Mods have been pretty lax about enforcing that afaict, but I don't think the rule has changed. In this particular case, you can't demonstrate me to be lying because I wasn't. Miscommunication happens, but that doesn't mean one party is lying.

[Carrikature]

Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

Maybe that has something to do with conversion rates in prison...

is not meaningful.

Anything to score a point, eh Shuny?

[seer]

Actually many criminals in prisons claim to be very religious, either Christian or Jesus.

is not meaningful.

They are called jail house conversions - I know, I did prison ministry for a number of years. And after all the Gospel is made for sinners.

[The Thinker]

Source: atheismandthecity.com

...So you have to consider whether doing this may be a chance to kill two birds with one stone for the secular, liberal, progressive advocate like myself: Destroy what we're against socially, economically, and politically, and we could help destroy religion as a convenient by-product of that. It's a win-win situation!"

© Copyright Original Source

Source of Quote

That seems pretty clear cut. Destroy and eradicate are certainly close enough synonyms here that you owe Carrikature an apology.

I'm accusing him of quoting me on something I did not write, which is what he did. I don't care whether the meaning is the same. Attributing a quote to someone that has not written those exact words sets a dangerous precedent.

[The Thinker]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. I do not use " " in an attempt to portray direct quotes. I use the quote and cite functions for that. It is why we have them, after all. There is no lying here nor is there any possible benefit to me to do so. I don't care that much. I paraphrased what I took to be your meaning from the things you said. You haven't bothered to challenge that meaning; you're just mad about how I expressed it. Do so if you wish, but don't expect me to care.

For what it's worth, you should be careful with accusations of lying on this website. Once upon a time, the rules required demonstrating the lie in the same post where you call someone a liar. Mods have been pretty lax about enforcing that afaict, but I don't think the rule has changed. In this particular case, you can't demonstrate me to be lying because I wasn't. Miscommunication happens, but that doesn't mean one party is lying.

It's OK Carrikature. No one's perfect, not even Jesus. Just try not to do it again.

[Tassman]

Which is why criminals tend to not be religious?

This is questionable.

And it doesn't explain why the only overtly religious nation in the developed Western World, i.e. the USA, has by far the highest rates of incarceration and that the least religious nations tend to have much lower rates of incarceration, e.g. Norway. Don’t Christians claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation, so why so many criminals in the US?

[Tassman]

They are called jail house conversions - I know, I did prison ministry for a number of years. And after all the Gospel is made for sinners.

Poor creatures! Haven't they been punished enough?

[seer]

Poor creatures! Haven't they been punished enough?

Except, I have seen some pretty hard men turn their lives around and become good citizens because of the Gospel. They came to believe in a God that loves and forgives them, and they have hope beyond this vale of tears. Something atheism can not offer.

[Carrikature]

This is questionable.

There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.

And it doesn't explain why the only overtly religious nation in the developed Western World, i.e. the USA, has by far the highest rates of incarceration and that the least religious nations tend to have much lower rates of incarceration, e.g. Norway. Don’t Christians claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation, so why so many criminals in the US?

It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level. Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

[shunyadragon]

There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.




It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level. Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

As I said before, 'It is a meaningless issue.'

[lilpixieofterror]

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo!

Is that sort of like how you keep pretending to be a theist?

[lilpixieofterror]

I wonder if it's possible to make a less relevant claim and still remain on topic. Your personal history of crime doesn't have anything to do with incarceration rates. Even at a 95% incarceration rate, there would still be ~16 million Americans that had never seen jail time.

Curious how you totally ignored most of my post (you know, the part where I pointed out a reason nobody has refuted yet) and how you don't want to jump down Andus' throat for saying the same thing I did. In case you forgot what Tazzy Wazzy said, let me remind you:

Except that the one country in the prosperous, developed world where Christianity is still taken seriously is the USA and the US ranks as one of the most violent, inequitable societies in the west with the highest rate of incarceration.

Did you skip over the underlined part, in your quest to try to make those you disapprove of look bad?