markomalley

Hebrews 9 has an extremely important lesson for anybody trying to understand scripture. It speaks about much of what happens in the Old Testament being a "figure" of what would happen after the resurrection of Christ. Heb 9:9 "This is a symbol of the present time..." is something that we should all try to keep in mind. Of course, the specific example being cited is in reference to the OT sacrifices as propitiation being a figure of the one true sacrifice of the Lamb of God, but the principle can be seen in other areas, as well. One of these other areas is baptism. 1 Pet 3:20b-22 "...while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him." 1 Cor 10:1-2 "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Baptism was even prophesied about by Ezekiel: Eze 36:24-26 "For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the foreign lands, and bring you back to your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts." So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament and in addition we can see that the element of water is physical matter key to baptism. Of course, the physical act of baptizing with water brings on a far deeper spiritual cleansing, but, to say that one baptizes without water or that water is some type of new innovation brought on by the mind of man is simply ludicrous (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to the validity of sacred scripture in the first place, in which case the point is moot).

I think your observations would be applicable to any group, and, all things considered with your personal history, are remarkably charitable. I hope that you will some day be able to find some place where you can have some real peace and reconcilliation, although I can fully understand why it wouldn't be within a Catholic church. By the way, "i've seen parishes with priests that i think should be burned down" -- are you suggesting burning the parish or the parish priest?

Oldies, My sincerest apologies for not getting back to you until now, but, I've been doing "works" this evening. A terrible thing: the Knights of Columbus had a Memorial Mass for the repose of the souls of the brothers of our council who have passed away. Quite a list since our council started back in 1928. Yup, works...specifically one of the seven spiritual works of mercy. We Catholics are terrible about doing works, ya know. Those spiritual works of mercy are: to admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive injuries, and to pray for the living and the dead. They are accompanied by the seven corporal works of mercy: to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to visit the sick, to visit those in prison, and to bury the dead. Of course, don't get me wrong, I don't know of any Catholics that believe that those works will get us saved: we do those works in humble thanksgiving for the goodness of God. But, that, of course, is a minor detail. Anyway, it was a really nice liturgy. We celebrated it as a solemn Mass (those who left the Church before the Novus Ordo came into place would likely recognize the term as a Solemn High Mass). Had an organist, incense, lots of altar servers (we say servers because they allow girls to serve now as well as boys), and the priest chanted the liturgy, rather than speaking it. If anybody is familiar, the common we used was the Mass of the Dead, for more than one person (sequence D). Anyway, the Bible readings for this particular Liturgy were Wis 3:1-9, Ps 23, 2 Cor 5:1, 6-10 and Jn 6:51-59. And the antiphons were Jn 3:16 and Phil 3:20-21. I worked with the celebrant on selecting the particular sequences for the Mass and then was the Lector. My daughter served as thurifer. It was a very upbeat Mass, though, as I am sure you could tell if you take time to read the reading selections. It was a great comfort to the widows of the brother knights, particularly the ones who passed away in the past year. We made sure that those who died in the past year were particularly remembered in the Collect and the Martyrology (part of the Eucharistic Prayer). They had an opportunity to express their thanks during the reception we had following the Mass. Yup, works are a terrible thing, aren't they? Of course, as I mentioned briefly, those works we do as our response to God's salvation. But what do we believe in regards to salvation, itself? Well, I can't speak for everybody (because I know that there are a lot of folks who may not be properly catechized, of course), but what I was taught by the Church is basically this: Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Of course, though, we must keep in mind that we are called to actually do as we are instructed by the Lord (if we claim to be followers of Him): Jhn 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Therefore, the truest actions of somebody who has made Jesus his lord and who professes to love Jesus is to do as is prescribed. Sorry for the digression, but I thought I owed you a response as to why I was so delayed in responding to you. Again, my apologies, but we have to keep our priorities straight! :D

Perhaps Peter Singer would have some interesting observations on this case.

You know Oldies, I have heard and heard this crap constantly. Let's look at this from a couple of different angles... Rom 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Consider this for a second, Oldies, how can one declare the Lord Jesus unless you do what he told us to do? And where do we get this information on what we're supposed to do? Well, the Apostle Paul said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Pretty good advice: do what the Bible says. Do what we (the apostles) told you to do verbally, as well. So let's look at the particular things you are criticizing from the Catholic Church: You complain about baptism:Of course, there's Matt 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"(interesting the next verse: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.") Of course, the Gospels are not really part of the Bible, though, are they Oldies. So let's continue to look: Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Rom 6:3-4 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Gal 3:27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." There's more...in the scriptures. How about what the apostles did? Please refer to the Didache, written around AD 70 -- allegedly by the apostles: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. So do you have something against the Bible, Oldies? You complain about penances:Well, we know that Jesus was able to forgive sins (Matt 9:6 - "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins")We also know that Jesus delegated that authority to the apostles: Matt 18:18 "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." So Jesus delegated the power to remit sins to the apostles. So how does one leverage that? Confession, duh. See 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Again, to see what actually happened in the first century church, we can refer to the Didache: From Chapter 4: "In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life." So, maybe you are not talking about the sacrament, but about the concept of being penitent: Matt 6:16-18 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. Note that he didn't say, "Don't fast..." he said "Don't, in fasting, make a public statement for public praise" And then 1 Cor 7:5 "Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (I know the context is about marital relations, but the point is that the concept of fasting and prayer is a form of penitential act...) Are you referring to some other form of penance? Perhaps giving up goods (like the apostles)? So, again, do you have something against the Bible, Oldies? You said something about the Mass 1Cr 11:23-27 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. And, again, from the Didache (written in AD 70): "Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." " So, you'll pardon me if I have a hard time seeing works here in this. I just see doing the Word and doing according to the first century church. Wasn't that the idea? So what was it that you had against the Bible, Oldies?

Sorry Templelady, but the doctrine of the Trinity is a whole lot older than that. Of course, we have the discussion of the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matt 28:19 (and also as reported in the Didache -- AD 70). If you care to look at Tertullian in his document, Ad Praxeas, devoted entirely to defending the doctrine. And that one was written circa AD 208. The first usage of the term that I know of was Theophilus in 181 AD. But the concept was clearly referred to by writers as ancient as Ignatius of Antioch (circa AD 110). The point is that the term Trinity was a doctrine of the Church long, long before the Middle Ages...and was well established centuries before the Nicene Council. Now, I'll grant you that it could be a plot by the "Roman Catholic Church" to maintain control over their people, but that plot pre-dated the middle ages by just a little bit!

Heard the Accuweather forecast from Joe Bastardi this morning and he's predicting a Cat 2/ Cat 3. He's been scarily accurate in his predictions so far...

In most cases? :D

I have no idea. I don't touch the stuff, so have never investigated it. I would hope that some large cocoa users, such as Starbucks or Ben and Jerry, who claim to be so socially responsible, would seek out cocoa harvested with non-slave labor. But I just thought this was an interesting article.

Well, this could be the start of a new trend...a potential growth industry for the trial lawyers of the country: Woman sues for being born (Filed: 11/11/2005) An Australian woman who is deaf, blind and physically and mentally disabled wants to sue the doctor who allowed her to be born. Lawyers for Alexia Harriton, 24, who needs round-the-clock care, made the application yesterday to the Australian High Court, arguing that her mother's doctor was negligent in failing to diagnose rubella infection early in the pregnancy. Lawyers said that if her mother, Olga Harriton, had known of the extent of the disabilities, she would have had an abortion. "We are here for Alexia, for justice," Mrs Harriton said. "That's all it is." How long do you think it will take for this to catch on in this country? When will kids start suing their parents for not having aborted them?

I have used Comcast Internet since being in my current location. DSL only recently begun being offered. They have been very, very reliable. There have been two outages in the past three years. One of those outages was as the result of a hurricane that came through and blew the lines down. The speed is simply outstanding. The Internet connectivity here in the MD suburbs costs $39 a month on top of the cable TV bill. I think its $49 a month if you don't have cable TV, but am not sure. Our Internet connection is a 7 MB/S connection, by the way. And from what I understand that is a synchronous connection speed. DSL that is provided to homes is more properly called ADSL (Asynchronous DSL). What that means is that the download speed is a maximum of 1.5 MB/S...and slower the farther away from the telephone central office you are. The upload speed is only 64 KB/S, though. If all you do is surf the web, that upload speed shouldn't matter; but if you have multiple computers hooked up, or even one computer hooked up and want to do things like Video IM, it could impact your quality of service. Also, your ability to use Internet telephony services like Vonage or Skype. We have six computers and two printers hooked up in a home network (wireless/wired) that connect to the Internet via a router. We can have all of the computers running streaming video simultaneously and there has not been any congestion. (I actually did that once as an experiment). From Comcast's perspective, they really don't care. My parents had Bell South's DSL. They had two computers hooked up to their wireless network, through a wireless router. They got a nastygram from BellSouth ordering them to take one of those computers off the network or face having their DSL service terminated. Apparently their terms of service allowed them to have only one computer hooked up to the DSL connection. So if you are considering getting DSL, you might want to read the service agreement VERY carefully -- I'm not saying if that is universally true, but it was in my parents' case. So, I guess the bottom line is that ADSL is cheaper but, imho, cable is better. Depends upon which is more importnant to you.

Horse meat is delicious. It is a very common ingredient in Italian cooking, particularly around the Veneto region (Venice, Verona, Treviso, Padua area up north). One dish that is very tasty is Pastissada de Caval, a good stew made with horse...cooked up with onions, red wine, and paprika. It goes particularly good with sauted radicchio and polenta. There are farmers who raise horses just like cattle -- destined from birth for the slaughterhouse. Horse is particularly known for being high in iron content, by the way. Italian doctors often prescribe women to eat horse, for that reason. In fact, when my wife was in the hospital in Italy for a surgery, she was fed horse almost every day for just that reason (of course, she had red wine with the horse, as well...) (and, no, they didn't didn't tell her she was eating Cavallo) Oh, and by the way, yes our experience in Northern Italy was completely different than Galen's experience in Naples...

Geez Sudo, I just posted that very same article in 'tacks. Talk about timing! See here. Oh, and for the record, I don't agree.

This story is so heart-warming, I thought it'd belong in the 'open' forum. Mods, if you think it needs to be relegated to 'tacks so that we can fight about it, feel free. A victory over death and hateBy Stephen Farrell A Palestinian boy has saved Jews and Arabs alike after he was shot by an Israeli soldier Ahmed Khatib IN A LAND synonymous with violence and bloodshed, the fate of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy stands out as an extraordinary example of human compassion surmounting the most bitter of ethnic divides. Ahmad Khatib was shot dead last Thursday by an Israeli soldier who mistook his toy gun for a real weapon. Less than a week later his organs have given new life to Jews and Arabs alike after his parents gave them to Israeli hospitals. Ahmed’s heart is now beating inside an Israeli Druze Arab girl. His liver is keeping a Jewish child and a mother alive. His lungs have been transplanted into a teenage Jewish girl, and his kidneys divided between a five-year-old Bedouin and a three-year-old Jewish girl. The humanitarian gesture by Ahmed’s father, Ismail, rare enough in itself, is all the more extraordinary given the nature of the boy’s death, the latest of more than 3,600 Palestinian and 1,000 Israeli fatalities during the five-year intifada. The shooting occurred in Jenin refugee camp, a Palestinian militant stronghold, on the first day of the Muslim holiday Eid el-Fitr, when Palestinian children often receive toy guns as presents. Israeli troops had entered the camp looking for an Islamic Jihad suspect. Once the circumstances of the shooting became clear, Ahmed was transferred to an Israeli hospital where he died of his injuries two days later. After consulting Muslim authorities, Mr Khatib publicly donated the organs to the hospital. His decision has drawn some criticism from Palestinians embittered by decades of communal hatred, but Mr Khatib says it was also influenced by the fate of his brother, who died while awaiting a liver transplant. “They (Israeli forces) killed my son who was healthy, and we want to give his organs to those who need them,” the mechanic told Israeli television. “No one can tell me what to do. I feel very good that my son’s organs are helping six Israelis . . . I feel that my son has entered the heart of every Israeli. “We are doing it for humane purposes and for the sake of the world’s children and the children of this country. I have taken this decision because I have a message for the world: that the Palestinian people want peace — for everyone.” His mother, Ablah, said: “We have no problem whether it is an Israeli or a Palestinian (who receives his organs) because it will give them life.” One beneficiary of Mr Khatib’s magnanimity is Samah Gadban, a 12-year-old girl from Israel’s Druze community in northern Galilee. She had her first bath yesterday and sat up in an armchair after receiving Ahmed’s heart during an eight-hour transplant operation at the Schneider children’s hospital in Petah Tikva on Sunday. Samah’s father, Riad, called the donation a “gesture of love” to his daughter. Sitting beside Samah’s bed her mother, Yusra, said she had already lost one son to the same heart condition, and had named her daughter after the dead boy. The name means Forgiving in Arabic. “She has been waiting for a donor for five years,” said Mrs Gadban, 49, from the village of Beqaa in the Golan Heights. On Sunday she and her husband had waited outside the operating room until 9.45am, when the surgeons emerged. “As the doctors came out smiling I almost broke down,” Mrs Gadban said. “I wanted only to thank them, but my tongue was tied. I saw Samaah as she came out and the first thing I noticed was her beating heart. Then we began to find out from the media more and more about the young boy, Ahmad, whose family donated the heart. “I was shocked by the way he died. I am a mother who has lost a son and I have no words to express what I feel towards Ahmad’s mother. I was crying and at the same time happy, not knowing how to express it all.” At the same medical centre near Tel Aviv, a seven-month-old Jewish girl received part of the Palestinian boy’s liver. The rest of the liver went to a 58-year-old woman from Beersheba, a mother of two children, suffering from chronic hepatitis. Mrs Gadban disclosed that among the other recipients of Ahmed’s organs in the hospital was an orthodox Jewish family who were unwilling to be identified, fearing a negative reaction from their family and neighbours. Reuven Rivlin, speaker of the Israeli parliament, praised the family’s action as a “remarkable gesture” after decades of conflict. This is not the first time organs have been donated across the political divide. Three years ago a seven-year-old Palestinian girl received the kidney of Jonathan Jesner, the British victim of a Tel Aviv suicide bombing. The Israeli army has said its soldiers in Jenin refugee camp came under fire from Palestinian gunmen in several locations and returned fire. It regretted the incident. Witnesses said the suspect escaped. SAVING LIVES ACROSS THE DIVIDE Where Ahmed’s organs went: Liver most of the boy’s liver went to a Jewish 58-year-old mother from Beersheva who has suffered from the chronic liver diseases hepatitis B and D Liver the rest went to a seven-month-old Jewish girl Kidneys they were divided between a five-year-old Bedouin and a three-year-old Jewish girl Lungs they were donated to a 14-year-old Jewish girl Heart it went to a 12-year-old Druze Arab girl All the transplants were done on Saturday night and Sunday morning

My mother calls herself a "happy agnostic." By this she means she doesn't know if there is a god or not (thus, agnostic) and she doesn't care one way or the other (thus, happy). By 'terminally' skeptical, in the context of this discussion ("Why religion?"), I mean that a person doubts there is a god (thus, skeptical) and no amount of proof will sway him from that doubt (thus, terminally). As an illustration, if the terminally skeptical person was put in the place of doubting Thomas, he would be confident that the holes in Jesus' hands and feet were either the result of a surgical alteration in order to fool the naive (or something along those lines). Caveat: please understand that I have nothing against a person who embraces that degree of skepticism, as long as that person does not try to evangelize through degredation of others. Having said that, I am not disagreeing the thrust of your post. Skepticism is a good thing in general, particularly when dealing with other people. For example, terminal skepticism with politicians is probably a the wisest move: All politicians are crooks (skepticism), and no quantity of their words will convince me otherwise (terminal).

No antipathy at all. Just trying to convey a message of "live and let live." Obviously, my writing skills are not adequate to accomplish that. As I said a little later on: And, George, honestly, your core beliefs are yours alone and should be respected as such. As long as you don't try to evangelize (and, yes, agnostics can evangelize just as surely as true believers), its really not my business what you believe. I respect your belief system (its, frankly, the same belief system held dear by both my parents); in turn, all I ask is the same courtesy. From what I can recall, you've always granted me that courtesy. So I really have no argument with you. I always say that we'll find out who's right soon enough anyway, so there's no sense in arguing about it one way or the other. Now, on the other hand, if you are trying to evangelize me to your belief system, then maybe I will have a disagreement with you. However, not one that I care to engage in.

Hodja stories come from the character Nasreddin Hodja, a, believe it or not, real character from Sufi Islam. He lived in the town of Aksehir, Turkey, and taught at the famous Sufi school in Konya (home of the whirling dervishes). I heard and read Hodja stories all the time when I lived in Turkey. They are the Turkish equivalent to Aesop's Fables. That fact, in of itself, makes your comparison to TWI even more humorous to me... Here's a couple of others for your enjoyment: And here's one that the leaders of TWI should have considered: And then to witness that TWI is not the only group having to deal with the MOG:

George, I haven't really commented on this thread other than to deride the quality of the work done in the article you cited because its the unprovable thesis. I, for one, won't bother to try to convince you of something that you don't want to believe and that I, in all honesty, cannot prove empirically. As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." A person who is terminally skeptical, in my past experience, just cannot be convinced. A true skeptic could have a phenomenal miracle happen before his very eyes and it would do little or no good. He would seek a scientific or psychological explanation for what was seen or what was done and discount it. My insignificant writing skills and logical abilities are not hardly up to the task of convincing a skeptic. So I generally don't waste my words on the subject. There are other areas that can be pursued. And, George, honestly, your core beliefs are yours alone and should be respected as such. As long as you don't try to evangelize (and, yes, agnostics can evangelize just as surely as true believers), its really not my business what you believe. I respect your belief system (its, frankly, the same belief system held dear by both my parents); in turn, all I ask is the same courtesy. From what I can recall, you've always granted me that courtesy. So I really have no argument with you. I always say that we'll find out who's right soon enough anyway, so there's no sense in arguing about it one way or the other. I can't justify my belief in God. I just do. And let me add that I have a rather analytical mind, so discussions of intellectual ineptitude or mental laziness don't apply, at least in this case. Why religion? Because it provides me a structure that I can use to learn about God and through which I can worship God. That is first and foremost. Secondly, it can provide me an infrastructure I can leverage to perform the service to my fellow man called for as an integral part of my belief system. Not that a person must have a belief in God to serve his fellow man, but, at least in my belief system, it is a mandate.

I've now heard it all: From: The Local: Sweeden's News in English

Now having said all of the above, I would be intuitively inclined to agree with a thesis that is the exact inverse of the one proposed: "In a society where basic human needs are provided by the state and where the state's influence is pervasive in the bulk of that society's interactions to the end of easing life for the members of the society, the influence of religion will wane on the majority of members of that society." THAT thesis could be supported and proven. THAT thesis would explain the differences in Western European societies versus American societies. THAT thesis would also allow provide an explanation for the increasing incidents of xenophobia that are emerging in Europe as the consequence of immigration brought on by Europe's decreasing indigenous populations. FWIW. Of course, I'm sure that there are those who wouldn't see it that way.

My point exactly. The multivariate study would also examine the political, economic systems, the degree of homogenity of the society, and would factor those incidents over time. For example, there were massive riots all over Paris today...massive destruction of property. But France is one of the societies most antagonistic toward religion in all of Europe! Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse here. Maybe religiousness is a response. And maybe there is a difference with the type of religion. For example, fundamentalists may have a higher degree of violence associated with them than non-fundamentalist religious people. I don't know and I'm not presupposing, but that would be of interest, as well.But the point I'm driving at is that any study where religion and religion only is the measure is an irrelevant and, imo, invalid study. Religion is a component of the ethos of a society. It can be a principal component, but even then, a person is more than simply what religion they subscribe to. A valid study would be one that measures multiple demographically similar groups that reside in the same culture. Then measuring the effect of religion on individuals who are members of those study groups. Further, for a really valid measure, one would have to examine, using a neutral rubric, the stated doctrines of the religion(s) practiced by members of those groups -- to measure the official doctrine of that religious practice to determine the degree of violence, intolerance, or whatever anti-social characteristic officially endorsed by that group. And then to design an instrument to measure the degree of intellectual and practical adherence of the group member to the doctrine of the religion to which he says he subscribes. Why? If a religion teaches intolerance as a part of its official teaching, then that's one thing. Measurement of cultural flaws that result from that teaching could be a valid factor of that teaching. However, if a religion teaches tolerance, but people who state they are a member of that religion, act intolerantly, and are not properly catechized into their religion, then the religion could be faulted for ineffective teaching, but not for the members' beliefs (who don't practice/understand the religion to which they claim membership). Another issue: what about a religiously heterogenous society? Which belief system should be faulted with the negative characteristics of that society? (to include the agnostic component of that heterogenous society) Sudo, I agree with you, as I said earlier, that prisons are filled with faith. So are ghettos. But is the faith the cause of the people who reside in both or is the faith an effect of people being in that situation? That's the point I'm trying to make.

George, The reason I didn't respond to the article is that it is not worth responding to. But, since you are insistent, here goes: This article has so many liberal, atheistic, pseudo-scientific, oversimplifications in it as to be a joke. I wonder how in the world it got published in a peer-reviewed journal, even one as liberal as "Religion and Society." Specifically, - Western Europe is not the United States. Two different societies. The social climate there is different than it is here. The population density is different. The cultural background of the population is less diverse (of course, they fail to mention the rabid anti-Muslim and anti-Semetic feelings that are burdgeoning in Western Europe -- I've cited enough instances throughout the past in the 'tacks forum to preclude, hopefully, any need to cite them here). But even in saying "Europe" they err. They only state "Europe" when they, in fact, mean "Western Europe." They do not consider relatively religious nations, such as Poland, in their study. Europe stops at the Elbe river, I guess in their mindset. So we have an apples to oranges comparison going on here. - They are using a univariate study when it is perfectly obvious that the correlation should be a multivariate one. Why? Because there are multiple variables that can cause the effects (homicides, STDs, teen pregnancies, etc.) that they cite as the proof of their thesis. But a multivariate study might not produce such a clear correlation as the one they are trying to support. - They did not perform a time-series analysis on any of these effects, in an effort to identify key events. One would assume that it is always the way it is now (except for a fleeting and anecdotal attack at the old days, an attack not supported by any statistical fact). This time series analysis, particularly if done on multiple variables, would have been particularly interesting for the United States: specifically to observe if there is any correlation among church attendence in denominations versus a rise or fall in teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc. - They comfortably ignored data when it didn't fit: in their analysis of teen pregnancies, they should have noted the fact that the indigenous populations of the study areas are experiencing a net decline. (In other words, the population is not replacing itself). That fact was not once mentioned in this study, and, at least in my humble opinion, it is very pertinent. George, this study is an insult. Not your fault: all fault lies squarely in the lap of the Journal's editorial board for allowing this type of article to be included. Frankly, using the same methods and the same discipline that characterizes the work of these authors, I could defend a thesis that stated "firearm control laws are the cause of increased homicide rates." How, do you ask? I could simply do a per capita comparison of homicide rates in DC, LA, and NYC to those in select districts of Wyoming, Georgia, and Kansas. So why, do you ask, did I not comment? My answer: why bother.

Sudo, Of course, you are correct that there are more people professing a religion in prison than anywhere else. But you want to know someplace else? Basic training in the military. I can't speak for any of the other services, but the base chapel and the area immediately surrounding the chapel were absolutely off limits for the basic training staff (drill instructors, et al). Needless to say, (almost) EVERYBODY found religion on Sunday. Why? Because it was the one time during the week that you could relax and not have to worry about somebody busting on you for your uniform or some other petty reason. Needless to say the vast majority of these very religious people who attended basic training seemed to lose their religion the minute they graduated from basic. I wonder how high a percentage of very devout prisoners are even slightly as devout when they get released from prison?

That is something to make one think a bit. I would submit that God did reach man in the person of Christ Jesus. So what is man's response? That would be my answer to George's question. In my opinion, if one approaches religion, particularly "Christianity" with any other premise, then it is just another exercise in ego (and let me stress that this is strictly IMO and no offense to anybody who may not agree).