According to a new study, people who believe in Heaven commit more crimes than people who don’t. But people who believe in Hell commit fewer crimes than nonbelievers. Interestingly, this proves conservatism right. Read on. . .
This study was done by two professors at the University of Oregon and the University of Kansas. They studied data collected by the World and European Values Surveys conducted between 1981 and 2007 from 67 countries. This included 143,197 respondents.
After standardizing the crime rates in each country, the study authors came to the conclusion that people with a professed belief in Heaven and Hell had different crime rates. Specifically, they found that those who believe in Hell committed fewer crimes than average people, but those who believe in “a loving God” committed more crimes than average people.
So what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that liberals misunderstand human nature. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed by education, i.e. encouraging people to be better. But if that were true, then this study would have turned out differently. Think about it. This study isolated true believers from the rest of the population. Those people, presumably, are most susceptible to changing their behavior based on encouragement/ education because they believe that God has told them the way, and they believe he is offering them a reward for acting appropriately. Yet, not only did they not prove to be more law abiding, they actually proved to be more likely to commit crimes. That is the exact opposite of what liberal beliefs would predict. And if God can’t make true believers change their minds, then what chance does the government have changing minds?
Now look at the other group. This was the group which feared punishment. Through their belief in Hell, they were presented with the idea that if they did not behave, they would be punished. This resulted in a decrease in crimes. This is what conservatives have long advocated -- that human nature cannot be changed, but it can be controlled by providing negative consequences for misbehavior.
Putting this together tells us that it is hopeless to try to change human nature, but that human nature can be controlled. However, the only incentive which will result in such control is fear of punishment -- offering a reward will actually have the opposite effect. This flies in the face of liberalism, which claims that punishment is not effective, that only rewards can change behavior, and that human nature can be changed but, contradictorily, people are powerless to control their impulses.
As for why offering a reward would have the opposite effect, I suspect that anyone offering a reward is seen as unlikely to punish you. Indeed, if God will forgive you, then you really don’t need to worry about changing, do you? It’s the same way with the government. When a legal system only wants to reform you, it sends out the message that there is no longer any need to fear punishment and you can live as you wish. Ditto with an over-indulgent parent spoiling a child or a permissive boss losing control of the company. When there is no fear of a negative consequence, people take advantage of that.
So what all of this tells us is that liberalism reads human nature wrong in all areas (soft on crime, consequence free handouts, the elimination of shame, permissive child rearing), and not only will liberal policies fail, but they will make things worse by sending the wrong message.
But then, you knew that already.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
God Loves Criminals, Satan Doesn’t (Quasi-Open Thread, Vent Away Folks)
OT: We're on ObamaCare and Holder contempt watch today. We highly recommend that everyone get some Tea and Birthday cake (Happy Birthdays T-Rav and tryanmax) and wait for the good news! And if tea isn't your thing, then prepare a Commentarama-tini! Bev will provide the recipes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260Kit, That's an interesting take at Slate. I'll have to consider that.
TJ, I know the feeling. This has been one of those days where it's almost better just to go back to bed and see if things change by tomorrow.
By the way, where's Bev with those recipes? Because boy, do I need a drink right now.
T-Rav, That's true, Robert's job is to decide the law, not game a future decision. But I'll still check it out and see what he's done. Right now I don't have much faith in him.
And rlaWTX is right, the older you get, the older you feel. :(
I haven't see anything on the contempt vote. Maybe I missed it so far?
Ed Schultz is pissed. He says this decision was intended to help Romney. Ha ha. I wish I could believe that!
Happy Birthday T-Rav and Tyranmax!
Your present is free citizenship in a Eurosocialist tyranny! Yay!!!
What's that? Sorry, but it can't be returned, I lost the recept. :)
Signed
Dear Leader
Nancy "Rictus" Pelosi
Harry "FU" Reid
Page 2!
I like that vote...
"This decision says the government has unlimited power."
Not necessarily, according to Lyle of SCOTUSBlog, quoted here by John Fund: "The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition."
Here is his piece at the Corner.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304268/theres-limit-commerce-clause-john-fund
rlaWTX, Well put! That definitely is a vote of no confidence in today's events! :)
T-Rav, Yeah, what K said. Sorry we lost the recipe.
Kit, I'll look into it and consider the possibilities, but what bothers me is that this is just game of semantics. Even if this can be read as limiting the commerce clause, they can do anything under the tax clause now. So power has gone up.
Kit, any restriction of Congress on the Commerce and Nec. and Prop. Clauses is more than offset by the sudden transformation of a penalty into a tax. As Kennedy pointed out in his dissent, while the Court has sometimes ruled that a tax is so "onerous" as to constitute a penalty, never has it ruled the opposite--that a penalty is so measly it might as well just be a tax. This decision has given Congress carte blanche to enact whatever social engineering schemes it wants, using its taxing powers as cover. Saying that the political environment will in practice rule this out is a very weak reed to lean upon. After all, the political environment in March 2010 was moving strongly against passage of ObamaCare--and yet, here we are.
hey, T-Rav, I can't find that contempt vote anywhere - where'd you see it?
Oh, wow. Did not see the "Newer <Newest" thing at the bottom. Was wondering where my comments went? :)
Kit, once we get over 200 comments, it gets a little screwy(er) around here...
T-Rav, I don't think that's any consolation in any event. At what point would this have become so onerous that it wouldn't be allowed?
Also, this is more than just a tax. This law did all kinds of things, including create a whole new bureaucracy that reaches into every state. Now all of that will stay in place.
Kit, Yeah, this is one area where Google is not good at making it easy to see more comments. You kind of have to know they are there.
rlaWTX and T-Rav, I have seen nothing on the contempt vote.
Another question. Does the "Obamacare is a tax" ruling mean that it is now filibuster proof?
Kit, I think so. This allows them to treat it like a budget issue and get rid of it through reconciliation.
By the way, check out the headlines at Drudge if you want to see how insane the democrats are. On guy is talking about unionizing doctors, quite a few are sending rather rude tweets. They are truly ugly humans.
"Kit, I think so. This allows them to treat it like a budget issue and get rid of it through reconciliation."
If that allows it to be repealed then that would be kind of ironic, huh?
Kit, There is a lot of irony here. For one thing, I think this will hand around Obama's neck in this election and pretty much kills his chances. Moreover, this will probably take out 2-3 Democratic Senators who would have otherwise survived.
And then yes, this will make it easy to repeal with a simple majority.
So there is a lot of irony here.
Andrew and rla, I saw it on Iowahawk's Twitter feed a couple hours ago. I know there was an initial vote around 1 p.m. EDT, but I hadn't seen an official update anywhere else yet.
Okay, that was just a procedural vote or something being referenced. But now it's official: House votes 255-67 to hold the AG in contempt. The yes column includes at least 17 Democrats.
Glad to hear it, but ultimately, this is a useless vote. Still, it's nice.
The House of Rep's birthday gifts are better than SCOTUS!
Andrew, on which thread did you give me the possible next steps after the contempt of Congress vote?
rlaWTX, Here's where I said it to you originally: LINK
And here's where I addressed it again: LINK
never mind - it was in the "Week from Hell":
"It looks like there are two things Congress can do.
1. They can vote the person in contempt and have the Sergeant at Arms arrest the person and hold them. But they can only be held until the end of the term.
2. They can shift to Federal court and use the contempt power of the Federal courts. In that instance, you can actually be held in jail indefinitely (until you comply). "
rlaWTX, My guess, however, is that nothing comes of this. Both sides will play it for PR with their base and then move on.
thanks for the links... I finally chose the right search words! :)
I figure that you are correct about doing nothing... but it's awfully nice to have had it happen.
I agree. It feels nice to have somebody finally do something after all the garbage he's pulled. I just wish it was more meaningful.
No worries, rlaWTX. I already had my LVPR cake. And I ate it, too.
Happy Birthday T-Rav and Tryanmax! I hope you guys have a good one!
This ruling by SCOTUS is literally insane.
Apparently, Roberts has been eating the coo coo for coco puffs and clearly doesn't understand (or care about) the fundamentals of liberty.
I think you are right, Andrew. Roberts is a big govt. Neocon. And a turncoat, as it turns out.
Also, he supports fascism. That's what this is. It's freakin' extortion by the political mafia.
Yes this is only one battle in a long war, but damn! WTF man? Really?
Where's the tar n' feathers?
Ben, Some tar and feathers would really hit the spot right now! :)
I think what this tell us is that Roberts is a big government necon. He is not fundamentally a conservative like Scalia or Thomas. And I think we'll see more of that coming up.
If that's the case, then it has to be made clear to Romney off the bat that any judicial nominee to the left of Robert Bork is unacceptable with a capital U. If the Senate Democrats try to filibuster, blackmail them into agreement.
Andrew, stepping back to the original topic: I don't know how widespread the annihilationist belief is. I was told by my own pastor that it's a dangerous concept that I shouldn't even entertain. ??? But he wouldn't (couldn't?) be more specific.
Another opinion I've received is that Christianity needs hell in order to scare people into being good. Except that goes completely against the Christian message. Next!
None of this is to disparage the idea that fear of punishment keep people in line. But even people who don't believe in any sort of afterlife fear dying. So isn't being eternally snuffed out punishment enough?
I think the conceptual origin of both Hell and Heaven-for-all lies in the basic human rejection of proportionality. An-eye-for-an-eye makes most folks cringe, but beyond that people seem divided over whether the proper response is a slap on the wrist or an execution.
Thoughts?
At any rate, calling Obamacare Obamatax ain't gonna help Obama.
Especially when folks who don't keep up on politics get the recurring bill.
Nothin' creates a backlash more than stealing, oh I'm sorry, "taxing" voters with a hefty price tag that will only get more expensive (unexpectedly for the MSM).
That doesn't even take into account how folks will react to being told and forced to pay for this unequally rationed healhscare scheme.
Not that equal rationing is any better.
tryanmax, That is true, but the Christian Message has been getting warped and distorted for 2000 years now by anyone and everyone. So it shouldn't surprise us if Hell really was one more distortion.
Not to mention, the message is hardly consistent.
Plus, it's rather hard to have a good without a bad.
The annihilationist message probably won't go over too well with people. It would call into question several aspects of God -- all powerful, force for good, etc.
T-Rav, I would like to see Romney stick to classical conservatives rather than "inside the Beltway conservatives." He needs guys like Thomas who are small government conservatives to the core and don't flirt with "their big government stinks, but our big government is good."
Tryanmax, I don't know that annihilation is much less scary than Hell. In fact, if you believe in a possibility of salvation while in Hell, then annihilation is worse! Hell is basically separation from God - forever. How much physical agony that involves is probably up for debate (raised with idea of literal, forever hellfire and darkness - still tend that way).
Tryamax:
When someone chooses to reject God or be separated from Him that is another view of what hell is other than (or on top of) the traditional view of hell or Dantes view, if you will.
To me, that makes sense, as does purgatory.
Not that I'm pretending to fully understand the mystery of the afterlife, or revelations and miracles, which I believe happen more often than even most Christians think.
I also think God is merciful, but also is a God of justice.
However, I think hell, however folks think of it (or seperation from our Creator) is definitely a choice, and there is justice in that.
I of course hope to avoid either fate, but if it was a choice between annihilation and Hell--I don't know. For one thing, I don't believe in the possibility of salvation after you reach Hell; once that door's shut, it's shut.
The thing I find the most frightening about Hell is the eternity of it. You could be there a trillion years and not even be a fraction of the way to the end, because there isn't one. That's an unsettling idea.
On the other hand, my gut reaction against atheism has always been about its implication for the afterlife--there's nothing to go on to, you simply cease to exist. That's all. I could never endure living with that fate in mind, and yet I'd never be able to end said life, either. I realize it isn't this way for everyone, but for me to embrace atheism would mean spending the rest of my days between life and death.
All of which is why I continue to hope for heaven. :-)
Hell was beautiful when I got here. Then we instituted Obamacare and it all fell apart. Now the place looks like Detroit.
Anyway. Right now I'm watching "Dragnet" on the Retro TV channel, rather than the lovefest on the nightly news programs. Frankly, it's a lot more interesting.
I am unable to accept the idea of a place where you are punished perpetually. It just doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, nothing lasts forever. For another, to accept that, I think we would need to see God as a sadist and I don't accept that. Indeed, it's one thing for God to say, "you haven't passed the test, be gone." But it's quite another to say, "in your short 40 years, you didn't get it, so I'm going to let you be tortured for eternity now."
I think the teachings of Jesus were much more subtle and insightful than that, and I think Hell was just something created by those who came after who couldn't get the message across without throwing in theater.
Andrew, the concept of Hell seems to have particularly Helenistic Greek origins. Certainly nothing in Judaism suggests an eternal torture punishment. But even if one doesn't want to go there, they can turn right to the Bible which states "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." That is a basic contrast which establishes "death" as the opposite of "eternal life." What is eternal torture but a (crappy) form of eternal life?
P.S. I bring up the Hellenism because it had probably the earliest corrupting influence on Christianity.
tryanmax, I can't say for sure if it is Helenistic, but I agree with the sentiment. It has always struck me that the way Heaven and Hell are described is really the way you would describe "the good life" and "the worst case scenario" to peasants of that period. Heaven sounds a lot like the places the very rich lived and where peasants wanted to live, and Hell sounds a lot like what an invading army would do to you during that period.
Personally, I think this was all just an attempt to make a very complex topic simple so that anyone could grasp it.
I think the more accurate view is that Heaven is essentially a state of peace and happiness in whatever form the human soul takes next, whereas Hell is the failure to achieve that.
Nice work today, everyone. I'm glad to hear so many different opinions actually. It tells me that conservative's aren't lockstep thinkers.
In the issue of Heaven and Hell, I don't subscribe to the "place" theory either. I see them more as an idea, a way to be which makes us better or worse on the inside.
Andrew
As a Catholic I was taught that Heaven and Hell were simply states of the Soul.
The idea is that in order to truly receive God's grace the soul must be pure and holy. Once the soul acheives this end after the person has died they are in a state of grace and are in Heaven. There is no more reward than that. Evidently there is no pleasure more powerful than they unfettered Grace of God.
When people die however many are not pure and this is the idea behind Purgatory. If you wish to be with God but were not a saint in life then you must atone in purgatory. The quatation used is that the fires of purgatory burn hotter than the fires of hell but it is endurable because the souls there have Hope.
Hell is simply nothing more than rejecting God. As you live your life if you comm it what are classified as mortal sins and you die not truly repentent of them then you chose to reject God and thus exist empty without God's grace. Evidently Hell is nothing more than that. No Fire, No Brimstone just emptiness without God. Eviodently a sould could leave Hell by asking God for forgiveness but the nature of the afterlife is that they don't because they don't want to.
The preists tell us God Damns no one. The Dammned Damn themselves. The idea is that existing without a body, with no material things as a soul empty and void for eternity without the Grace of God is a horror so terrible that nothing on earth can compare to it.
Not sure if any of this is correct or not but it makes at least some sense to me. The Catholics however have a weird accounting like approach to sin and redemption. Every sin is catregorized and labeled as mortal or venial.
There is Limbo for unbaptized babies that have not developed to be able to accept or reject God. There is baptism of desire to explain how good people who are not Christian will be told the truth when they die and accepted to Heaven even though they were not of the Faith just to cover the fairness of it all. I am not sure God will be as anal retentive as the Catholic Church but it is how I was brought up good or ill.
Indy: I'm not so sure about what hell is, precisely speaking.
But the idea of an internal hell by choosing to reject God (or Reality, Truth, etc.) seems pretty sound to me.
In fact, it must be so if someone chooses that path because they are the ones creating that hell afterall.
I'm not sure whether someone who chooses that path would ever change their minds and realize they can't be their own god in the afterlife.
Be interesting to know for sure but that's gonna remain a mystery for the living.
However, having said that, I'm not discounting Dante's vision of hell either.
Or that it can be internal as well as external.
As far as redemption, though, it seems to me there are some people, such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, child rapists, serial killers terrorists, etc., that are beyond redemption because they have seared their souls so much they have become evil incarnate and are really no longer human.
At any rate that's the theory I'm more inclined to believe based on what I know.
Indi, That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Ben, That's very insightful and it reminds me of the movie we discussed -- Triangle. She made her own hell and clearly could have broken away at any point, but she couldn't let go of the things she had done, so she kept re-entering that loop.
That's a very good analogy, Andrew!
It even fits in a Dante-like hell, because the punishment fits the crime, so to speak.
In her mind, that is.
This gets at the heart of: everyone is basically born hardwired to know what right and wrong is (I know there is brainwashing, upbringing, and stuff that can change this, but these are rare and doesn't affect everyone the same anyhow).
So one could say that both Heaven and hell are within one's self and one must choose between them, conciously or not.
That doesn't justify dualism, IMO, although it may look like it.
For good can exist without evil but evil cannot exist without good.
And Good, or Order, if you will, shall overcome Evil or Chaos.
There's no way the created could ever become more powerful than the Creator. That's not to say the darkside ain't powerful, just not equal to the Good, True and Beautiful.
Ben, I think there is a combination of things here.
On the one hand, you have an externally provided definition of good and evil. I think there is such a thing because it seems to be constant across the human race and because the things we see as good tend to lead to a better world whereas bad tends to lead to a worse world. Thus, I have no problem accepting that right and wrong are objective, AND that we understand what it is right and wrong no matter how much we try to tell ourselves differently.
Then there's the personal aspect, where you can make your own hell by doing the things you know you shouldn't. But I think this can only make things worse. In other words, our actions put us into heaven or hell based on how wrongly we have acted. BUT we can make it worse with our own subjective suffering.
I think the film showed this well. She had created her own version of hell in which she was suffering. But the things which she was being judged for and the effect they had on her, where not things she invented -- they were objectively right/wrong. So basically, she sinned and she now needs to pay the price for it. But her own inability to grasp her sins kept her from escaping and made her existence hopeless because she couldn't see the truth to escape. So it was a combination of objective and subjective.
And I think that's important because it means we can't escape hell by just not believing in right and wrong.
I hope that makes sense.
That makes perfect sense. In fact, when she does see the truth of her sins she either directly denies it ("I didn't do that.") or she blames it on another version of herself in the loop (when she loses her temper with her son).
But all the versions in the loop ARE her. Whether she admits it or not.
That is indeed worse than simply being honest and coming clean, for one can't possibly even begin to seek forgiveness or mercy if they deny the wrong they did.
She added to the consequences or wages of her sin.
Ben, I agree completely. Her actions got her into hell in the first place (wages of sin), but her unwillingness to admit what she did and accept responsibility kept her there and kept making it worse for her all the time.
That's the irony. She could leave the loop any time she's ready to admit what she's done and move on, but she won't because she keep denying she's at fault and trying to deny reality.
Post a Comment