Study: Religion is Good for Kids

[Proteas]

--------------------------

Study: Religion is Good for Kids
By Melinda Wenner

Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.

The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect.

John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.

The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. “Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family,” Bartkowski noted.

Read the rest of the article here @ LiveScience.com

--------------------------

I know a lot fo you are going to write this off at the onset as impossible-to-prove-pseudo-science, or question the scientific approach of those who conducted the study, but hear me out for a moment;

In the week and a half since the Virginia Tech shooting, no one in the media has ever YET looked to the parents of Cho Sung Hui for answers to why their son was such a basket case. Katie Couric never once questioned what Jeff Weise's home life was like that he would do such a thing. It's rarely brough up anymore that Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold planned out Columbine, made up to 99 I.E.D.'s, and had a large cache of weapons right under their parents nose's. Everybody is too focused on school bullying, Doom, and uproarious rock music to even consider that bad parenting might share in the blame.

Little to nothing has ever been said about the personal religious convictions of the perpetrators of these school shootings. If any of these shooters were practicing or devout in their religion, don't you think that the nice folks at Dateline, 20/20, and 60 minutes would be all over their Church's in order to "expose" them and their "bizzare" practices? It would be the talk of morning and evening news for weeks! The press would be too busy trying to get interviews with priests and pastors to cause little miss Lindsey Lohan to drive off the road again... much less give two shits WHAT Britney shaved this time.

Has it never occured to anyone here, that in the history of school shootings in the country, that not ONCE has crap like this ever happend in a Christian Private School? Catholic School? Seminary college?

Something to think about....

[Elfer]

It's possibly because religious parents are more likely to be strict with their kids or discipline them properly.

A lot of parents these days take the old "We've tried nothing at all and I don't know what else to do" approach to raising disciplined kids.

[SyntheticTacos]

The evidence doesn't say its "good" for kids, it says they're better behaved and adjusted. We can't peer into their minds and find out if they're really ethical. That said, most religions have guidelines of ethics and morals. Secular ethics are much less well-defined.

Also, not teaching your kids a religion =/= bad parenting.

It's true that religion is very helpful to people sometimes, and you do find that churchgoing people who are very confident in their faith are brought joy by it, and they are often good people. But that doesn't mean that kids who are taught secular ethics can't be good kids either. It's the absence of any sort of ethical thought that often create problems, not the lack of an organized religion. Though I suppose it could be a problem if they get made fun of for not being part of a religion.

Also, consider the percentage of religious schools to normal schools when you ask why there hasn't been a shooting.

Sometimes religion backfires and makes a person very unnecessarily bitter towards religion and the world. And that can create the kind of stress that causes school shootings as well. When you have these kids rebelling against society and going postal, consider that they might also be rebelling towards the religion they were taught as well.

The article also said this:
Bartkowski points out that one limitation of his study, to be published in the journal Social Science Research, is that it did not compare how denominations differed with regards to their effects on kids.

“We really don’t know if conservative Protestant kids are behaving better than Catholic kids or behaving better than mainline Protestant kids or Jewish kids,� he said.

It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

“There are certain expectations about children’s behavior within a religious context, particularly within religious worship services,� he said. These expectations might frustrate parents, he said, and make congregational worship “a less viable option if they feel their kids are really poorly behaved.�"

From what I can see the positive effects come from the sense of belonging, the social network, and the specific ethics that the Church teaches, not the theology or other things the Church teaches.

[AdamRice]

Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids. Obviously there are always exceptions, I know a few nice extremely religious kids, but I've simply noticed that in my area the more religious tend to be less accepting.

I've heard plenty of comments from supposedly good fairing Christians along the lines of:
Those gay people are gross and they should put people in jail for being homosexual and marrying.
Gothic people suck, why don't they just go be normal instead of scaring everyone, or just kill them selfs.
I support the death penalty

Just a real life observation in my high school. Obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids. Obviously there are always exceptions, I know a few nice extremely religious kids, but I've simply noticed that in my area the more religious tend to be less accepting.

I've heard plenty of comments from supposedly good fairing Christians along the lines of:
Those gay people are gross and they should put people in jail for being homosexual and marrying.
Gothic people suck, why don't they just go be normal instead of scaring everyone, or just kill them selfs.
I support the death penalty

Just a real life observation in my high school. Obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

I agree with Adam. Sure they may be well-behaved, but often the ones that are taught hard-core fundamentalism can still harbor undue hatred for groups that don't deserve it because of they're devotion to the smaller aspects of a religion that have nothing to do with why they are well-behaved. While they may be well-behaved, they can also grow up to be close-minded and agree with the suppression of minority rights... of course they're entitled to that opinion, but that effects certainly does not prove that religion is "good' for kids.

[stafffighter]

Kid need structure. Naturally that will only be be agreed upon in cases where said structure comes from an outisde source. No congressman will ever have the courage to address a musical lyric, janet jackson or hot coffee with "do some fucking parenting"

[Memorize]

At 4/26/07 08:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

I know a lot fo you are going to write this off at the onset as impossible-to-prove-pseudo-science, or question the scientific approach of those who conducted the study,

Ok ok. I read the entire thread as well as the topic starter's post. I also read this little statement right here.

But then I read these.

At 4/26/07 09:54 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The evidence doesn't say its "good" for kids

Well, there's one person trying to be technical about it. Let's move on.

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

Anti-Religous extremist #1 from Adam's own definitions.

Kind of funny really. If supporting the death penalty makes someone extreme, then you're statement on brainwashing is a little farther out there.

I feel sorry for the people you come in contact with. I cry for them. I guess that explains why religous kids are better than those who aren't.

ANYWAY. Is this really suprising? Religous parents generally do mean stricter rules. The more rules, the better.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 10:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 08:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

I know a lot fo you are going to write this off at the onset as impossible-to-prove-pseudo-science, or question the scientific approach of those who conducted the study,

Ok ok. I read the entire thread as well as the topic starter's post. I also read this little statement right here.

But then I read these.

At 4/26/07 09:54 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The evidence doesn't say its "good" for kids

Well, there's one person trying to be technical about it. Let's move on.

Okay? And that's supposed to mean?

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

Anti-Religous extremist #1 from Adam's own definitions.

I don't think he's an anti-religious extremist based on that post. He said he knew nice religious kids, he wasn't even calling them bad, or calling religion bad, he was denouncing fundamentalism and the effect it has on people, not religion.

Kind of funny really. If supporting the death penalty makes someone extreme, then you're statement on brainwashing is a little farther out there.

That's not the only thing he said.

I feel sorry for the people you come in contact with. I cry for them. I guess that explains why religous kids are better than those who aren't.

ANYWAY. Is this really suprising? Religous parents generally do mean stricter rules. The more rules, the better.

Uh, not really. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for small government..

[Elfer]

At 4/26/07 10:25 PM, Memorize wrote: ANYWAY. Is this really suprising? Religous parents generally do mean stricter rules. The more rules, the better.

I wouldn't always say the more rules the better, because then sometimes you end up with a weird, overly sheltered kid, and sometimes the kid rebels like crazy.

I would say that a reasonable degree of rules and structure is beneficial though, with the ultimate goal presumably being a child with self-discipline. Also, sometimes kids just need to get smacked. I think there's a lot of idiot hyper-liberals today who are too dumb to draw a distinction between discipline and abuse, or corporal punishment and beatings.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 10:34 PM, Elfer wrote:

I would say that a reasonable degree of rules and structure is beneficial though, with the ultimate goal presumably being a child with self-discipline. Also, sometimes kids just need to get smacked. I think there's a lot of idiot hyper-liberals today who are too dumb to draw a distinction between discipline and abuse, or corporal punishment and beatings.

Just as there are hyper-conservatives who believe in total lockdown. Either of each can lead to a kid being screwed up and have the kid go nuts. Balance is important.

[Memorize]

At 4/26/07 10:34 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Okay? And that's supposed to mean?

Take a guess.

I don't think he's an anti-religious extremist based on that post. He said he knew nice religious kids, he wasn't even calling them bad, or calling religion bad, he was denouncing fundamentalism and the effect it has on people, not religion.

We're talking about religous parents in general. Therefore i'm going to assume he's talking about religous children in general because he didn't mention fundamentalism.

He says "one sided extremes crammed into someone from birth". Otherwise known to a lot of people as brainwashing while also listing Death Pentalty as if it were an extreme.

Now if I said, "Nothing like one sided extremes with no moral guideline crammed into someone from birth" while talking about the general atheist, i'm sure you would've had a much different tone and would be less likely to accept that statement.

Uh, not really. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for small government..

D'uh. But you see, if the government doesn't make the rules, then the states will and that is also control.

I'm for small economic government. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, which left leaning people like you have attributed to the lack of.

I can generalize people too.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 10:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 10:34 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Okay? And that's supposed to mean?

Take a guess.

I don't think he's an anti-religious extremist based on that post. He said he knew nice religious kids, he wasn't even calling them bad, or calling religion bad, he was denouncing fundamentalism and the effect it has on people, not religion.

We're talking about religous parents in general. Therefore i'm going to assume he's talking about religous children in general because he didn't mention fundamentalism.

He says "one sided extremes crammed into someone from birth". Otherwise known to a lot of people as brainwashing while also listing Death Pentalty as if it were an extreme.

Now if I said, "Nothing like one sided extremes with no moral guideline crammed into someone from birth" while talking about the general atheist, i'm sure you would've had a much different tone and would be less likely to accept that statement.

Then later he made it clear he was talking about the fundamentalists: "I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids"

Plus, he said "one-sided extremes." Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Regardless of what Adam said, you get the idea: over-religiosity contributing to small-mindedness, just as totally close-minded atheism can.

Uh, not really. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for small government..

D'uh. But you see, if the government doesn't make the rules, then the states will and that is also control.

What? What does that have to do with "the more rules the better"? We're talking about a concept in general. "Small government" applies to state government as well.

I'm for small economic government. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, which left leaning people like you have attributed to the lack of.

Whether I'm left-leaning or not depends on the issue, I do not fully devote my self to the right or the left because I enjoy individual thought.

I can generalize people too.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 10:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

Now if I said, "Nothing like one sided extremes with no moral guideline crammed into someone from birth" while talking about the general atheist, i'm sure you would've had a much different tone and would be less likely to accept that statement.

Also, no moral guidelines =/= atheism. Atheism merely refers to whether or not God exists, not whether or not there should be no moral guidelines. There are secular ethics, too.

And I'm an agnostic, not a strict atheist-type.

[Memorize]

At 4/26/07 10:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Then later he made it clear he was talking about the fundamentalists: "I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids"

Uber religous kids can mean a different type of extreme to different people. And judging from his first paragraph, he seemed to have labeled "uber" to those who do not accept homosexuality, though people like that can be tolerant of it as well. But he made no distinction.

I'm putting it into context with the rest of his post. Rather than you, who seems to like to... cut and paste what you see which will fit what you want to see.

And that is how people confuse the Bible for contradictions.

Plus, he said "one-sided extremes." Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Regardless of what Adam said, you get the idea: over-religiosity contributing to small-mindedness, just as totally close-minded atheism can.

But also notice the topic starters post. All he said was that religous kids generally behave better. And what was your first sentence? That it does not mean it is better for the child. And yet... everyone knows that and there was no need to bring that up. No one was arguing for or against that. Yet you felt the need to try to bring down the study a bit so you can cope with it.

What? What does that have to do with "the more rules the better"? We're talking about a concept in general. "Small government" applies to state government as well.

I only apply it to the Federal Government. Just my personal looking at it.

And that's the way today's conservatives believe. Small Government = less central government. Who's the central government?

Whether I'm left-leaning or not depends on the issue, I do not fully devote my self to the right or the left because I enjoy individual thought.

And who's to say that those on the right and left do not have individual thought?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 11:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 10:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Then later he made it clear he was talking about the fundamentalists: "I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids"

Uber religous kids can mean a different type of extreme to different people. And judging from his first paragraph, he seemed to have labeled "uber" to those who do not accept homosexuality, though people like that can be tolerant of it as well. But he made no distinction.

I'm putting it into context with the rest of his post. Rather than you, who seems to like to... cut and paste what you see which will fit what you want to see.

And that is how people confuse the Bible for contradictions.

Being vague does not prove your point. I did not try to take things out of context, rather I posted another part of Adam's response because you were making it seem as if he was broadly referring to all religion. Who's nitpicking wording now? We know that he was generalizing, and he also stated that this was not the case for all uber-religious kids, so what are you trying to say?

If you wanna discuss the Bible we can do that too. :)

Plus, he said "one-sided extremes." Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Regardless of what Adam said, you get the idea: over-religiosity contributing to small-mindedness, just as totally close-minded atheism can.

But also notice the topic starters post. All he said was that religous kids generally behave better. And what was your first sentence? That it does not mean it is better for the child. And yet... everyone knows that and there was no need to bring that up. No one was arguing for or against that. Yet you felt the need to try to bring down the study a bit so you can cope with it.

I was not disputing him, I was saying that the title of the article is misleading because it implies that how well-behaved and adjusted a person is is the only measure of what is good. The article throughout displays different views as well, I just think the title is a bit misleading. It leaves room for doubt.

What? What does that have to do with "the more rules the better"? We're talking about a concept in general. "Small government" applies to state government as well.

I only apply it to the Federal Government. Just my personal looking at it.

And that's the way today's conservatives believe. Small Government = less central government. Who's the central government?

Fair enough, but I would argue that allowing the state governments total control is just as bad because that creates authoritarianism as well.

Whether I'm left-leaning or not depends on the issue, I do not fully devote my self to the right or the left because I enjoy individual thought.

And who's to say that those on the right and left do not have individual thought?

I said fully devoted, not merely leaning to one side. Individual thought in regards to politics would be more detailed. Fully devoting yourself to one broad political philosophy or side is quite rare, though, most people fall somewhere between.

[TheMason]

At 4/26/07 08:56 PM, Proteas wrote: I know a lot fo you are going to write this off at the onset as impossible-to-prove-pseudo-science, or question the scientific approach of those who conducted the study, but hear me out for a moment;

Nah...it is just as much of a science and just as rooted in the scientific method as say...Global Warming... :-)

In the week and a half since the Virginia Tech shooting, no one in the media has ever YET looked to the parents of Cho Sung Hui for answers to why their son was such a basket case. Katie Couric never once questioned what Jeff Weise's home life was like that he would do such a thing. It's rarely brough up anymore that Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold planned out Columbine, made up to 99 I.E.D.'s, and had a large cache of weapons right under their parents nose's. Everybody is too focused on school bullying, Doom, and uproarious rock music to even consider that bad parenting might share in the blame.

I think that in order for someone to be successful in pulling off a school massacre such as VT or Columbine it takes the perfect combination of these factors and parenting is, in my opinion, the key factor.

A parent who is a constructive force in their children's lives can lessen the effects of bullying...or they can make it worse.

A parent who is involved and a presence in their children's lives can put games such as Doom and other FPS games into perspective. On this I would like to say that I am a gamer and FPS are my favorite games to play. HOWEVER, we must remember that the military and the police do use simulations based upon the FPS format to train soldiers and cops how to use their weapons in a tactical situation. Furthermore, the military also uses it to desensitize soldiers to killing another human being. I'm not advocating censorship by the government, but rather involvement by parents and if censorship is required; it is to come from the parents.

In terms of rock and other music; again parents need to be involved. I do not think Hip Hop that glamorizes the word "Ho" or "N" is appropriate for my daughter---at any age. But if I can be involved in her life and make her understand how and why I think she should not listen to it maybe she will self-censor.

But in the end it I agree with you Proteas, we need to be talking about the parents. I am interested particularly in Cho's case (afterall, Korea is my academic focus). I wonder if they could have actually been a constraining factor in Cho's life and parented to the best of their ability. Afterall, he was 24 and not living at home...

[Memorize]

At 4/26/07 11:18 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Being vague does not prove your point. I did not try to take things out of context, rather I posted another part of Adam's response because you were making it seem as if he was broadly referring to all religion. Who's nitpicking wording now? We know that he was generalizing, and he also stated that this was not the case for all uber-religious kids, so what are you trying to say?

Because he listed a few religous beliefs which a tolerant religous person may or may not have.

If you wanna discuss the Bible we can do that too. :)

Go ahead. Last time someone tried to claim a contradiction to me concerning the Isrealites, I pointing him to 4 different verses which stated why God did not throw out the Amorites, which was because when they conquered a city, they were told not to take of a certain item and someone did therefore God did not give them what they wanted.

And that's where most contradictions come from, or where people claim there are contradictions. They don't read the book, instead they only read the verse or chapter.

God will promise something to people on conditions.

I was not disputing him, I was saying that the title of the article is misleading because it implies that how well-behaved and adjusted a person is is the only measure of what is good.

Is not behaving better generally good for kids as well as better than the alternative?

I said fully devoted, not merely leaning to one side. Individual thought in regards to politics would be more detailed. Fully devoting yourself to one broad political philosophy or side is quite rare, though, most people fall somewhere between.

I never said people didn't. But i'm one of those people who don't.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/26/07 11:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 11:18 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Being vague does not prove your point. I did not try to take things out of context, rather I posted another part of Adam's response because you were making it seem as if he was broadly referring to all religion. Who's nitpicking wording now? We know that he was generalizing, and he also stated that this was not the case for all uber-religious kids, so what are you trying to say?

Because he listed a few religous beliefs which a tolerant religous person may or may not have.

If you wanna discuss the Bible we can do that too. :)

Go ahead. Last time someone tried to claim a contradiction to me concerning the Isrealites, I pointing him to 4 different verses which stated why God did not throw out the Amorites, which was because when they conquered a city, they were told not to take of a certain item and someone did therefore God did not give them what they wanted.

And that's where most contradictions come from, or where people claim there are contradictions. They don't read the book, instead they only read the verse or chapter.

The same thing could be said about fundamentalists who take things out of context to prove their own prejudices, like those who say homosexuality is bad and one reason is because of the laws of Leviticus, but when I bring up the other things in Leviticus then I am told I am taking it out of context... yet some still use it for proof. I am not saying this is a claim you make but it is a claim some make.

God will promise something to people on conditions.

I was not disputing him, I was saying that the title of the article is misleading because it implies that how well-behaved and adjusted a person is is the only measure of what is good.

Is not behaving better generally good for kids as well as better than the alternative?

Yes. I'm being a bit unclear. What is implied in the title that religion itself makes kids good, and not just certain aspects of it that have nothing to do with the theology in many cases. Just because someone is a close-minded little trooper that is devoted to the rules doesn't mean that he may also have gained inner bigotry from fundamentalism, which in my opinion is not good.

[SyntheticTacos]

Alright, basically: Religion can have a positive effect on people. It can also have negative effects on people, such as when some exploit it for their own ends, such as for bigotry. That's where we get the Inquisition, the Crusades, and such.

A kid can be brought up with good ethics secularly too.

[Nylo]

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up.

What? That sounds bogus, I'd like to see a study on that; otherwise it's just anecdotal evidence. If that's true then why did Rome and the United States become so advanced when they rank among the most religious nations in history? (Religious in culture, not govermment)

[DeathDementor]

i think that the resaon that the kids dont play up and are not argueing bak is beacuse the think that if theey do, god will punish them and they think that when somthing bad happens that is god punishing them like there toy breaks they think that it is god . but anyeway as they grow u the tend to think for themselves and either chose reigion or they dont ....

[cellardoor6]

I'm highly skeptical of that article. Maybe among children in the US that might be the case for certain behavior, but suggesting that having a religious upbringing is going to prevent someone from being a murderer, well that's just not true.

Timothy McVeigh, the man behind the Oklahoma City Bombing - in which WAY more people died than in the VT shooting - was raised by devout Catholic parents. The Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both raised in religious homes. Eric Harris was raised Catholic, and Dylan Klebold was raised Lutheran.

In fact... what notable shooting or massacre in American history WASN'T committed by someone with religious motives or religious background?

[Ravariel]

Well, those are loverly examples of extremes, cellar, but they aren't indicative of anything at all really. Those people represent, what .000001% of the population? What about the rest of us who aren't, y'know, INSANE?

Religion helps give a structure to a child, and an obvious moral code, and a lovely carrot and stick to back it up. I mean, if I had been taught that some guy who is always watching me would send me to HELL FOREVER (imagine those words on fire and with a lot of spooky reverb to get the full effect) if I was naughty... well, there might be some things I would never have done... like masturbate. 'S kinda creepy if'n you think about it...

Anyway, I suppose this is just another place where I'm the statistical anomaly. Ask my teachers who in my class was the best behaved and most well-adjusted, and I almost guarantee you it would unanimously be me... And yet I was the one person raised in an a-religious household.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

16000 kids? Well thats a pretty crappy study to make a point on. My family (more or less) isn't religious and I haven't went into my school with a machine gun and did a crazy.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/27/07 04:27 AM, Ravariel wrote: Well, those are loverly examples of extremes, cellar, but they aren't indicative of anything at all really.

Proteas suggested that massacres and school shootings aren't committed by children who were raised in a religious family, which isn't true. That's all I was trying to say.

Those people represent, what .000001% of the population? What about the rest of us who aren't, y'know, INSANE?

You do realize that I was only disagreeing with Proteas, I didn't say that the exact polar opposite of what he said is true. I didn't say that religion automatically means someone is a killer. I just showed that our most notable massacres were committed by people who had a religious upbringing.

This doesn't mean that religion causes this, it just shows that religion doesn't prevent it.

I'm pretty sure that the ratio of atheists vs. religious people in the US is indicative of the ratio of atheist and religious murderers. That is why I don't think anyone can mention a notable massacre or shooting in our country committed by someone who didn't have a religions upbringing.

Religion helps give a structure to a child

Even though I don't disagree with that, I still think that structure isn't going to prevent murderous people from murdering. Some people excel in structure, some people get scarred by it.

Anyway, I suppose this is just another place where I'm the statistical anomaly. Ask my teachers who in my class was the best behaved and most well-adjusted, and I almost guarantee you it would unanimously be me... And yet I was the one person raised in an a-religious household.

And I was raised in a highly religious household with parents that never swore and wouldn't even let me watch Rated R movies and yet I was the blacksheep of the family and raised hell in school all through K-12. I didn't start calming down until about 2 years ago. I hated the religious structure in my household.

Religion and spirituality can only be developed personally, if someone is raised to adhere to certain religions values, that will mean nothing if they don't accept them. And there are cases where people act out specifically in order to semi-consciously rebel against their religion, their parents, and society due to having it forced upon them as a child.

[Proteas]

At 4/27/07 04:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Proteas suggested that massacres and school shootings aren't committed by children who were raised in a religious family, which isn't true.

I actually pointed out how none of these shooters ever professed a personal beleif in said religious practices, and how you've never actually seen a devoutly religious teen shoot up a school.

Yes, Timothy Mcveigh and the Columbine Shooters were raised in that kind of enivornment, but did they actually believe in it? Were their parents actively involved in their spiritual life, or did they all just get dressed nice every Sunday to go play Church to impress the neighbors?

[Ravariel]

At 4/27/07 01:57 PM, Proteas wrote: Yes, Timothy Mcveigh and the Columbine Shooters were raised in that kind of enivornment, but did they actually believe in it? Were their parents actively involved in their spiritual life, or did they all just get dressed nice every Sunday to go play Church to impress the neighbors?

Well, that's a far more complicated (and probably ultimately impossible) question to answer, considering the status of most of these folk (read: dead).

Though one might point to abortion clinic bombers, and muslim suicide bombers as examples that the religiously devout do do terrible things.

[stafffighter]

I think amoung the loony community the ratios of devote christians and heavy metal fans are about the same. Is this coinsidence? No, they're both example of unstable minds finding an icon to give shape to what was already going on. Of course the religion might be harder to diagnos because until you actually pick up the gun parents can see you as clean bred American

[Proteas]

At 4/27/07 02:11 PM, Ravariel wrote: Well, that's a far more complicated (and probably ultimately impossible) question to answer, considering the status of most of these folk (read: dead).

And yet despite no longer being among the living, they all left behind writings and so-called "insight" into their minds.

Though one might point to abortion clinic bombers, and muslim suicide bombers as examples that the religiously devout do do terrible things.

True, I never denied that. But that wasn't what I was getting at by starting this topic...

[HighlyIllogical]

It's interesting, Proteas, that you bring up religion in the Columbine case. I don't think it has as much to do with religion as with bad parenting and legal Tec-9s...