Surprise Finding About Atheists (you better sit down)

[JohannBessler]

A few of you good folks know that my father worked as a pastor, and has done so for decades.

Part of that, of course, involved rearing his children in the faith. I can remember endless days spent in church, learning the scriptures.

With this in mind, I'd always thought that some kind of spiritual training necessarily led to the development of a strong sense of ethics. Can secular societies develop ethics, or do they degenerate into Ayn Rand-style Objectivism, in which every man essentially looks out for himself, at the expense of others? The answer to this question has always seemed self-evident.

However, yesterday I ran across some startling statistics that shed considerable doubt on this idea. Raw statistics show that, among the prison population, atheism is quite rare--in fact, in a not-too-long ago published paper, less than 1% of the prison population self-identifies as "atheist".

What gives? It seems completely counter-intuitive to me.

Cite:

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

[AshyPhoenix]

What about countries in Northern Europe like Sweden, which has an atheist population estimated at between 46-85%?

[fetaby]

What gives? It seems completely counter-intuitive to me.

Wow.

Not surprised at your thought process. That's to be expected from you at this point.

I am amused at your reaction though. Somebody get me a fainting couch, stat!

[eastofeden]

Well...Since one of my brothers has been incarcerated for most of his adult life...when it is time for him to get out (before he goes right back in)...he finds Jesus. It is a manipulative tool and he uses it because...it works.

Then again...I think organized religion is a manipulative tool to control the masses. It can be a good tool...or a very very bad one. Depends who is using the tool.

[MysteryLovesCompany]

I don't think that being religious necessarily makes you a bad person, I just think that "bad" people are more drawn to the idea of a god that can forgive you for all your sins that you will inevitably commit instead of taking responsibility for your own actions.

[star-warrior]

Yeah, the ever forgiving god. In other words, sin and sin and sin and you'll be forgiven every time so long as you're contrite. This is bullshit and sets up the mentality that you can do stuff and get away with it just because you say you repent in the name of some imaginary dude.

[AshyPhoenix]

^But wouldn't you say that if you don't honestly repent the sin, God doesn't forgive you?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

One thing that always makes me roll my eyes is seeing people make the assumption that you have to believe in a deity in order to be a moral, civilized person. If you aren't a good boy, Santa will put coal in your stocking!

If anything, wouldn't atheists be consider MORE moral, since they're being good for the sake of others rather than in the hopes of getting rewarded in the afterlife?

[JohannBessler]

^I think it easy for a man to look around him, pre-armed with a set of beliefs, and see reinforcement of those beliefs.

For example, at first glance, a look at the crime map in the United States does seem to support the idea. The lowest crime rates--by and large--seem to exist in places where religion takes a large part in the societal mores.

North Dakota, for example, contains the highest concentration of churches in the nation; correspondingly it has one of the lowest crime rates. All over the rural South, you'll see this pattern duplicated. In the area in which I grew up, people commit acts of crime so rarely that nobody ever bothers to lock their doors and windows.

At the other end of the spectrum, the coastal areas probably rank as the most secular areas of the countries; correspondingly, they tend to have higher rates of crime.

Apparently, however, the raw data--at least in terms of the constituency of the prisoners--does not back this observation up.

[youfiad]

I've always considered the atheists in my life to be the least egocentric people I know. It's the Christians who I find to be the immoral/unethical ones. These "statistics" don't surprise me in the slightest.

[JohannBessler]

What about countries in Northern Europe like Sweden, which has an atheist population estimated at between 46-85%?

Good question, Ashy.

Even looking at the big picture, it seems a difficult thing to understand.

We could point to Muslim countries, which have very low crime rates. By the same token, the secular countries of Northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) have very low crime rates, too.

This may lead us to believe that no connection exists between religion and crime at all. But wait! This idea, in turn, cannot stand close scrutiny, because the vast majority of prisoners have a religious affiliation. Conversely, England--one of the most irreligious countries on the Earth--has a pretty high crime rate, mostly property crime.

So we find ourselves right back at square one...

[xbuzzerx]

For example, at first glance, a look at the crime map in the United States does seem to support the idea. The lowest crime rates--by and large--seem to exist in places where religion takes a large part in the societal mores.

I suspect you don't disagree with this, Johann, but I think in the U.S. this is largely because the most religious parts of the country are the least densely populated, with the least concentrations of wealth and poverty sitting alongside each other, and less competition for jobs and opportunity. Rather than because there's any direct relationship between religious fervor and crime rate.

Sweden is a sparsely populated country by and large, even its "largest city" is only a million, certainly small by U.S./world standards, and has no dense urban poverty to speak of in comparison to us.

[hylas]

nope, one doesnt need spirituality to develop a strong sense of ethics, just as having a religious upbringing doesnt prevent you from becoming a bad person.

actually (and this is my background speaking - i grew up atheist) i tend to think that religious believe may prevent people from fully developing their morality. why engage with those really difficult, fundamental questions, if there is a book that gives you all the answers? i would argue that a person who does the right thing because its the right thing to do actually has a stronger sense of ethics than the person who only does the right thing because a book tells him to, or because he fears gods punishment and desires gods reward.

however, i would be careful with interpreting those prison statistics. for example, poorer communities tend to be more religious. members of poorer communities also tend to end up in prison more often. religious believe may not directly relate to their imprisonment, but both their religious believe and their imprisonment may have been caused by poverty.

[blackbeltninja]

^I think it easy for a man to look around him, pre-armed with a set of beliefs, and see reinforcement of those beliefs.

For example, at first glance, a look at the crime map in the United States does seem to support the idea. The lowest crime rates--by and large--seem to exist in places where religion takes a large part in the societal mores.

North Dakota, for example, contains the highest concentration of churches in the nation; correspondingly it has one of the lowest crime rates. All over the rural South, you'll see this pattern duplicated. In the area in which I grew up, people commit acts of crime so rarely that nobody ever bothers to lock their doors and windows.

At the other end of the spectrum, the coastal areas probably rank as the most secular areas of the countries; correspondingly, they tend to have higher rates of crime.

Apparently, however, the raw data--at least in terms of the constituency of the prisoners--does not back this observation up.

Surely this tallies more with population numbers than anything else. More people usually equals more crime simply in absolute numbers. We'd have to look at relative percentages to be certain, though.

-d-

[LeicsDom]

However, yesterday I ran across some startling statistics that shed considerable doubt on this idea. Raw statistics show that, among the prison population, atheism is quite rare--in fact, in a not-too-long ago published paper, less than 1% of the prison population self-identifies as "atheist".

That finding, to me, is perfectly logical.
If you are going to survey a closed community of criminals then your findings are not going to be reasonable. They are living isolated from main society and will have way too much time on their hands to over-think stuff. It is very logical that they will be looking for any sort of absolution from their sins

[LeicsDom]

We could point to Muslim countries, which have very low crime rates. By the same token, the secular countries of Northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) have very low crime rates, too.

And yet in the UK there are more Muslims in prison, percentage-wise, than in the wider community so that shoots down that theory!

[doctorsun]

That finding, to me, is perfectly logical.
If you are going to survey a closed community of criminals then your findings are not going to be reasonable. They are living isolated from main society and will have way too much time on their hands to over-think stuff. It is very logical that they will be looking for any sort of absolution from their sins

Plus, the prison community is largely "governed" by various gangs, most of which having some religious affiliation. People in prison are better served by affiliating themselves with one of these groups as they often provide protection as well as a sense brotherhood which I imagine is very necessary when in such a situation.

[MikeyLove]

^But wouldn't you say that if you don't honestly repent the sin, God doesn't forgive you?

Good question! A Catholic has to be truly sincere in the confessional. The Priest acting in place of Christ may give absolution, but God knows the heart of the one confessing the sin.

[Telstra]

^I think it easy for a man to look around him, pre-armed with a set of beliefs, and see reinforcement of those beliefs.

For example, at first glance, a look at the crime map in the United States does seem to support the idea. The lowest crime rates--by and large--seem to exist in places where religion takes a large part in the societal mores.

North Dakota, for example, contains the highest concentration of churches in the nation; correspondingly it has one of the lowest crime rates. All over the rural South, you'll see this pattern duplicated. In the area in which I grew up, people commit acts of crime so rarely that nobody ever bothers to lock their doors and windows.

At the other end of the spectrum, the coastal areas probably rank as the most secular areas of the countries; correspondingly, they tend to have higher rates of crime.

Apparently, however, the raw data--at least in terms of the constituency of the prisoners--does not back this observation up.

ummmmmmmmmm example: Japan lowest crime rate !!!!
So it is all about education. The more educated people are the less crime rate.


I considered an atheist = used to believe but now don't believe.
A child can NOT be atheist because it doesn't know anything.
An adult who don't know religion can NOT be atheist.

[Hard-up1]

The two assumptions and observations in the OP are not correlated and rely on faulty reverse syllogisms.

That ethics and morality are involved in social transgressions that are components of a criminal's background, is not the same as saying that immorality and unethical behaviors proportionately contribute to imprisonment.

First, convicted criminals are surely only the tiniest tip of the iceberg in society when it comes to immoral and unethical behaviors. For example, the majority of citizens may be unethically understating their taxes, but it rarely is exposed, and much more rarely ends in conviction or imprisonment. The reverse may in fact be true. For many, it is immoral to pollute the planet and contaminate the environment, yet society at large may applaud the conspicuously unsustainable carbon consumption, the mansion, the toys, the Hummer, etc.

In a much broader pattern, immorality, whether it is gossiping, greed, gluttony, unforgiveness,cruelty, malice, or whatever, is rarely a crime. So, the vast majority of moral offenses are simply judged acts by a community or society, but in modern countries, not criminal.

Presuming that this demonstrates the break in direct correlation of using criminality to represent broader unethical and immoral populations in the West, then one is left with just the question of the prison observation as a stand-alone issue.

What would be likely, in addition to the factors already posted, would be the usefulness of religion when a prisoner is up for parole. The goal of the parole process is to release prisoners who demonstrate reduced threats to society. In prison, there is precious little chance to demonstrate anything substantial in a positive direction -- most of the measures are instead a demonstration of lack of negative. A prisoner demonstrates a lack of violent behavior, a lack of non-compliance with prison rules, a lack of gang behaviors. Religion is a classic showcase item that demonstrates some attempt to look outside one's own world, to join society in a traditionally conformist way. Of course, as such it garners many frauds, or even simply those who want to adopt change but are just kidding themselves.

Then there is the whole aspect of who populates a prison. In America, it is much more likely to be a black man or a Latino. Both minorities are demographically intolerant of atheism more than the general population, and as cultures in America, lack representation proportionately in the trend of atheism. Further, it may be argued that the less educated may be less likely to be certain of intellectual convictions that lead to atheism, and prison populations are by definition less educated than the general public, making atheism less likely in the prison population.

Returning to the underlying question, there is likely no greater likelihood of ethical behavior in the atheistic or religious. Humans operate outside their professed beliefs and values all the time. Hypocrisy is by no means the sole domain of the faithful, nor is virtue somehow imputed to the man who finds nothing compelling about any reason to believe in a god. There is also no reason to see mankind as an either/or proposition. Someone like Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) can be a great force for good in a culture because his books encouraged literacy and social equality and creativity, but on a personal level, he was quite cruel and abusive, resulting in his wife's shame and suicide because of his personal immorality: as she declined with cancer and other illnesses, he conducted an affair with his mistress, a close friend of the couple. After the suicide, he wed the mistress and sent her kids away to school to get them out of the way. Was he an immoral monster? Don't know -- wasn't there. But, he obviously wasn't all one thing or all another.

[csb999]

not particularly to generalise you could say atheism is an expression of social stability . Nationally the Scandinavian countries generally are highest and the US prison population is probably the single lowest isolatable group . If you were able to isolate a group for poverty and powerlessness I doubt it would be a very different group .

[Hard-up1]

Following that thinking, one needs to examine the propensity of lifers in prison to be atheists: they are extremely socially stable.

Further, the ruling classes of Imperial Victorian Britain were very stable, but hardly atheists.

The Saudi royal family doesn't seem to produce a significant number of atheists either.

The correlation is not apparent.

[csb999]

to add to or further HUs previous statement " Then there is the whole aspect of who populates a prison. In America, it is much more likely to be a black man or a Latino. Both minorities are demographically intolerant of atheism more than the general population, and as cultures in America, lack representation proportionately in the trend of atheism. " Think from Wikipedia I got the numbers that if the US prison system in consistenlty about 10% of the general population it is something like 40% of black men .

[csb999]

what happened to the Victorian ruling classes in the 1920s and 30s is almost the definition of unstable .

[Hard-up1]

Yes, but you have to equally address the entirety of the 19th century in Victorian England. Describing the end of empire is not the equal of describing the institution while it held sway.

[csb999]

moreover the wealthiest are probably the group least sensitive to social conditions .

[csb999]

you could make a considerable point that since perhaps WWII the life of the average person in the West has been atypically unusually stable . Moreover the activities of a very tiny group are hardly illustrative of general social trends .

[HoodedRat]

This has been known for at least 30 years.

[Hard-up1]

Moreover the activities of a very tiny group are hardly illustrative of general social trends .

Exactly, hence my complaint about the prison population representing anything other than the prison population.

Coexistence of data hardly connotes causation, and attempts to link unproven causes are just endlessly speculative.

As for the philosophic/logical rationalism that is atheism being a "social condition," I would wonder at that language. Your argument was that social stability was conducive to atheism, or at least coexistent with it. You can hardly turn around when I cite clear examples that lack correlation and run away from the link you asserted.

Social stability was there. Where was the higher rate of atheism than in the general population?

[Nishin]

A few of you good folks know that my father worked as a pastor, and has done so for decades.

Part of that, of course, involved rearing his children in the faith. I can remember endless days spent in church, learning the scriptures.

With this in mind, I'd always thought that some kind of spiritual training necessarily led to the development of a strong sense of ethics. Can secular societies develop ethics, or do they degenerate into Ayn Rand-style Objectivism, in which every man essentially looks out for himself, at the expense of others? The answer to this question has always seemed self-evident.

However, yesterday I ran across some startling statistics that shed considerable doubt on this idea. Raw statistics show that, among the prison population, atheism is quite rare--in fact, in a not-too-long ago published paper, less than 1% of the prison population self-identifies as "atheist".

What gives? It seems completely counter-intuitive to me.

Cite:

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Or not ... there was a thread on JUB about this subject a few years ago, I remember this article coming out of it
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fro...M/mZ4e5rHjV9MJ

The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests
of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part
of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex.
Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty
that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain,
hard-wired and pleasurable.

There was another similar article based on scientific studies in another thread but I can't find it right now ...

[umjreon88]

Religion might be able to influence you but ultimately, it is you who make the decisions in your life, with integrity or not. Some people commit crimes out of situations which they deemed to be out of control, others do it for the thrill or for revenge.

Atheists might seem like the most unlikely group to have ethics but they do, and some, I can say, have much more ethics and compassion than religious people or people who've had a religious upbringing.

[RazorzEdge88]

This has been known for at least 30 years.

You mean you didn't have to sit down for that?

[HoodedRat]

^
I was already sitting down; I'm a lazy slob.

[csb999]

" Exactly, hence my complaint about the prison population representing anything other than the prison population. " 10 % of any group is a very large sample . As well by "social" I am referring to a group not any individuals in the group . That US prisoners are notably more religious than average and that Scandinavians are notably less than average is I am stating that this relative difference is indicative of a general causal relationship .

[JohannBessler]

And yet in the UK there are more Muslims in prison, percentage-wise, than in the wider community so that shoots down that theory!

It would be very interesting to see those statistics, Leics.

It leads to still another conundrum.

[LeicsDom]

Atheists might seem like the most unlikely group to have ethics but they do, and some, I can say, have much more ethics and compassion than religious people or people who've had a religious upbringing.

And atheists don't hide behind a very flawed belief system to justify their misdeeds

[LeicsDom]

It would be very interesting to see those statistics, Leics.

It leads to still another conundrum.

One in five young men in youth jails is Muslim, an increase of nearly 25 per cent on last year, figures released today show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-8392928.html

[JohannBessler]

Religion might be able to influence you but ultimately, it is you who make the decisions in your life, with integrity or not. Some people commit crimes out of situations which they deemed to be out of control, others do it for the thrill or for revenge.

Atheists might seem like the most unlikely group to have ethics but they do, and some, I can say, have much more ethics and compassion than religious people or people who've had a religious upbringing.

I merely attempt to make some sense out of the statistics, because, at first glance, they do seem counterintuitive.

I think Buzzer came pretty close to a fair, accurate analysis. Crime rates in any populace may tend to relate more to population density.

But not always. I see that Alaska--one of the most sparesely populated states in the Union--also has one of the highest crime rates.

I find it hard to find any one common thread. Alaskans,by and large, have libertarian tendencies, and tend to be irreligious.

It seems like any time one comes up with a theory, one can find examples that directly contradict that theory.

[Adrock-JD]

Sometimes you feel like a nut
sometimes you don't
Peter Paul Almond Joy's got nuts
Peter Paul Mounds don't
because
sometimes you feel like a nut
sometimes you don't

[borg69unimatrix]

I see that Alaska--one of the most sparesely populated states in the Union--also has one of the highest crime rates.

I find it hard to find any one common thread. Alaskans,by and large, have libertarian tendencies, and tend to be irreligious.

I see it as kind of a "consider the source" scenario. Alaska is also made up of fishermen and truckers, who have always kind of lived in a self supportive, fend for yourself mentality. On top of the harsh living environment up there, "dog eat dog" fight to survive / every man for himself rules apply.

[csb999]

True to really prove this the same test would have to be administered in the same way to both US prisoners and the US general population or Scandinavian prisoners and the Scandinavian general population , I state without proof that the US general populace is roughly the same as the "Scandinavian" . Moreover there is a generally recognised ranking among nations , not my statement .

[Hard-up1]

I merely attempt to make some sense out of the statistics, because, at first glance, they do seem counterintuitive.

I think Buzzer came pretty close to a fair, accurate analysis. Crime rates in any populace may tend to relate more to population density.
But not always. I see that Alaska--one of the most sparesely populated states in the Union--also has one of the highest crime rates.
I find it hard to find any one common thread. Alaskans,by and large, have libertarian tendencies, and tend to be irreligious.
It seems like any time one comes up with a theory, one can find examples that directly contradict that theory.

That implies to me that intuitively opining about complex social behavior is not a good basis for theories.

For example, maybe population density in Alaska IS higher, as WHERE the people are (Anchorage is 300,000+) is a higher density. There are no other towns of size in the state, only 30,000-ish or less. And in the empty spaces, it's really empty. Most of Alaska belongs to the federal government or is managed by it in one way or another, so all those acres aren't a fair estimate of the inhabitable portion's true density.

Also, if low population density were correlated to low crime, then the wild, wild West would have been a tea party, but it wasn't.

Alaska is notorious for a mix of factors: it has scads of end-of-the-roaders who are avoiding social constraints of the lower 48, it has the descendants of gold-rushers and oil-boomers and land speculators (hardly the most lawful bunch of people), it's alcoholism rivals the high rates of other far northern countries, it has one of the largest populations of Native Americans with the attendant issues, and far from the Libertarian presumption, it has one of the highest per-citizen dependencies on federal dollars of any state in the country.

So, intuition is lousy in making good social science. One tends to focus on one aspect that is either a misconception or is just not that relevant in the light of the many factors at work.

As for the religion of Alaska, all those Texans who run up there for oil exploitation take their Baptist hymnals with them, and there are also the commensurate Catholic and Lutheran populations that one expects from the other conquistadors -- the Minnesotans and those from the northern tier states. The true Native Alaskans are a mix of Christians and their own native spiritual beliefs, but not irreligious.

I lived there for two years, and what you describe is not what I saw, and that is more than anecdotal.

[ChickenGuy]

However, yesterday I ran across some startling statistics that shed considerable doubt on this idea. Raw statistics show that, among the prison population, atheism is quite rare--in fact, in a not-too-long ago published paper, less than 1% of the prison population self-identifies as "atheist".

What gives? It seems completely counter-intuitive to me.

It's because Christian missionaries regularly hawk around prisons across the United States converting people, and the prisoners are essentially pressurised or mandated to attend these services. I find the practice to be very unsavoury. Cynically forcing religion onto people KNOWING that they're vulnerable to suggestion because of their circumstances.

It would be better if prisons in the U.S. had something like conventional school classes, and prisoners were taught a variety of subjects like art, science, music, history, etc. and their horizons broadened - instead of being courted by predatory evangelists stalking around for easy targets for their fantasy nonsense.

[Hard-up1]

Chicken, have you been in a U.S. prison?

I have.

I've never seen one that compelled prisoner to attend any service or to meet with religious people. That may have been true in 1930 or sometime before civil rights and court cases separated church and state more thoroughly, but it is not the case today.

You must be getting your impression from history and not current conditions.

Your assumptions are as errant as an American assuming London is still full of charnel houses where the poor are in forced labor. What you said about American prisons today is no more true.

You presume to ridicule men and women who reach out to prisoners who are lonely and desperate. There is no forced conversion, nor does conversion bring the prisoner any benefits compared to those who are not interested.

Who do you know who is going to strangers in prison and trying to help them? If atheism is such a glorious basis for social perspective, where are its natural philanthropists in like numbers? Visitors to prisons are there listening, sometimes teaching literacy or other things, and are giving of their time. Where is the parallel work by the atheistic?

In addition, you conveniently left out the significant number of Nation of Islam converts and the forces that work within a prison from within.

Your bias is as obvious as it is inaccurate. You vent your spleen, but tell of fictional places that are not the America that actually is. The terrorists are not the only ones who believe of American culture as the Great Satan apparently.

[ChickenGuy]

Who do you know who is going to strangers in prison and trying to help them? If atheism is such a glorious basis for social perspective, where are its natural philanthropists in like numbers? Visitors to prisons are there listening, sometimes teaching literacy or other things, and are giving of their time. Where is the parallel work by the atheistic?

For one thing, I'm certain any religious group would find it far easier to enter an American prison than any secular group, based on inherant bias and prejudice amongst the prison and/or county/state authorities, and for another, you can be sure that the churches are FAR more well-funded for these various types of 'outreach programs' () which gives the churches more funds, more people on the ground, more travel options, and more opportunity.

In addition, you conveniently left out the significant number of Nation of Islam converts and the forces that work within a prison from within.

I indeed was going to mention something similar to this in my first post. Yes, it also extends to Islam - including some Western converts, both in the U.S. and over here too.

Your bias is as obvious as it is inaccurate. You vent your spleen, but tell of fictional places that are not the America that actually is. The terrorists are not the only ones who believe of American culture as the Great Satan apparently.

As usual, you fly off on a tangent with imaginary tales about my hating and despising America - while completely failing to address the central point of my entire post - that motivated fundamentalists of Christianity (and also Islam) will behave much like a brainwashed cult and seek out as many converts as possible - and prisons are prime targets. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[JockBoy87]

Where you are born is the single greatest factor in determining your faith, no matter how deeply held it is. Kids follow the faith of their community, what a coincidence

It is the same factor that determines violent activity.

America is more religious and violent than Japan, but not because one causes the other. Culture reinforces them both.

[Hard-up1]

For one thing, I'm certain any religious group would find it far easier to enter an American prison than any secular group, based on inherant bias and prejudice amongst the prison and/or county/state authorities, and for another, you can be sure that the churches are FAR more well-funded for these various types of 'outreach programs' () which gives the churches more funds, more people on the ground, more travel options, and more opportunity.

What nonsense. People can and do voluntarily teach literacy and other things to prisoners, and there are no vast sums being spent to do so. It doesn't cost a lot to drive there, teach with a couple of old books or whatever, and go back homes.

Most of the evangelicals aren't getting paid to do the work -- they give of their own and it is mostly time.

You can be certain that secular groups are unwelcome, but you can be certainly wrong. Their numbers are less because they aren't interested in the same numbers.

The brainwashed cult members you believe in believe they are bringing hope. Where is the hope of the better world that atheists would bring the prisoner. They are fewer because it is not their ethos, plain and simple.

And, I'd have nothing to fly off of if you weren't always posting crap about a place you've never been but sure it exists.

I've addressed your central point many times over. Religious adherents are visiting prisoners one-on-one at their own expense, and are welcomed by the prisoner. To the contrary, you have nothing but slander to prove your presumed point that some secular group wanting to teach life skills and literacy would be unwelcome. For what possible reason could a prison exclude them? Just baffling how elaborately you construct our society so far from its reality.

I challenge you to cite statistics of groups claiming to have been denied such access. They surely wouldn't sit quietly by and not protest such discriminatory treatment if they believed religious groups were being given preferential treatment.

It is hard to even get churches to visit prisons, much less those who have no value system that believes there is merit to reaching out to prisoners. It's more like live and let die in the general population.

And no, you don't hate Americans, just the ones you target for your bigotry. That the nature of a bigot. After all, if Christianity comprises more than half of the American population, you just hate the majority of us, that's all. Let's not pretend about that either.

[jmadaf]

I understand, when a person is in a position of dire circumances, a high percentage turn to religion. Like a plane crash Please God help me, even atheist will.

[JohannBessler]

I understand, when a person is in a position of dire circumances, a high percentage turn to religion. Like a plane crash Please God help me, even atheist will.

One other person mentioned this aspect of the phenomenon, JMA, but I see a problem with the reasoning.

If one checks the statistics more closely, one finds that the single biggest contingent of prisoners consists of Catholics. Now, historically speaking, Catholicism has not attracted many converts. Indeed, most people get raised into the faith.

Moreover, conversion to Catholicism takes a great deal of time and effort. One has to go to catechism, and get confirmed, and so on. By contast, conversion to a Protestant religion can literally take minutes.

Yet, as I noted before, the largest contingent of prisoners consists of Catholics. Something interesting is taking place that doesn't seem to provide any answers.

[PreTTy PeTe]

"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain"

john lennon

don't you think these lyrics would describe a lot of these prisoners. they're hurting and I'm not saying they don't belong where they are but i'm sure they are just trying to grasp some form of dignity that they have left.