Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Ben Carson needs a new advisor on gun issues

Sorry Ben fans, but he is really screwing the pooch this week. First he tells us that in active shooter situations people should just rush the shooter. Then he claims that the Nazis taking away the guns in Germany helped caused the Holocaust. WTF?
«1

Re: Ben Carson needs a new advisor on gun issues

  • smerka said:
    Sorry Ben fans, but he is really screwing the pooch this week. First he tells us that in active shooter situations people should just rush the shooter. Then he claims that the Nazis taking away the guns in Germany helped caused the Holocaust. WTF?
    That is 100% historically accurate.  Nazis first made everyone register their guns.  Then they confiscated them, knowing exactly where to find them once they had made everyone register.  Then people and no way of defending themselves when they were hauled off to be murdered.  If they hadn't had their guns confiscated, their government wouldn't have had unlimited power to do as they pleased.

    I'm not sure he is telling people to rush towards the shooter- I thought he said that is what he would have done.  There are some people who do these things, and some who don't.  Neither way is right or wrong.

    I'm not necessarily a Carson fan, but these aren't statements that would make me dislike him.
  • This is the article I read. Yes it is Huffington Post, and yes it is biased left. I really don't think that the Jews could have fought against the Nazis. I mean Hitler probably would have just bombed the ghettos if there had been any resistance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-holocaust-gun-control_5616a7aee4b0082030a185c2 But invoking the Nazis doesn't bode well for him being able to sway moderates in a general election.
  • smerka said:
    This is the article I read. Yes it is Huffington Post, and yes it is biased left. I really don't think that the Jews could have fought against the Nazis. I mean Hitler probably would have just bombed the ghettos if there had been any resistance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-holocaust-gun-control_5616a7aee4b0082030a185c2 But invoking the Nazis doesn't bode well for him being able to sway moderates in a general election.
    It's not about a successful fight or not.  It's about that they didn't have a shot in hell without arms.  Basically every dictator throughout history has confiscated weapons so that there was nobody to fight back.  Doesn't matter if they could have successfully fought or not.  By not arming your citizens, you have effectively given total and complete power to the ultimate monopoly of life- the government.  The government stops being a power that is controlled by the people if the people don't have even the slightest way of balancing the power scale.  This has happened and again and again throughout modern history.

    With freedom comes great responsibility.  It also comes with great risk.  But I will trust myself over my government any day because government is a flawed system built by flawed people.  It is not and should not be the highest law of the land, and our founding fathers understood this.  They also understood that we should never leaved a flawed system unchecked and that the only true check and balance of government is the people.
  • BlueBirdMBBlueBirdMB member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited October 2015
    I want to add that I think Carson needs more knowledgable advisors in general.  He needs to beef up his basic policies.

    Bring up the Nazi stuff will probably hurt him, but I don't agree that it should.  If we can't even TALK about the past mistakes of humanity, let alone learn from them, we are doomed to repeat them.
  • Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.
    I wonder if this will happen in the states?
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.
    I wonder if this will happen in the states?
    I doubt it - not in this country.  Although some people are totally paranoid that Obama will do this before his presidency is over.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Everyone always says "never us", but the point isn't to wonder if it could happen.  The point is to never put ourselves near the position where it could happen.
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.

    To be fair, most 1st world countries ban handguns and have substantially lower gun violence because of it (ie Canada, England, etc.).  It has been that way for decades and none of them are dictatorships.  True, not all guns are outlawed...shotguns and hunting rifles are allowed in both countries.  And I think they are fairly easy to get in Canada, though quite a lot of red tape in England.

    However, with all that said...while I wish we could go back in time and scourge our country of handguns like other countries have done...it is now too late.  That genie has been out of the bottle too long and to ban hand guns now would only mean lawful citizens would give up their guns, but thugs and criminals would not.

  • BlueBirdMBBlueBirdMB member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited October 2015
    vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.

    To be fair, most 1st world countries ban handguns and have substantially lower gun violence because of it (ie Canada, England, etc.).  It has been that way for decades and none of them are dictatorships.  True, not all guns are outlawed...shotguns and hunting rifles are allowed in both countries.  And I think they are fairly easy to get in Canada, though quite a lot of red tape in England.

    However, with all that said...while I wish we could go back in time and scourge our country of handguns like other countries have done...it is now too late.  That genie has been out of the bottle too long and to ban hand guns now would only mean lawful citizens would give up their guns, but thugs and criminals would not.

    And for most of them, freedom is only part of their very modern history.  They don't have a long history of freedom and democracy.  I don't use Europe as a model for anything because as societies, they have no history, and thus no true understanding, of freedom.  And just an FYI, in Germany, where the Nazis did confiscate firearms, they now have fairly loose gun laws.

    And again I say, we've always had our gun laws- they've only become more restrictive with time.  So why now do we have these mass gun shootings?  What is happening in our society that this is happening now?  Those are the real questions to ask.  
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Carson is just too quiet and laid back for me.  I like him as a person but don't think he would make a great president - then you have trump who it total opposite.  I also don't think the government should take everyones guns away.  I'm so sick of dealing with them.  You could better take care of yourself than depending on the govt.
    And without the option to protect yourself, you are completely at the government's mercy.  If they decide to be benevolent, then they do the job of protecting you, but if the government (without checks and balances of power by the people) decides to no longer be benevolent, then we are controlled by them.
    There's a reason why banning arms is step 1 in the dictator handbook.

    To be fair, most 1st world countries ban handguns and have substantially lower gun violence because of it (ie Canada, England, etc.).  It has been that way for decades and none of them are dictatorships.  True, not all guns are outlawed...shotguns and hunting rifles are allowed in both countries.  And I think they are fairly easy to get in Canada, though quite a lot of red tape in England.

    However, with all that said...while I wish we could go back in time and scourge our country of handguns like other countries have done...it is now too late.  That genie has been out of the bottle too long and to ban hand guns now would only mean lawful citizens would give up their guns, but thugs and criminals would not.

    And for most of them, freedom is only part of their very modern history.  They don't have a long history of freedom and democracy.  I don't use Europe as a model for anything because as societies, they have no history, and thus no true understanding, of freedom.  And just an FYI, in Germany, where the Nazis did confiscate firearms, they now have fairly loose gun laws.

    And again I say, we've always had our gun laws- they've only become more restrictive with time.  So why now do we have these mass gun shootings?  What is happening in our society that this is happening now?  Those are the real questions to ask. 

    I agree!

    One huge change over the past decade is lax parenting. MANY parents these are too worried about looking cool and being friends with their children instead of taking the time to teach right from wrong. I see this ALL the time! Kids are no longer reprimanded. We live in a society where anything goes. Add the lack of family time, social media, extreme violence on tv/video games with too much cell phone/computer use and you have cold/heartless people who have no compassion for others.

    This society is filled with narcissists who only care about themselves. The quality of your average person has diminished.

  • catsareniice1 that is certainly part of the problem.  I worry that in general, the family structure has collapsed for many.  Too many parents prioritize other things over their children and while I don't think the woman should be home with their children, I think there needs to be someone home more with children.  I realize there are people who need to have both parents working a lot- my husband's parents were like that and he saw them prioritizing his health and wellness so much that they worked as hard as they could for him.  But for middle class and upper class families, I'm not sure the children see both parents working so much as prioritizing them- they see it as abandoning them.  

    As a teacher, I see so many children who feel detached and deprioritized from their families.  Every member of the family leads extremely separate lives.  Parents and children spend a few minutes together a day, maybe.  As a result, I see teenagers getting far too attached to SOs at a young age before being able to emotionally process it correctly and have seen very extreme reactions when the relationships predictably end.  I can only imagine how those reactions will escalate as the child grows up.

    As anyone also thought, why are schools such a target?  I'd be curious to see the psychology of that analyzed.  I mean, there are tons of public spaces, so why schools?  
  • vlagrl29vlagrl29 member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited October 2015
    Also, not every one of these mass shooters are kids - there are older adults too like the one we had shoot up a jewish center last year and he represented himself in the trial.  Every one of these mass shootings are by mentally ill people and a few of them have been hate crimes.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Also, not every one of these mass shooters are kids - there are older adults too like the one we had shoot up a jewish center last year and he represented himself in the trial.  Every one of these mass shootings are by mentally ill people and a few of them have been hate crimes.
    I would argue anyone who would commit such a horrible atrocity is mentally unstable.  But again, we've always had people who are mentally ill, yet this wave of crime is recent.  Why?
  • catsareniice1 that is certainly part of the problem.  I worry that in general, the family structure has collapsed for many.  Too many parents prioritize other things over their children and while I don't think the woman should be home with their children, I think there needs to be someone home more with children.  I realize there are people who need to have both parents working a lot- my husband's parents were like that and he saw them prioritizing his health and wellness so much that they worked as hard as they could for him.  But for middle class and upper class families, I'm not sure the children see both parents working so much as prioritizing them- they see it as abandoning them.  

    As a teacher, I see so many children who feel detached and deprioritized from their families.  Every member of the family leads extremely separate lives.  Parents and children spend a few minutes together a day, maybe.  As a result, I see teenagers getting far too attached to SOs at a young age before being able to emotionally process it correctly and have seen very extreme reactions when the relationships predictably end.  I can only imagine how those reactions will escalate as the child grows up.

    As anyone also thought, why are schools such a target?  I'd be curious to see the psychology of that analyzed.  I mean, there are tons of public spaces, so why schools?  

    With schools, the shooters are usually students themselves.  While I certainly understand it is a tv show, the most recent Law and Order SVU had an episode that really delved into the differences that take place in a person's brain from childhood to adulthood.  For example, generally speaking, adults have more impulse control.  Children/teenagers also strike me as being more self-centered people...twist that with an already sociopathic/psychopathic brain chemistry...and it doesn't surprise me schools are so often the targets of these terrible shooting rampages.

    But then, those differences between adults and teenagers/children have always been true.

    Maybe it's like a vicious cycle.  One shooting tragedy -->huge publicity, public outcry-->nationwide, even worldwide, fame for the perpetrators.  That gives another sick individual the idea and/or the yearning for the same statement/fame.  They commit a similar sensational shooting spree.  Now shooting sprees are what everyone is talking about and plants those kind of seeds in the minds of many.

  • catsareniice1 that is certainly part of the problem.  I worry that in general, the family structure has collapsed for many.  Too many parents prioritize other things over their children and while I don't think the woman should be home with their children, I think there needs to be someone home more with children.  I realize there are people who need to have both parents working a lot- my husband's parents were like that and he saw them prioritizing his health and wellness so much that they worked as hard as they could for him.  But for middle class and upper class families, I'm not sure the children see both parents working so much as prioritizing them- they see it as abandoning them.  

    As a teacher, I see so many children who feel detached and deprioritized from their families.  Every member of the family leads extremely separate lives.  Parents and children spend a few minutes together a day, maybe.  As a result, I see teenagers getting far too attached to SOs at a young age before being able to emotionally process it correctly and have seen very extreme reactions when the relationships predictably end.  I can only imagine how those reactions will escalate as the child grows up.

    As anyone also thought, why are schools such a target?  I'd be curious to see the psychology of that analyzed.  I mean, there are tons of public spaces, so why schools?  

    With schools, the shooters are usually students themselves.  While I certainly understand it is a tv show, the most recent Law and Order SVU had an episode that really delved into the differences that take place in a person's brain from childhood to adulthood.  For example, generally speaking, adults have more impulse control.  Children/teenagers also strike me as being more self-centered people...twist that with an already sociopathic/psychopathic brain chemistry...and it doesn't surprise me schools are so often the targets of these terrible shooting rampages.

    But then, those differences between adults and teenagers/children have always been true.

    Maybe it's like a vicious cycle.  One shooting tragedy -->huge publicity, public outcry-->nationwide, even worldwide, fame for the perpetrators.  That gives another sick individual the idea and/or the yearning for the same statement/fame.  They commit a similar sensational shooting spree.  Now shooting sprees are what everyone is talking about and plants those kind of seeds in the minds of many.

    I agree that it's become a terrible cycle.  I'm not sure how it ends, but I think that town in Oregon refusing to mention the shooters name and give him more notoriety, is a good way of starting. 
  • vlagrl29 said:
    Also, not every one of these mass shooters are kids - there are older adults too like the one we had shoot up a jewish center last year and he represented himself in the trial.  Every one of these mass shootings are by mentally ill people and a few of them have been hate crimes.
    I would argue anyone who would commit such a horrible atrocity is mentally unstable.  But again, we've always had people who are mentally ill, yet this wave of crime is recent.  Why?
    I don't know :(  are guns easier to come by now?  I hate to say it - is the media making it worse?
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • vlagrl29 said:
    vlagrl29 said:
    Also, not every one of these mass shooters are kids - there are older adults too like the one we had shoot up a jewish center last year and he represented himself in the trial.  Every one of these mass shootings are by mentally ill people and a few of them have been hate crimes.
    I would argue anyone who would commit such a horrible atrocity is mentally unstable.  But again, we've always had people who are mentally ill, yet this wave of crime is recent.  Why?
    I don't know :(  are guns easier to come by now?  I hate to say it - is the media making it worse?
    No.  Laws have become more restrictive over the years, not less.  Media is probably making it worse, but they're just doing their job, so I can't completely fault them.  The invention of social media makes everything more explosive, so that could be part of the situation.
  • I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
  • smerka said:
    I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
    agreed!  I also think the state next to us (KS) can conceal carry at 18 years.  Of course its not the conceal carry people that are causing these things but I see your point.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • smerka said:
    I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
    Thank you!  It is such a huge, gaping hole in the system of gun control.  It never fails to astound me that this is allowed.  Private party sales, which I assume fall into the same hole, are also allowed and totally unregulated.  Or at least I'm assuming they are legal because there are ads all over hunting type websites and CL. 
  • smerka said:
    I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
    Ok, I'll give you that.  I was talking more long term history, not recent history though.  It's only in modern times that we've had any gun regulation.  The federal government first started discussing gun control in the 1920's as a way to deal with the mob situation.  Before that, gun control wasn't really discussed one way or the other.  Here in NH, we can carry a concealed weapon without a separate license, but it's been like that basically since we created gun laws.  We also have a low violent crime rate historically.  I'm not saying that one thing equals another, I'm just saying that access to guns may not be the primary reason for violent crime.

    I don't know much about gun shows, so I can't really comment to that.
  • smerka said:
    I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
    Ok, I'll give you that.  I was talking more long term history, not recent history though.  It's only in modern times that we've had any gun regulation.  The federal government first started discussing gun control in the 1920's as a way to deal with the mob situation.  Before that, gun control wasn't really discussed one way or the other.  Here in NH, we can carry a concealed weapon without a separate license, but it's been like that basically since we created gun laws.  We also have a low violent crime rate historically.  I'm not saying that one thing equals another, I'm just saying that access to guns may not be the primary reason for violent crime.

    I don't know much about gun shows, so I can't really comment to that.

    At least in our current times, I think absolutely the primary reason for violent crime is poverty.

    If you basically look at list of the Top 10 cities with the highest violent crime rates and the Top 10 cities with the highest levels of poverty, those lists will have at least half the cities in common.  I know, because I live in one that usually makes both of those lists.

    Whereas I think of NH as being a fairly affluent state, relatively speaking.  So it wouldn't surprise me at all for gun laws to be loose and lots of people to own guns, but the violent crime rate is fairly low.  Correct me if I'm wrong!  I 100% admit to saying that from general impression, but have never lived there or been there.

  • Oh poverty is a huge reason. Chicago isn't called Chiraq for no reason. But most of the gun violence here is committed using illegal weapons. (Drug dealers bring them in from Mexico). But back to the original discussion, guns laws weren't necessary when most of the country was rural and most guns were used by farmers to protect against wild animals and for hunting. And gun technology has changed dramatically. So as the population increased and moved closer together and weapons got more high powered, more laws were needed.
  • smerka said:
    I live in IL and we recently had to change our laws to allow for concealed carry. So yesI think guns are easier to come by now. There are also gun shows now which I think are a more recent thing. And yes it pisses me off that people don't have to go through background checks at gun shows.
    Ok, I'll give you that.  I was talking more long term history, not recent history though.  It's only in modern times that we've had any gun regulation.  The federal government first started discussing gun control in the 1920's as a way to deal with the mob situation.  Before that, gun control wasn't really discussed one way or the other.  Here in NH, we can carry a concealed weapon without a separate license, but it's been like that basically since we created gun laws.  We also have a low violent crime rate historically.  I'm not saying that one thing equals another, I'm just saying that access to guns may not be the primary reason for violent crime.

    I don't know much about gun shows, so I can't really comment to that.

    At least in our current times, I think absolutely the primary reason for violent crime is poverty.

    If you basically look at list of the Top 10 cities with the highest violent crime rates and the Top 10 cities with the highest levels of poverty, those lists will have at least half the cities in common.  I know, because I live in one that usually makes both of those lists.

    Whereas I think of NH as being a fairly affluent state, relatively speaking.  So it wouldn't surprise me at all for gun laws to be loose and lots of people to own guns, but the violent crime rate is fairly low.  Correct me if I'm wrong!  I 100% admit to saying that from general impression, but have never lived there or been there.

    Percentage wise, we actually have the largest middle class (or used to as of a couple years ago), but we also have the highest standard of living and one of the lowest poverty rates.

    It makes me sad that in modern times, poverty has lead to violent crime.  During the Great Depression, we had one of the lowest crime rates in our country's history.  What the hell is wrong with us now?
  • edited October 2015

    @BlueBirdMB, you have asked multiple times "what is wrong with our nation now that we have so many violent crimes?" Or, you have asked some variation of the question.

    I think you are getting at the deeper issue behind the guns and even behind the mental illness/hatred/hate crimes.

    DH is a commercial pilot. One of the guys he flew with a few times is also a volunteer fire fighter here in our town. He told DH that the main calls they get are car accidents and suicides - very rarely do they go out on true fire calls. He said that many times in suicide situations, they find the deceased in a room or home that is quite dirty and often times has, what many would call demonic writings on the walls and surfaces.

    Now, we can go round and round all day on whether or not the supernatural good versus evil REALLY exists. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that it does, in fact, exist.

    If good (God) exists and He therefore protects people from evil, then the argument for WHY all this increased violence is that as we have removed the idea and the permission for a divine being to be in our homes, public square, or even mentioned in our schools. When we remove the divine good then people have nothing ABOVE themselves and they become the highest, most elevated being in their own lives. It just breeds selfishness, vanity, meanness, and evil.

    Whether or not people believe in God, the actual or perceived presence of a divine, being in a society limits the tendencies toward evil behaviors, words, and actions. We can say that the absence of God/religion frees people and removes that "opiate of the masses," but maybe we actually need God or perception of Him in society to keep people in check.

    Personally, I do believe in God and in Satan as well as in angels and demons. I have my own very personal and intellectual reasons for doing so. I accept that others do not share my beliefs.

    All I am saying is that up until the 1980s, many/most of our population had a true, professed faith in a divine being. After this time period faith waned extremely, people became increasingly less-religious (and even increasingly violent and hate-filled toward the religious group). Prior to the 1980s we had less instances of violence and obscene troubles as a culture. Once in the 1980s we saw more troubles almost in every area of life - drugs, STDs, teen pregnancies, hatred, violence, divorce rates, break down of families, problems with TV, movies and media, etc..

    I DO totally think there is a pattern here. More faith in a divine being tends to make people less prone to selfishness, meanness, and violence-prone. No, it is not an absolute. But, I think there is a pretty decent amount of evidence to more than suggest that the loss of faith in this nation has led to the increase of hate and violence.

  • @MommyLiberty5013, I found your answer intriguing and it really started me thinking.  That does make a lot of sense to me that, when people believe in a Higher Power, they are more likely to behave themselves.  Especially if their religion preaches a place like Hell, if they do not behave themselves.  I mean really, that's why...whether God exists or not...religion is the opiate of the masses.  I don't mean that in the negative way the statement was originally said, but in a practical way.  A fear of Hell or God's wrath is much more powerful than the fear of even a long jail sentence.

    However, I wasn't so sure I believed that religious belief has been waning in the last few decades.  It doesn't feel that way to me, so I tried to look up those statistics.  I probably didn't search hard enough or use the right key phrases...I'm notorious for that, lol...but I couldn't find much one way or the other.

    Though this article says that religious beliefs have been waning around the world since 1991 (I know, not a super long time ago)

    http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations

    I also found it interesting that the percentage of people who definitely believed in God increased with the age bracket.  I guess as one gets closer to "meeting their Maker", they start believing in a Maker that much more.  Sort of like the old phrase "there are no atheists in a foxhole".

    From that survey, 81% of Americans said they have always believed in God.

    Assuming a waning in a belief in God is true, I think that would be part of the story, but I don't think it would be all of it.  For example, France and Germany have some of the lowest rankings for belief in God...substantially lower than the U.S....but I feel like we are a more violent country, crime-wise.  The Philippines has the highest percentage of people who have always believed in God (94%); however, that country has a high level of poverty and they are about middle of the road compared to other nations for violent crime.

    Certainly complex reasons for "why" the increase in shooting sprees, which makes it tough to have a straightforward solution.  

  • @MommyLiberty5013, I found your answer intriguing and it really started me thinking.  That does make a lot of sense to me that, when people believe in a Higher Power, they are more likely to behave themselves.  Especially if their religion preaches a place like Hell, if they do not behave themselves.  I mean really, that's why...whether God exists or not...religion is the opiate of the masses.  I don't mean that in the negative way the statement was originally said, but in a practical way.  A fear of Hell or God's wrath is much more powerful than the fear of even a long jail sentence.

    However, I wasn't so sure I believed that religious belief has been waning in the last few decades.  It doesn't feel that way to me, so I tried to look up those statistics.  I probably didn't search hard enough or use the right key phrases...I'm notorious for that, lol...but I couldn't find much one way or the other.

    Though this article says that religious beliefs have been waning around the world since 1991 (I know, not a super long time ago)

    http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations

    I also found it interesting that the percentage of people who definitely believed in God increased with the age bracket.  I guess as one gets closer to "meeting their Maker", they start believing in a Maker that much more.  Sort of like the old phrase "there are no atheists in a foxhole".

    From that survey, 81% of Americans said they have always believed in God.

    Assuming a waning in a belief in God is true, I think that would be part of the story, but I don't think it would be all of it.  For example, France and Germany have some of the lowest rankings for belief in God...substantially lower than the U.S....but I feel like we are a more violent country, crime-wise.  The Philippines has the highest percentage of people who have always believed in God (94%); however, that country has a high level of poverty and they are about middle of the road compared to other nations for violent crime.

    Certainly complex reasons for "why" the increase in shooting sprees, which makes it tough to have a straightforward solution.  

    Saying you believe in God isn't the issue. Actually, making faith/religion an active role in life is the whole point. I know a lot of people who "believe" in God, but do not act like they do, they do not act like God matters, or even attend church or another religious meeting of some kind at all or more than 1-2 times per year.

    The issue isn't beliefs being STATED (many, many people state belief in God when the survey people call and many, many people STATE they are Christians, etc. but in reality, they are not.) The issue is beliefs being acted upon in ways that positively affect people and their families, to translate to society as a whole. The beliefs people verbally profess are not being acted out. I think if they were, we'd see a society more like that of the pre-1980s with less violence and problems in relationships - divorce, STDs, teen pregnancy, etc..

    The Barna Group is a serious, well-respected polling and surveying group that does work for churches, non-profits and businesses...

    From them, "In 2014, Barna Group conducted a major study on the U.S. unchurched population, drawing on more than two decades of tracking data and reported in Churchless, a new book from veteran researchers George Barna and David Kinnaman. The study revealed that nearly two-fifths of the nation’s adult population (38%) now qualifies as post-Christian (measured by 15 different variables related to people’s identity, beliefs and behaviors; read more about Barna’s post-Christian metric here). That includes 10% of Americans who qualify as highly post-Christian. Another one-quarter is moderately post-Christian (28%). Examined over time, our research shows that the proportion of highly secularized individuals is growing slowly but steadily.

    In other words, in spite of “Christian” self-descriptions, more than one-third of America’s adults are essentially secular in belief and practice. If nothing else, this helps explain why America has experienced a surge in unchurched people—and presages a continuing rise in this population.

    As you might expect, the data show some striking generational differences when it comes to secularization. The pattern is indisputable: The younger the generation, the more post-Christian it is. Nearly half of Millennials (48%) qualify as post-Christian compared to two-fifths of Gen-Xers (40%), one-third of Boomers (35%) and one-quarter of Elders (28%)."

    So, yes the nation is becoming "less-churched." Also, this looks like it's limited to "post-Christian," which also means it's not accounting for other faiths.

    As a person who is in church 99% of the year's Sundays, I can tell you that most churches have their highest percentages of attendees and members in the older demographics. And, as a person who has been in church for most of my life, I also have witnessed a decline in the younger generations.


  • @BlueBirdMB, you have asked multiple times "what is wrong with our nation now that we have so many violent crimes?" Or, you have asked some variation of the question.

    I think you are getting at the deeper issue behind the guns and even behind the mental illness/hatred/hate crimes.

    DH is a commercial pilot. One of the guys he flew with a few times is also a volunteer fire fighter here in our town. He told DH that the main calls they get are car accidents and suicides - very rarely do they go out on true fire calls. He said that many times in suicide situations, they find the deceased in a room or home that is quite dirty and often times has, what many would call demonic writings on the walls and surfaces.

    Now, we can go round and round all day on whether or not the supernatural good versus evil REALLY exists. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that it does, in fact, exist.

    If good (God) exists and He therefore protects people from evil, then the argument for WHY all this increased violence is that as we have removed the idea and the permission for a divine being to be in our homes, public square, or even mentioned in our schools. When we remove the divine good then people have nothing ABOVE themselves and they become the highest, most elevated being in their own lives. It just breeds selfishness, vanity, meanness, and evil.

    Whether or not people believe in God, the actual or perceived presence of a divine, being in a society limits the tendencies toward evil behaviors, words, and actions. We can say that the absence of God/religion frees people and removes that "opiate of the masses," but maybe we actually need God or perception of Him in society to keep people in check.

    Personally, I do believe in God and in Satan as well as in angels and demons. I have my own very personal and intellectual reasons for doing so. I accept that others do not share my beliefs.

    All I am saying is that up until the 1980s, many/most of our population had a true, professed faith in a divine being. After this time period faith waned extremely, people became increasingly less-religious (and even increasingly violent and hate-filled toward the religious group). Prior to the 1980s we had less instances of violence and obscene troubles as a culture. Once in the 1980s we saw more troubles almost in every area of life - drugs, STDs, teen pregnancies, hatred, violence, divorce rates, break down of families, problems with TV, movies and media, etc..

    I DO totally think there is a pattern here. More faith in a divine being tends to make people less prone to selfishness, meanness, and violence-prone. No, it is not an absolute. But, I think there is a pretty decent amount of evidence to more than suggest that the loss of faith in this nation has led to the increase of hate and violence.

    This is actually what Nietzsche was talking about when he said "God is dead." He thought that the "death" of God in society would give rise to, essentially, post-modernism.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards