Karen, this article sheds an interesting slant on Bush's aim to boost the role of the religious... basically suggesting that there's very little empirical proof that such groups work, and what there is tends to be flawed:
tnr.com
I have no idea what the slant of this magazine is, BTW. it could be extremely biassed: but the article makes good reading.
One particular point...
>> A correlation between organized religion and certain types of social health is not proof of causation: Just because fewer churchgoers are criminals, it doesn't follow that going to church reduces one's inclination toward crime. "It's kind of reasonable that the kind of youth who are in church of their own free will, or are in families who make them go to church, are different kinds of persons from those who aren't." <<
Well, quite. The corollary of which is that requiring church attendance, or the nominal following of some path of faith (as against anything due to actual personal belief), is not going to improve matters.
>> David Evans [is] professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington... Evans found that the only measurement that significantly correlated with reduced levels of criminality was religious activity. His research, he says, suggests that "it is the social aspect of religion that makes it 'work' to save lives and souls, ... the interaction and bonding with a community of believers" rather than the transformative power of belief itself. <<
Or, IOW, if you mix with a law-abiding and supportive group with whom you feel welcome and involved, you're less likely to be criminal... |
