USA Politics

[Forostar]

Thanks for your reaction wasted. I'm not sure if I can explain it well, because this quote is actually a phrase of a book I'm reading, which is a biography, about his band, his experiences with science, and his life as a naturalist, and his views on religion.

In this quote he says that America's fascination with blame feeds their passion for punishment.
A problem of American society is that the church, but also many parents and teachers expect their children to do what they tell them to do, or else it's wrong, and then comes punishment.

It's difficult to make other choices, because many people will tell you, you're doing wrong.

When Graffin was asked to mention the planets from the solar system, he did it the opposite order the teacher expected him to do. That is not wrong. It's a choice. The teacher tries to interrupt him but Greg just continues til he's done.

Still he got punished because he didn't listen. Don't forget: He gave the right answer, namely: mention all the planets in our solar system.

You can follow the rules of society or you can break them.

The rules of society are in many ways rules of the church, rules of teachers, rules of parents.

Do you understand the first alinea of that quote? I think I get it myself but I am not sure how to explain that part otherwise.

Graffin mentioned that William Provine wrote one of his favourite essays on the subject of free will. I couldn't find the essay online but I found this opinion:

.... Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will.

Without free will, moral responsibility seems impossible. But I will argue that moral responsibility is actually based upon the lack of free will.

Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth. Using free will as an excuse, we condone a vicious attitude of revenge toward anyone who does wrong in our society. Most of the movies in a video store are based upon getting even with some nasty person. This attitude leads to grossly expensive and hopeless systems of punishment in America, though much the same attitude can be found in most countries around the world.

Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled. ....

 

[Wästed The Great]

I kind of see where you are going, but maybe I don't see the alternative.  In my mind (which may be black and white) I see 'Free Will' or 'pre destination'.  I suppose that is in humanity overall.  In society, you have 'free will' or the 'will of the government' (by that I mean a dictatorship or something like that).

I am unclear on how free will makes the penal system a much worse place.  Also, I'm a little unclear on how free will makes revenge such a factor.  I do agree that many books and movies have that as an underlying theme, but that was definitely a 'old west' thing (he stole my bible, shot my pa and killed my dog, so I'm gonna shoot his horse).  I think, when it comes to the penal system, it needs to serve two purposes: punishment and rehabilitation.  There should be consequences for an action that is done. 

Now, as to the giving the planets in order, reverse order, etc, yes, I think its wrong to 'punish' someone for a correct answer if the question wasn't defined correctly.  However, I have seen many times (with my own kids) where there is an underlying theme in the teachings.  "Children, we are going to learn the planets of the solar system, what order they are in, and why they are named thus." -- just as an example.  So the answer can be mostly correct, but completely correct given the lesson dynamics.  I'm not saying that is what happened here, I'm just saying that people have a tendency to make their stories fit the line of thinking that they want to come out.

I still feel, that here in the States, we do have free will.  As Onhell said, there is still racisim, sexisim, and many other 'ism's out there.  But, people can make their choices and either do well or poorly with them.  Some people just don't have the intelligence or the ability to do that.  Some people have a break of good or bad luck.  And, as cfh said, that is where the government comes in.  Sometimes you need a hand up to get back on your feet when things go bad. 

To get back towards what I see as the point at hand, I think that religion played a large role in what formed this nation, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  There were a lot of people that wanted to practice their religions without the government telling them what the 'official' church was.  I agree that some of the laws we have were put into place to mimic 'the lords justice', but if its fair, I don't see anything wrong with that either.  I know that, as a nation (and cfh mentioned this) we don't have a perfect history.  But I fee that we are trying to improve it all the time.  The one thing about this nation is that it is evolving.  Its not the same today as 50 years ago.  50 years ago it was different from 100 years ago.  People have mentioned that it is an empire in decline (or something like that).  I'll admit that it is an empire, but one that is evolving all the time and making changes.  We can say that 'some nation such as this will decline and fall in so many years', but no one has ever seen something quite like what we have created here, so just wait, it'll have shitty economics for a while and good ones later on. 

I seem to have pulled out my soap box for a moment.  -- anyway, what I was trying to get at was that I know that religion is a factor in the way this country thinks, and sometimes it gets a little overbearing, but I don't think that religion drives us to be vengeful, or at least, no more so than any other nation/civilization/group of people. 

If you can, Foro, after filtering out all the side bits, try to maybe let me know what you think we (as a judicial system/nation/whichever) have as an alternative to the 'free will' part.

 

[Forostar]

I don't have much time unfortunately, so I hope you don't mind for not answering all questions.

I seem to have pulled out my soap box for a moment.  -- anyway, what I was trying to get at was that I know that religion is a factor in the way this country thinks, and sometimes it gets a little overbearing, but I don't think that religion drives us to be vengeful, or at least, no more so than any other nation/civilization/group of people.  

Sorry, but here comes another Greg Graffin quote (I do this, or else people suddenly think my English is excellent):

Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries -Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands- all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countries at the bottom of the index, all are intensely religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are least religious. These associations say nothing about whether atheism leads to positive societal indicators or the other way around. But the idea that atheists are somehow less moral. honest, or trustworthy has been disproven by study after study.

If you can, Foro, after filtering out all the side bits, try to maybe let me know what you think we (as a judicial system/nation/whichever) have as an alternative to the 'free will' part.

It's in that first Greg Graffin quote. Be less obsessive with punishment, and do more with the results of study and learn what happened before a crime.

But there's way more. Be more tolerant if someone makes an alternative choice (if not a criminal choice), e.g. on school. Give room to creativity, and new ideas. And get rid of dogma's. The list is endless.

 

[Wästed The Great]

I don't have much time unfortunately, so I hope you don't mind for not answering all questions.


It's in that first Greg Graffin quote. Be less obsessive with punishment, and do more with the results of study and learn what happened before a crime.

But there's way more. Be more tolerant if someone makes an alternative choice (if not a criminal choice), e.g. on school. Give room to creativity, and new ideas. And get rid of dogma's. The list is endless.

OK, I understand that, but I don't see how that is an alternative to 'free will'.  That is a way to live, a way to treat other people, 'good will towards men', etc.  But, but you can do all those things with free will. 

I think you will find (well, at least it seems to me where I am) that children are given more latitude in their learning now.  My son (and many of his class mates) have been praised, during school awards ceremonies, for 'thinking outside the box'.  I've seen quite frequently where they are applauded for thinking of different ways to see old ideas.

It mainly seems that your (or at last the author's) problem is with the way punishment is handed out?  I think that 'free will' doesn't seem to be a problem, but the way with which we interpret its usage?  I think that there is a disconnect with free will and punishment here.  I think the penal system probably could be fixed-- cfh may have a better view on that.  So, leaving out the 'criminal part' of the discussion, I think that in modern America (granted, my small slice of it) you will see more of a leap to find free thinkers, creative individuals, and people that will try to revolutionize and re-create the way things are done.  In my current job, part of the annual performance review is them wanting new ideas to implement, asking if there is anything we have seen over the last year that is stagnant.  Again, small slice here, but it seems that there are corporations, schools, and the like that are asking and looking for people that are willing to take a step outside the lines of 'normal' thinking.  I think places like Apple can be a prime example of that.

Now, I'll also say this, everyone can't do it, some people need to have strict (or at least more strict) guidelines for how to live, work, interact, etc.  School teaches (or should) you how to think, how to learn, but also how to follow rules.  Its often overlooked, but it sets the example for how to interact with society.  It gives you a 'sandbox' to make mistakes, get punished, but to learn from those mistakes.  I want my kids to fuck up now-- I want them to have the freedom to make mistakes at a young age, so they can learn from it and, when they are 'adults' in college or working, know that if they fuck up then, they have to face the consequences. 

Sorry, I kinda get on tangents. 

But, I think that the main issue here, between what you and I are saying, isn't whether or not there is 'free will' in America, but how well it is received.

 

[Forostar]

When I quote this author Greg Graffin, it means I agree with him, and it's lousy to use him, but why do difficult and say it in my own words when he has already done all the work? I hope you don't mind I quote him, when it comes to such topics. It's not that I blindly believe him (he's not my guru or something), but I always had such ideas but never was able to phrase them properly, especially not in English.

What don't you exactly understand when reading these parts, in which free will is present?

In Western religions, the central metaphor for tragedy is sin. Humans are different from their Creator because God is perfect and we are not. God, however, gave us "free will" because we are his favorite creation. Humans must exert their free will to do good, despite being inherently sinful, in order to gain entry into heaven and live an eternal afterlife in paradise. Sin then becomes the justification for blame and punishment. You deserve to be punished if you don't exercise your free will to overcome your inherently sinful nature.

+

One of the most common central narratives of modern-day America involves sin and its relation to blame. Our fascination with blame feeds our passion for punishment. People are told as children that punishment is the consequence of choosing to do the wrong thing--an outgrowth of our unsubstantiated belief in free will. Because of the power of this message, we obsess over punishment.

This free will thing, is a very complex topic, and there's much debate. These wiki pages show how these words are used, also in various theologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology

I am absolutely not an expert on it, but I assume that thanks to religious foundations and practice, free will in the USA is used as an excuse to punish people. "He had it coming. It was his choice to do wrong". The passion for punishment erases interest in what has led to something.

I like the positive examples you mention of your kids who try alternative things, outside the box. That I find hopeful.

 

[Wästed The Great]

When I quote this author Greg Graffin, it means I agree with him, and it's lousy to use him, but why do difficult and say it in my own words when he has already done all the work? I hope you don't mind I quote him, when it comes to such topics. It's not that I blindly believe him (he's not my guru or something), but I always had such ideas but never was able to phrase them properly, especially not in English.

No, I think its quite fine that you quote him-- it makes sense to quote something you agree with, and if it translates your thoughts, that's even better.

What don't you exactly understand when reading these parts, in which free will is present?

In Western religions, the central metaphor for tragedy is sin. Humans are different from their Creator because God is perfect and we are not. God, however, gave us "free will" because we are his favorite creation. Humans must exert their free will to do good, despite being inherently sinful, in order to gain entry into heaven and live an eternal afterlife in paradise. Sin then becomes the justification for blame and punishment. You deserve to be punished if you don't exercise your free will to overcome your inherently sinful nature.

+

One of the most common central narratives of modern-day America involves sin and its relation to blame. Our fascination with blame feeds our passion for punishment. People are told as children that punishment is the consequence of choosing to do the wrong thing--an outgrowth of our unsubstantiated belief in free will. Because of the power of this message, we obsess over punishment.

OK, I guess what I'm thinking here is "what is wrong with punishing for making mistakes".  Now, I'll hop on my religious tangent:  a god that creates a situation that it is difficult to win is a mean spirited god.  If we are given free will to do as we choose, but due to influences that god put into place, it is near certainty that we are going to fail, well that is a rigged game.  Now, as to the idea of punishment in society, I think without that you have anarchy.  Lets provide an example.  If you play (your version ) football and, as a professional goalie, you let in lots of goals-- you are going to be benched, replaced, etc, because it was your fault that the goals went in.  That is blame.  Now, was it solely the goalie's fault?  That is hard to say without more information.  Sometimes it isn't just his fault, but his benching may serve as a message to the rest of the team to step it up a little.  Is that fair-- maybe and maybe not, but that game is played on performance-- and I think it is just in its role.  

Now, lets look at children's sports.  Lets take the same scenario in a 'pee wee' league (thats what we call the little 6-9 year old sports here in the States).  If you pull the 8 year old goalie because he is letting in too many goals, he loses the ability to play and learn his game.  OK, I find that mostly acceptable (I could go on a tangent that I do like the concept of win-loss still at that age and I disagree with the fact that they no longer keep score in those games, but I'm not going there  ).  Now, fast forward to the next age group, lets say 11-14 or so, at that point I agree with pulling players that don't play well.  We can blame the goalie for missing balls and letting scores in, he should be benched, replaced, etc.  At an early age, he/she is learning.  So, we blame him/her for letting in too many goals-- is that wrong?

Granted, we are talking sports, but that is a metaphor for society, really.  Blame needs to take place, whether its individual or as a team.  You can't go through life thinking that everything is rosey and good and no matter what, if you fuck up its gonna be ok.  It may be sad, but it is true.  I like that my kids can try things, succeed or fail, but they need to learn from failure, they need to accept blame.  Honestly, if I were to go on an 'in the olden days' rant, I'd say that letting too many kids off the hook at an early age has led to a generation of young adults that feel like they don't have to worry about anything.  

Lets throw out an example there-- I know MANY 20-25 year olds (just my experience, not picking on anyone in that group) that have been told by their mommy that everything is ok, they are a super star (great, ok) and that they can do no wrong.  They show up to work, hang out, and say "if I get a raise, I'll work up to that level".  That's where I have a problem-- they think that they shouldn't have to work hard until they are rewarded-- they haven't had any situations in life that say "you fuck up, you're out", they think that everything is rosey, they can do as they choose and if someone pays them more, then they will work more.  Had they been shown, early on, that if they make mistakes they will be held accountable, they may have a different attitude towards work.

We, as a county have learned the hard way and have had to accept blame often.

How about this: free will-- farmers in the 1800's plant corn.  They have the free will to do as they choose, plant as much or as little, water or not, fertilize or not, and if they fuck up, they don't have anything to eat.  They also learned that if they plant corn too many times on one field, it doesn't grow as well-- free will to do and plant as they choose, but they are to blame for the mistake of planting too many times and having a reduced crop.  

Yes, in a free society, with free will someone is to blame.  We need to take responsibility for our actions.  I think that the author is thinking too much about how society is treating the person that is being blamed, and not thinking about how that person is treating society.

This free will thing, is a very complex topic. These wiki pages show how these words are used, also in various theologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology

I am absolutely not an expert on it, but I assume that thanks to religious foundations and practice free will in the USA is used as an excuse to punish people. "He had it coming. It was his choice to do wrong". The passion for punishment erases interest in what has led to something.

I like the positive examples you mention of your kids who try alternative things, outside the box. That I find hopeful.

I'll take a look at those links when I have more time, thanks for all the posts/responses.

 

[mckindog]

Great discussion.
You touched on where my thoughts were going on your last bit there Wasted.
There is a great distinction between assigning blame and taking responsibility.

In the case of the beginners, the coach's responsibility is to help the kids learn how to play. His proper action is to leave the goalie in.
In the professional leagues, the coach is responsible for winning. His responsibility is to take him out.
The goalie may think he is being punished in scenario two, and the team in scenario one.
But in my view there is no blame or punishment assigned in either scenario.

Am I correct Foro, in thinking that under your argument, there should be no free will involved because the circumstances dictate an obvious choice in each instance?
But, because of society's need to blame or punish, the peewee goalie often does get yanked as well as castigated and vilified by those around him?

Can you indulge me in what I hope isn't too silly an exercise?
Imagine this discussion deteriorates to the point that Wasted becomes enraged, reaches out through the internet and punches Foro in the nose.
Foro returns the favour.
The way I see it, each of you bears complete responsibility for your own actions.
But I can see how each of you may also bear some responsibility for the creation of the situation that led to the action of the other.
Is blame and/or punishment required in this situation?

 

[Forostar]

Life is not a sport match. Life is a work in progress, where there should be room for own discoveries, own development, own creativity. So I wouldn't make a comparison with sports myself. In sports there are rules. In societies there are laws. Of course.

But there are also "ways" no law has anything to say about. And there come the parents, teachers and church.

Kids have to deal with difficult situations when they are confronted by small-minded restrictions on their thinking (such at the example of that teacher and the way students have to learn the planets). Children are smart, independent people who often aren't able to recognize when they've gone too far in the logical extension of their beliefs. Their enthusiasm can be dimmed by adults, and kids are usually powerless when confronted with these demands. "You can't really believe that" or "How could you have done such a thing?" are common statements of parents. Besides shaming the kids, these kinds of statements also indoctrinate children by giving them a rough outline of the social expectation in their community.

I have no problems with punishing but to only punish I find useless.

Wasted won't punch because he can stand other people's opinions. ;-)

 

[Onhell]

This discussion is touching on, I think, two very different things.  

"Free Will" as a theological concept and "Freedom" in the political ideological concept are NOT the same.

Then there is the concept of "sin" and punishment... again... something different. I am very impressed with Foro, wasted and the others tackling such a convoluted conversation.

Many talk about the "Judeo-Christian Tradition." unfortunately Jews and Christians have VERY different views on their respective concepts of God-head, sin and "will."

So one at a time... right?

From a Christian point of view only god is Perfect, humans are inherently sinful (since The Fall). Our nature, being made in His/Her image, is good hence we WANT to do good, our WILL can be either good or bad, but because we are tainted by original sin our will is always "bad"... We secularly refer to this as "human nature" (greedy, selfish, exploitative, etc.) We shall remained thus until saved by the Grace of God which only S/He can give...

Under a literal interpretation of Christian Theology (some argue "true") it is very black and white. You are either good, or bad, no such thing as "not so bad." If you sin you displease God, the more you sin the further you are from Him/Her and Grace.

Jews on the other hand have a very buddy buddy relationship with God (Fiddler on the Roof is a GREAT example of the relationship between them). They will talk to Him, complain to Him, share their triumphs and disappointments. When they sin it is not automatically a fatal fault, merely, "oh, you missed, try again."

Free will is a an early Christian concept and predestination, conjured up by Luther, is SEVERELY misunderstood. They are actually not opposites or in conflict.

Predestination merely means God, being Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent, already KNOWS what you're going to do... That's it. It doesn't mean He MAKES YOU DO what you are currently doing, he simply knows you are going to do it. It doesn't mean we were MEANT to be rock stars or bums or we are fulfilling some prophetical destiny (I'm looking at you Skywalker!)

Free Will? Well obviously we are free to either accept or reject God. He is a God of Love after all. He is not going to force us to love Him, but we do have to man up to the consquences of rejecting His Will. No different than a parent telling his kid, "You can clean your room or leave it as is." if the kid decides not to clean it, he has to deal with the mess that is his room, the stench from the dirty clothes, the itchy bed sheets, etc.... (BTW a parent NEVER gives those options to a child when teaching responsibility, but just for the sake of the argument).

What does this have to do with Political Freedom? Very little actually. Societies were formed because long ago humans figured out that it is easier to secure resources and safety in numbers than going solo. Laws are in place for things to function smoothly. Freedom in this context is again, you are going on a business trip, your teen is home alone and you tell him, "You have full reign of the house, you can go into any room, you can have friends over and even throw a party. DON'T break anything, DON'T neglect the dog, and DON'T play music so loud that it annoys the neighbors."

In other words, your freedom ends where someone else's starts. Your freedom exists in the confines of the preset rules. a good microcosm is sports. As long as people follow the rules you enjoy a fun, clean game, when people play dirty, cheat, etc it is no longer fun, refs and the league doll out punishments and fines, etc.

God and Society? I recommend people look into Emile Durkheim. A French Jew, father of modern Sociology, who said, "What is God? We say He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all present..." He conjectured that "God" was a projection of Society itself. I agree when talking about smaller towns and villages, but for bustling metropolis like N.Y or Frankfurt, personally, I think the all-knowing part falls by the way side.    

How does this tie with our current discussion of "religious societies" vs. "secular societies"? Foro quote's Graffin saying that Sweden has a high number of nonbelievers, yet it has a state church and people's taxes go to said church... Western society's laws are based on Christian commandments... like Wasted said, so what? Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal, etc. Should this be ignored only because it was in what many call a fairy tale? Give me a break.


 

Life is not a sport match. Life is a work in progress,

So are sports. There was a time in basketball baskets were exactly that, and had no nets, there were no three-point shots or shot clock. There was a time in Football (soccer) when formations were 4 forwards, 4 midfielders and 2 defensemen. American Football players where better helmets now, and who remembers the 7th player in ice hockey known as "the rover?" No one...  sports too, are works in progress, very much like life.

 

[Forostar]

Thanks for your contribution Onhell.

So are sports. There was a time in basketball baskets were exactly that, and had no nets, there were no three-point shots or shot clock. There was a time in Football (soccer) when formations were 4 forwards, 4 midfielders and 2 defensemen. American Football players where better helmets now, and who remembers the 7th player in ice hockey known as "the rover?" No one...  sports too, are works in progress, very much like life.

I know that sports have developed. However, I don't know if I'd compare the life of a sport with the life of a human being. A sportsman has less room on the sportsfield than outside the field. So that's why I think that sports are stricter than life itself. When the game is on you follow the rules, set by an authority.

In life there is more room for an individual, where he may listen to his own voice. The individual can make choices without having a referee with him every footstep. In life an individual is not instructed to travel from a to d via b. He can also choose to travel via c. Or he can even say "I don't want to go to d, I rather go to e instead."

 

[Wästed The Great]

Life is not a sport match. Life is a work in progress, where there should be room for own discoveries, own development, own creativity. So I wouldn't make a comparison with sports myself. In sports there are rules. In societies there are laws. Of course.

But there are also "ways" no law has anything to say about. And there come the parents, teachers and church.

Kids have to deal with difficult situations when they are confronted by small-minded restrictions on their thinking (such at the example of that teacher and the way students have to learn the planets). Children are smart, independent people who often aren't able to recognize when they've gone too far in the logical extension of their beliefs. Their enthusiasm can be dimmed by adults, and kids are usually powerless when confronted with these demands. "You can't really believe that" or "How could you have done such a thing?" are common statements of parents. Besides shaming the kids, these kinds of statements also indoctrinate children by giving them a rough outline of the social expectation in their community.

I have no problems with punishing but to only punish I find useless.

Wasted won't punch because he can stand other people's opinions. ;-)

Thanks! 

Now, I will say this-- I don't think that Western Civ has a monopoly on saying those things to kids (I'm not sure you are even saying that, but this is the USA politics thread).  Just like any society, there are adults that try to grow their kids, and ones that try to shrink them.  I prefer growth and applaud its use.  I shun shrink and try to keep it away from me.

I use the sports as an analogy-- work is somewhat similar.  Our duty, to our children, is to try to encourage their hopes, dreams, wants, etc-- yet make them aware of how they should fit into society.  I want my kids to enjoy life, but understand that they need to work hard and be rewarded for that.  Like sports, the the work environment has rules and requirements (dress codes, quotas, etc).  So, when my kids come out of school, I want them to be educated, encouraged, and knowledgeable.  I want them to believe they can prosper and succeed, but to be aware of how that must take place.

I agree, punishment for punishments sake is a crime (IMO).  That stinks of the father that comes home and beats his kids, just so they know that life isn't fair.  That's wrong.  (any version of that)

I want to jump back to the author and his planets.  I'm not defending a teacher, but I want to play devils advocate here.  We learn the days of the months in order, because they have a specific order.  If you ask "what are the months of the calendar?" its pure question is just the names, but in reality, the way they are listed, the order, is important.  Now, planets, is the order relevant?  Only in that the solar system is built that way.  I could make a guess that, possibly, teachers in that instant are wanting people to learn not only the names (important) but in which order they come.  Forward to back, or reverse, maybe shouldn't matter in that situation.  However, in preparation for life in society, lets say a job working in a factory, the order is very important.  Now, don't mistake me, I'm not saying that naming the planets out of order isn't the same magnitude as assembling a part out of order, but lets stop for a moment and think about what our teachers are really doing.  I think a lot of times we underestimate what the better ones are trying to teach us-- they get us to know the information (education), but also how life is ordered (knowledge).  If we understand that planets are in a specific order, the months of the year, the alphabet, then we can apply that knowledge to everyday life and realize that there is a reason for the order in which we do things.  Yes, its a little of a stretch, but thats also something that teachers should do, stretch your mind to learn more than one lesson at a time.

I've gone a little off the deep end with that, I know, but remember, I'm trying to look at both sides of the story.  I don't like it when teachers have random rules for no reason.  If they ask for an answer, and I give it, I want it right.  I don't like when I get the answer wrong because there was an unspoken rule that I didn't apply.  In my own personal arsenal of run-ins with teachers, in my 8th grade year, I took a test to list all the abbreviations of the States.  I got them all right, but only got a 36% on the test.  Why?  Because I used lower case letters on the abbreviations.  So, I had the letters correct, but the capitalization was wrong.  The test didn't specify that they should be capitalized, but the correct way to write them is that way.  I didn't like it, but that was the right way to grade it.  At the very least, it taught me to think about what the question was really asking me, more than pure information.

Onhell has written a great example of religion vs society.  And correct, we have two things that may or may not be related: belief in christianity (or religion in general) and the way society punishes those that make mistakes.

Now, I'm going to say this, and it may come out wrong, but I don't want a society where someone makes a mistake and they are let off the hook too easily.  Lets say the guy that throws his cigarette on the ground.  One cig, is that a big deal?  Not really.  A hundred, a thousand, a million?  Right, at some point it becomes unforgivable.  But where is that line?  Id rather people know that one is as bad as a million.  I want people held accountable for their mistakes, crimes, etc.  Yes, children, I want them to understand what they are learning, I want them educated, but I also want them to know that mistakes aren't good.  Does that make sense?  Kids raised with nothing but praise for right or wrong aren't done justice by their parents, teachers, or society.  I do agree,Foro, that children shouldn't be shamed.  But, I don't think my society does that any more or less than any other society. 

I also agree with what you said, Foro, about a ref not being around every day life.  But, I would like my kids to go through life as if there were one present-- just because authority isn't present doesn't mean that we shouldn't abide by our society's laws.

Now, if we start talking about morality, then we get into a sticky situation...

 

[Cornfed Hick]

This thread now seems to bear no resemblance to "USA Politics," and frankly, I've lost track of the ultimate points that each person is trying to make.  However, I have the following glib and disjointed reactions:  

1.  Re the discussion of children, you really do have to teach them that actions have consequences.  For example, when daddy says "stop" you stop.  Why?  Because if the kid is about to run into the street ahead of oncoming traffic and he ignores you when you order him to stop, he's dead.  So, you teach them when they are bouncing on the bed or running through the house that when you say "stop" they have to stop.  Is it arbitrary?  Perhaps.  But it teaches them to obey, which is actually important.  Is it free will?  Yes.  They can choose to obey or not, but you teach and influence behavior by linking consequences to actions.  

2.  Moving from the realm of children to adults, in many respects the idea is no different.  Perhaps the most important principle of economics is that people act in their self-interest and respond to incentives.  If a government wants to influence behavior -- whether it be deterring murder or encouraging recycling, or trying to increase economic growth and reduce unemployment -- it had better not lose sight of that fundamental principle.  If everyone who plays video games and smokes pot instead of working hard ends up in the same economic situation as hard-working folks, then people won't work hard any more.  I enjoy my job, but believe me, if could simply sit on my ass and not go to work and still be able to afford the things I think are important like a nice house and paying to send my kids to a good school, I would DEFINITELY be sitting at home smoking pot and playing Halo instead of working.  But, life doesn't work that way.  Is hard work a guarantee of success?  No.  Are there rich kids with trust funds who do sit on their ass playing video games all day with no economic consequence?  Yes.  No one said life is fair.  But if as a society we want to encourage economic growth and reduce poverty, we have to -- HAVE TO -- encourage hard work.  If no one in the world worked hard, we'd all starve and freeze to death.  Whether you call it "blame" and "punishment" or something else, anyone who thinks people's behavior does not respond to incentives is deluding themselves and any theory they may have for ordering society is DOA.  (Note also the concept of unintended consequences.  Everyone in the world should read "Freakonomics," by the way.  It's short and easy to read, and the world will be better if everyone understands this stuff -- which many don't.  At least rent the movie.)  I happen to believe that the best way to encourage people to be productive is to (a) let them do whatever they want and (b) let them keep the rewards of their efforts.  That's economic liberty, and I also happen to think it's not totally divorced from the metaphysical concept of free will.  

3.  Re sports, one of the reasons sports are taught in school is that they really do prepare you for real life.  Preparation and performance are usually rewarded.  A lack of preparation and execution usually results in a loss.  Sport teaches teamwork, respect for others, and -- again -- the value of hard work.  The exercise is also healthy.  When you are coaching 5- and 6-year olds, everyone plays, kids are applauded for trying even if they don't succeed, and they are constantly encouraged.  This is because 5- and 6-year olds have the attention span of dust mites, and if they aren't having fun, they'll give up and start looking for bugs in the grass instead of paying attention to what's happening in the game.  (Trust me, I have seen this first-hand as recently as two hours ago.)  Yet my son learned an important lesson.  In playing baseball, I repeatedly told him that it is essential to pay attention and always know where the ball is, for safety reasons if nothing else.  During baseball practice he fielded a ground-ball and threw it to first base, as he was taught.  However, the kid playing first base wasn't paying attention, and the ball hit him in the face.  Nothing I had said to my son prior to that moment was more effective than watching that other kid bleed as a consequence of not paying attention.  Since then, my son has been far more attentive -- and, not coincidentally, a better player.  This ties back to my point #1.  Actions, or failure to act as directed, will have consequences.  As kids get older, into middle school and high school, you have to start rewarding players for good performance and "punishing" (i.e., benching) players who don't perform.  Why?  Because that teaches them what life will be like when they leave the parents and have to live on their own.  So, while Foro is technically correct that life is not a sports match, in may ways they are analogous.  

4.  Referring to Foro's point about "exploration" and "creativity" in life, he's right, there are, of course, many important aspects of life that are not in any way competitive:  love of art or music, for example.  However, how was that art or music created?  Someone had to learn to paint or play an instrument, and spend hours and hours and hours practicing to master his craft.  And for me to enjoy it, someone had to invest money into getting that music or art published and distributed, whether it be the artist himself or some third party.  Again, if you have freedom -- both political and economic -- in my view that is the best way to encourage the production of art.  Of course, you also need "rules" that enable artists and the people who invest in them to profit from their efforts, i.e., intellectual property law.  But even someone who paints or writes music purely for the pleasure of it, and not as a career, benefits from liberty and the ability to paint whatever image or write whatever music he wants, without interference from the government.  Just ask Shostakovich.

5.  Maybe a rock musician, albeit a well-educated one like Greg Graffin, isn't the most credible source to cite for metaphysical and political theory.  Frankly, much of what Foro quoted from him didn't really ring true to me.  Americans are a lot more forgiving than you might think.  Christianity in 21st Century America is more about compassion and forgiveness than blame.  The more pertinent point, however, is that no politician ever lost an election for being too tough on violent crime.  But endorsing a furlough program that let Willie Horton out of jail arguably cost Michael Dukakis the Presidential election in 1988 (well, that, and looking like a doofus in that infamous tank photo).  

 

[Forostar]

5.  Maybe a rock musician, albeit a well-educated one like Greg Graffin, isn't the most credible source to cite for metaphysical and political theory.  Frankly, much of what Foro quoted from him didn't really ring true to me.  Americans are a lot more forgiving than you might think.  Christianity in 21st Century America is more about compassion and forgiveness than blame.

Then how do you declare the following?

United States world leading jailer:

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2008). A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prison. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison population.

By comparison in 2006, the incarceration rate in England and Wales was 148 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents; the rate for Norway was 66 inmates per 100,000 and the rate in New Zealand was 186 per 100,000. In Australia in 2005, the rate was 126 prisoners per 100,000 residents. In the Netherlands, the 2002 rate was 93 per 100,000 residents.

and what data can you provide to disprove the following?

Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries -Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands- all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countries at the bottom of the index, all are intensely religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are least religious. These associations say nothing about whether atheism leads to positive societal indicators or the other way around. But the idea that atheists are somehow less moral. honest, or trustworthy has been disproven by study after study.

And what do you have to say about this?

Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole.

+

Reporting at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association (August 3, 2008), Becky Pettit, associate professor of sociology from the University of Washington and Bryan Sykes, a UW post-doctoral researcher, revealed that the mammoth increase in the United States’ prison population since the 1970s is having profound demographic consequences that affect 1 in 50 Americans. Drawing data from a variety of sources that looked at prison and general populations, the researchers found that the boom in prison population is hiding lowered rates of fertility and increased rates of involuntary migration to rural areas and morbidity that is marked by a greater exposure to and risk of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV or AIDS.

You're not going to tell me that in order to improve this, you don't need any change in blame and punishment, or in forgiving and compassion?

 

[LooseCannon]

China would be higher if they didn't kill most of their dissidents… 

 

[Wästed The Great]

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2008). A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prison. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison population.

By comparison in 2006, the incarceration rate in England and Wales was 148 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents; the rate for Norway was 66 inmates per 100,000 and the rate in New Zealand was 186 per 100,000. In Australia in 2005, the rate was 126 prisoners per 100,000 residents. In the Netherlands, the 2002 rate was 93 per 100,000 residents.

First, I would say that figures are interesting things to look at.  You can say that we are mean, cold hearted bastards to stick all those people in prison.  Then, I could say maybe all these other countries are letting too many criminals go free.  There isn't anything that you have there that tells how their legal systems are set up, how many people go to trial vs the USA, how many people are part of the mafia (lets say) and pull strings to get out of prison.  Statistics are a great thing, but they don't tell the whole picture.  Are our laws more stringent than other countries? Is that good or bad?  I think that, yes, a guy smoking pot shouldn't be stuck in a cell, but there are a lot of bad people in the world, and I don't think that just because they believe in god or not makes them more or less likely to go to prison.  I could look at those same statistics and say "Countries that have a low level of belief in god are more likely to let criminals go free, because they don't give a shit."  --for example.

and what data can you provide to disprove the following?

And what do you have to say about this?

Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole.

OK, I'm gonna take a firmer stance on this one.  Organizations such as this can say whatever they want.  I can start an organization tomorrow "Wasted's Victim's Rights Activist Outlook" and say that I believe countries that harbor criminals and that don't put them in prison are contributing to the downfall of political integration between nations.  Is this true?  How can I substantiate that?  ...how do they back up what they are saying.  Of course, they feel that we should all kiss and make up and people shouldn't be in jail.

+

Reporting at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association (August 3, 2008), Becky Pettit, associate professor of sociology from the University of Washington and Bryan Sykes, a UW post-doctoral researcher, revealed that the mammoth increase in the United States’ prison population since the 1970s is having profound demographic consequences that affect 1 in 50 Americans. Drawing data from a variety of sources that looked at prison and general populations, the researchers found that the boom in prison population is hiding lowered rates of fertility and increased rates of involuntary migration to rural areas and morbidity that is marked by a greater exposure to and risk of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV or AIDS.

You're not going to tell me that in order to improve this, you don't need any change in blame and punishment, or in forgiving and compassion?

To that first part, I'd like to see more of what they mean-- do they mean that family of the interned are moving to the area the loved one is jailed in?  And that areas around jails are more dangerous, health wise, than other areas of the USA?  I'm very perplexed by what this is saying.  Is it saying that because people are in prison, our birth rate is lower?  People are moving to the country because someone is in jail?  I don't know-- I haven't read anything that suggests that one part of the USA is more prone to AIDS than another-- I mean, possibly a very urban area is more likely because there are more people, but in the USA, the rural areas are less likely to have HIV.

And, lastly, yes, I'm going to tell you that to improve this, we don't need to change blame and punishment.  Do we wish that some of our laws were different?  Yes, and that is the cool thing about the USA, we have an evolving system that allows people like cfh to assist in the creation/interpretation of laws so that they better suit what we need them to do.  This is the thing, Foro, we are a large nation, larger than any 2-3 nations in Europe put together (especially taking into consideration land mass).  There are very bad people all over the world, just like the States.  If someone commits murder, they need to go to prison.  So, do they commit murder because of their religious belief?  Do they do it for revenge?  I think you have watched too many serialized tv series if thats what you think.  People have the choice to do what they want.  It isn't because they believe in god that they seem to think they need revenge.  Is putting someone in prison because of murder, rape, assault, etc revenge?  Answer this for me:  Should people that do things such as murder, rape, assault be allowed to go free and not punished?

---

@cornfedhick--  Great post-- I was hoping to read something of yours in here.  And, yeah, I lose my endgame on occasion    That's why I was never on the debate team!! 

 

[Forostar]

I am not going to be responsible for your own judgement on research. If you mistrust data and research we can stop this discussion already.

For myself, I'd say I have no reason to immediately think that I should doubt them.
It's too easy to question things when you don't like them.

If I should have no reason to not believe you, then why should I not believe these data?

Why not read the reports, I am sure they are online somewhere. Wasted, I hope some responsible people in your country will answer all your questions. This guy, Becky Pettit, he sure rang the bell.

The excuse of being a big country doesn't sound that convincing to me. These stats should not only be seen in absolute numbers, they should be seen in perspective. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison population.

You say:
"Countries that have a low level of belief in god are more likely to let criminals go free, because they don't give a shit."  --for example.

You could, but I prefer it if you would back it up with some figures.

 

[Wästed The Great]

Well, in essence, I'm saying the same thing.  You have figures that say one thing, without looking at anything else.  Your statistics say that people with a lower rate of belief are more likely to have lower prison rates.  OK, great and all, but there is far more to it.  I'm not saying I disbelieve those figures, I'm saying there is more to it than that.  There are other factors involved.  You can't take only two items of data and have a sound basis for a theory.  I can say that people in airline crashes are more likely to die than people in car crashes, and I would be 100% correct.  From that data I could say you shouldn't fly--But I also know that flight is still far safer than driving.  All I am saying is that, as correct as that data is, there is too much more involved.  These countries don't live in a vacuum-- too many other influences on them than religion.

Now, after all of these sources of data, theories, opinions and such, I have one thing to ask, and I would like a straight answer from you, Foro, on this: Who do we let free?  I believe you are saying that our justice system is to focused on making some one 'pay the piper' and that people in our prisons are there unjustly, so I want to know, if we have 23% of the worlds prison population, 754 out of 100,000 of our people in prison, what 600 people per 100k need to be let free to roam the streets as if they did nothing against society.  That is all I want to know.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

If I saw a newspaper article that said some Dutch town has the highest number of broken windows per capita in the world, what is the best assumption to make?

1. The Dutch are riotous people, breaking all their windows, and also too damn lazy to fix them.

2. There might have been a hailstorm or some other disaster to explain this.

Why not take the Forostar approach? Look only at the most superficial facts, never dig deeper for answers, and insult an entire nation in the process. Obviously, the Dutch are reckless and lazy.

 

[bearfan]

I do not think it is a great mystery why the US prison population is so high, the war on drugs, which other countries are not waging.  Remove minor drug offenders and the US prison population would be in synch with the rest of the free world.

 

[LooseCannon]

True. I think the other reason why the US prison population is so high is the lack of education in many facilities, leading to a higher recidivism rate. In Canada, inmates can easily get GEDs, BAs, etc. I know the same is true in Europe. I don't think it's a belief thing - I think it's an EDUCATION thing. It just so happens that countries with more universities degrees also have a much lower instance of religion over time.