A riot of explanations

Discrimination, social deprivation, and perceived police bias/brutality are what lead to the outbreak of urban riots, according to academics. Those three factors seem to be the common denominators underlying them such events. There are always opportunists who join in for a lark, or for profit.

Urban riots have bee occurring across the US and Europe since the early 20th century, so I wouldn't look for any sudden breakdown in public morality for an explanation. There have been far more serious riots than this decades ago, even in Britain.

Thank you for the links to the various articles.Interesting reading.

Many of the rioters and looters who have gone through the courts are either unemployed or belong to the working poor. I agree with the Prime Minister that they are criminals pure and simple. A few will have been motivated by destructive political ideology - anarchists and wreckers who should serve a minimum of 10 years behind bars.

Of course poverty does not make someone a criminal, but the opportunity to commit crime can. No contributor to the Will and Testament blog would consider stealing, for example, a bottle of wine or an electrical item - but would none act to their advantage if in possession of insider knowledge on, say, a company takeover bid (if confident they would not be detected)?

Rioters are common criminals and must be dealt with harshly. Those we saw on the streets of England rampaged and looted safe in the knowledge that they would not be struck by a baton round. If on the first night of rioting a few dozen rioters had been shot the problem would have been nipped in the bud.

We feel that there is no excuse for people to loot and destory property no matter what reasons they feel thay have,becuase there are none it is just pure and simple mindless vandilism and thugery .In fact we think it would be a good idea to make the people involved pay for the damage they have caused.One way this could be done is to cut the benefit of anyone,who was involved in the looting and vandilism, and the money then going towards the costs for reparing the damage they caused and towards helping those who have lost their homes and businesses,due to their actions,instead of it having to come out of the goverments funds or tax payers pockets.

People, who we consider as decent, sometimes do terrible things. People, who are evil, sometimes give good gifts to their children. We sometimes cause the greatest hurt to those closest to us. None of this should surprise us. It is simply because of our human nature. We are all messed up people and live in a messed up world. The teaching of Jesus Christ makes this clear: "it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." The Bible calls this "sin".

Not many believe that what the looters did is simply a consequence of having no fear of God nor respect for His commandments. For those who believe the Bible, sinful acts are the consequence of rebellion against God. Sin is seen as senseless (not mindless) actions. However, for those who do not believe the teaching of the Bible, there is always an attempt to deflect the blame - bad parenting, society, deprivation, unemployment, boredom and many more excuses. We do not want to have to admit we are all responsible for our actions and will one day be held accountable by the Judge of all mankind. Our view determines our response. We either accept the Biblical verdict and seek the solution Jesus offers or keep trying our own failed solutions.

Here is a link to an article "Looters: Them or Us?" by Mike Ovey:
https://www.oakhill.ac.uk/commentary/11_summer/looters_them_or_us.html

Re 3

...anarchists and wreckers who should serve a minimum of 10 years behind bars...If on the first night of rioting a few dozen rioters had been shot the problem would have been nipped in the bud.

Who's going to pay for their incarceration? Taxpayers. In the UK, the cost per prisoner, per year is over £40,000. And reacting against violence with more violence only makes matters worse. The inner cities would perhaps end up with a siege mentality. People don't need much of an excuse to prepare for mini turf wars. And shooting people would make us total hypocrites after calling for an end to government violence in Libya & Syria. This is essentially the same issue- people reacting against their poverty & being surrounded by shops with things they can't afford.

The riots in UK are the result of a perfect storm. Everyone's looking for someone to blame, but the 3 main elements involved are all to blame. 1- The UK Govt with Osborne as Chancellor- the middle & upper classes are often pretty well insulated- the effects of the economy & his cuts are being felt by the weakest & the poorest more than anyone else. 2- The Police- with the death that sparked these chain of events & their subsequent handling of the situation as it spiralled out of control. 3- The rioters. Yes they're marginalised, dispossessed & don't have any investment in being law abiding, but many of them took advantage of events.

This shows us how fragile peace is in well-off but unequal societies. Whenever you have a large proportion of young people without jobs or the self respect to be law abiding, then all you need is the right conditions to ignite the tinderbox

A few years ago in the Middle East a gang violently overturned business stalls in the Temple Court area of Jerusalem. Their leader, who had previously called for his followers to arm themselves with swords and disassociate themselves from society and their families, was heard to threaten an imminent 'apocalypse' unless things were done his way.

Thankfully the Romans were administering the region at the time, and they didn't tolerate rioters the way that we do. They set out to catch this guy, using one of his closest associates as a double agent. When the finally got him he was publicly executed as an example to other would-be agitators.

Never to be heard of again.

I wonder if anybody who took part in these riots ever had an ethical dilemma or a moral conundrum at any time in their lives. Would they even know what such things are? We're not talking here about people who are rioting for food, we're talking about people who are rioting for play stations. These are the third generation of children brought up under the liberalism of the 1960s, children whose parents and grandparents grew up being told that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that all morality is relative and there is no such thing as society. The Americans have a saying: keep doing what you've been doing and you'll keep getting what you've been getting. Is anybody (and this absolutely includes the Tories) going to finally declare that the whole of western civilization took a massive wrong turn 50 years ago and we need to seriously bring the ship about?

Ryan

All nation states must deal appropriately with serious criminals - anarchistic arsonists, for example, are serious criminals that threaten the very stability of the state and must not avoid jail on the grounds of cost. Approximately 80-90 percent of the figure you cite is taken up with staffing costs, so this money must not be considered a complete waste. It is, nonetheless, a lot of money; but what would the cost to society of an energetic arsonist be?

I have just heard on the radio that a student who looted a bottle of water was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. This sends out the right signal in my view.

Top notch biblical interpretation there again, Newdwr. I had wondered earlier on today how long it would be before someone played that card.

Anyone looking for easy answers would do well to look again.

In the comments of the Zoe Williams piece is a succinct summary of the whole sorry mess:

Interesting how both a tiny minority of the filthy rich, and a tiny minority of the poor and excluded, can ruin things for everyone else.

Martin Rowson's cartoon is pretty spot on, IMHO.

Oops, forgot to add, re Rowson's cartoon, "whataboutery notwithstanding".

9. Casur1 wrote:

"...the whole of western civilization took a massive wrong turn 50 years ago and we need to seriously bring the ship about..."

There were far more urban riots in the 1960s than there were in the 2000s. Where does this place your theory?

9, If you believe that you need to dig a little deeper into your history books

11. peterm2:

Just wondering how 'The Jerusalem Times' would have covered that little incident in c. 30 AD, that's all?

With the benefit of hindsight we now know that the person who orchestrated that civil disturbance and called for armed insurrection by his followers was none other than the Lord and Saviour of us all.

But the the JT hacks of the day wouldn't have known that at the time, and might have viewed the whole unsavoury incident in a different way than we do. As the Romans certainly did.

Some salient comment by George Carlin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwOQV32rHg

If anybody has time on his/her hands, it would be interesting to see the number of riots in the wiki link William posted (and how complete is that list?) normalized against population numbers of when they took place. I rather doubt if those who attribute the riots to society turning away from god did their homework in that respect. The guy from the christian institute sounds as if he is more concerned with showing his group to still have some relevance today rather than thoroughly analysing the situation.

RJB, George Carling is great. His take on the 10 commandments is one to look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk

PK

I have watched everything George Carlin ever did, including the ten (two) commandments. He was an exceptional talent, communicator and thinker. He was also a man who knew just exactly how vicious the holier than thou, religious right could be. He was brilliant at exposing them.

newdwr

"Just wondering how 'The Jerusalem Times' would have covered that little incident in c. 30 AD, that's all?"

Interesting idea, but I don't see the relevance. Maybe I'm reading the wrong layer of meaning in your comments.

The riots of 1958 came about after years of violent harrassment on the black community by so-called "teddy boys", most of it ignored by the police, and culminating in a violent attack on a white woman who had married a black man; the 2011 riots came about because a lot of yobs wanted to rob consumer goods. See the differnce?

For those who argue that the rioting and looting is a consequence of our society turning away from God I would just like to point out that one convicted looter is a Baptist mentor. He was refused bail and sent to London Crown Court for sentencing.

21. peterm2:

It appears that Jesus felt a certain level of civil disorder was excusable in some circumstances.

newdwr54 (@ 8) -

A few years ago in the Middle East a gang violently overturned business stalls in the Temple Court area of Jerusalem. Their leader, who had previously called for his followers to arm themselves with swords and disassociate themselves from society and their families, was heard to threaten an imminent 'apocalypse' unless things were done his way.

Thankfully the Romans were administering the region at the time, and they didn't tolerate rioters the way that we do. They set out to catch this guy, using one of his closest associates as a double agent. When the finally got him he was publicly executed as an example to other would-be agitators.

Never to be heard of again.

And who might this 'leader' have been? Do please enlighten us all.

I would be intrigued to know where you get your information from concerning this 'leader' and his 'teaching'.

Perhaps this 'leader' had never heard of someone called Jesus, who upheld honest business by overturning the tables of fraudsters, who said "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", although he did allow something called self-defence, who shocked people by refusing to become king and kick out the Romans by force, who taught others to "honour their father and mother" and who criticised the Pharisees for not doing so (see Mark 7:9-13), who engaged with society and ordinary people's needs, and who was most certainly "heard of again", so much so that we even mark our dating system by his life.

It's a pity the mysterious 'leader' you refer to was not like Jesus.

A real pity.

There are certain people on this blog who constantly ask for 'evidence'.

Right, here's some evidence, that no one can deny:

The recent riots have nothing to do with religion.

All the evidence shows us that this disorder relates to materialistic consumerism. Nothing to do with God, Jesus, Christianity, Islam or any other spiritual belief system.

Now I am not at all suggesting that they have anything to do with atheism. I am sure some of the looters would probably claim to believe in "something out there" or whatever, if they are able to articulate their beliefs.

However, enough of this vain nonsense about trying - desperately (as one contributor has been laughably trying on this thread) - to link the idea of rioting and social disorder with Christianity.

I know this is an embarrassment to those who like to think that the more secularised a society is, the more civilised it is. Sorry, but England is highly secular (I know, because I live here, and have done so all my life - in different parts of the country, north and south, urban and suburban, including an inner city area of London for six years), and yet what we see are forces of chaos and anarchy within this society, not to mention an insidious culture of entitlement encouraged by those who have a low view of personal moral responsibility.

I know the evidence hurts, but I guess if you are one of those who hasn't been affected by the recent disorder, then please feel free to continue basking in your cosy delusions.

newdwr

"Just wondering"? Emm.

Any other layers? "the Lord and Saviour of us all." perhaps?

Personally I don't think it appropriate to go off at a tangent to identify and exegete your various biblical references, but neither do I think they should pass without comment.

Casur1, newlach,

Posts 22 and 23 are both cases of picking one or two cases and then drawing conclusions about the whole. newlach mentions 1 rioter. Casur1 compares 2 riots when the wiki page William linked to alone already contains a list of 683 riots. It's not an impressively wide basis for conclusions.

This may help those with a 'we're all doomed' mentality to put things in a larger context. Not much larger though, it was only 3 centuries ago, but going by what some people believe; that the root of all problems is in the 'flower power' 60's, it might help realign their prejudice.
Water and Gin: A Selective History of London Riots

I agree with grokesx's 12. It's always been the same. The lawlessness of those at the very top & very bottom making life harder than it need be for everyone else.

We may have to copy Germany's apprenticeship system- Young and unemployed

@15. _Ryan_ &9.Casur1 :
I think you're both correct.
Comment#9 has bearing on present day issues.
Comment#15-yes, history shows riots as far back as things have been recorded.
Invariably, mob behavior is not a good thing.

@29. _Ryan_ :
Great article on Germany's apprenticeship system.Thanks!

Interesting link from the christian institute emphasising 1 Peter 2 and the command for christians to submit to human authority, the emperor, and their masters, much to the delight of tyrants, despots and dictators ever since.

LSV, I'm not sure who this contributor is who is trying to link the riots to the collapse of Christianity in Britain; as far as I can see, Britain was never much of a Christian country. It did, however, once have quite a strong civic life and a population - believers and otherwise - who had a rough, but shared, sense of unity. I link these riots to the collapse of ANY concept of societal values, secular or religious, and that is a direct outgrowth of 1960s so-called 'liberalism', the idea that you owe no responsibility to anything or anybody but yourself, the 'don't-lay-your-rules-on-ME' mentality. I mean, what did people think was going to happen?

paul james (@ 32) -

Interesting link from the christian institute emphasising 1 Peter 2 and the command for christians to submit to human authority, the emperor, and their masters, much to the delight of tyrants, despots and dictators ever since.

Talking about authority, here are a couple of jokes I read recently:

Q. What does a Trotkyist taxi service look like?

A. They tell you where you're going and how to get there.


Q. What does an Anarchist taxi service look like?

A. The driver-passenger relationship represents an essential hierarchical relationship which must be broken down through long co-operative discussion and decision-making. Once all the occupants of the taxi are on equal terms, and those external to the taxi are aware and comfortable with their freedom to associate or disassociate with those within the taxi, discussions of possible destinations can begin in earnest. ...

Anarchism sounds great, doesn't it? Nothing would ever get done, and all that discussion would certainly boost sales of throat lozenges (that's if they could get anyone out of bed to go to work in the throat lozenge factory!).

Interesting link from the christian institute emphasising 1 Peter 2 and the command for christians to submit to human authority, the emperor, and their masters, much to the delight of tyrants, despots and dictators ever since.

That requires nuance, of course.

A good place to start is volume 2 of Quentin Skinner's 'The foundations of modern political thought'.

Casur1 (@33) -

LSV, I'm not sure who this contributor is who is trying to link the riots to the collapse of Christianity in Britain;

Neither am I. But I do know that someone has been trying to insinuate that Christianity can encourage rioting: read #8, #16 and #24.

I've heard of desperation, but this takes it to a whole new level.

Still, at least it's a bit of entertainment for us during these dark and difficult days.

Re 10, a student who looted a bottle of water was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.This sends out the right signal in my view.

I don't agree. That's £20,000 of Taxpayers money for 6 months in jail for stealing a bottle of water! Plus a criminal record for this kid. How is this going to impact his future, is he just written off by society & perhaps consigned to the dole?

These people shouldn't be sent to 6 months in prison. They should be made to wear bright pink fluorescent jumpsuits & sent back to the communities they've trashed. To help clean, repair & work within the community or business for free, for a minimum of 6 months or however long it takes to repay the damage they've caused. Maybe that would help build more cohesive communities, where people have a better understanding of each others lives. Some should also get work experience with the police and fire service to see for themselves the difficult job they do. Only if they're unwilling to co-operate to rebuild what they've destroyed should tougher action be taken

Adrian Warnock, who has been involved in a growing multicultural church in London for more than ten years, has written a piece well worth reading:

"Christian Hope and the UK Riots"
https://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/08/09/christian-hope-and-the-uk-riots/

Ryan (@ 37) -

These people shouldn't be sent to 6 months in prison. They should be made to wear bright pink fluorescent jumpsuits & sent back to the communities they've trashed. To help clean, repair & work within the community or business for free, for a minimum of 6 months or however long it takes to repay the damage they've caused. Maybe that would help build more cohesive communities, where people have a better understanding of each others lives. Some should also get work experience with the police and fire service to see for themselves the difficult job they do. Only if they're unwilling to co-operate to rebuild what they've destroyed should tougher action be taken

Spot on.

This paragraph is one of the best things I've read about the whole crisis.

Ryan

I made a mistake - it wasn't one bottle of water but 6 bottles costing £3.50.

The looter will probably only serve 2 months behind bars - by pleading guilty he will have got a discount of one-third and if he causes no problems in jail he will get another third off.

After he serves his jail sentence the fluorescent jacket idea would be a good one.

We need "Supermax" prisons to house criminals. If properly designed, the staff/prisoner ratio would be more favourable and costs would be greatly reduced.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4972526.stm

25. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"Jesus.... upheld honest business by overturning the tables of fraudsters..."

It seems a bit much to describe people carrying out their perfectly legal money changing businesses, or selling a few domestic animals as 'fraudsters' just because they were doing it in the temple (with the approval of the Jewish authorities).

If Jesus was around today would he and his gang be justified in launching a violent, armed attack on a car boot sale in a church car park? These are not the actions of a peaceful or reasonable person.

They are more like the actions of someone who would say "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword". This is a person who encouraged his followers to sell their clothing to buy arms; to abandon their families and take up the cause. He was so troublesome that the authorities ended up executing him for sedition.

It looks like the 'real' Jesus was, at least in part, a violent insurrectionist, stirring up rabble and dissent. How anyone can point to this figure as a model of rectitude when it comes to condemning riotous behaviour is beyond comprehension.

newdwr54,

The second volume of a new biography, entitled "Jesus of Nazareth", examines your thesis very carefully;

"Even at the time of the Enlightenment, attempts were made to portray Jesus as a political agitator. But the two-volume work by Robert Eisler, 'Iesous basileus ou basileusas' (1929/30), was the first to argue consistently from the whole of the New Testament corpus that "Jesus was a political revolutonist of apocalyptic stamp, who attempted an uprising in Jerusalem and was taken captive and put to death by the Romans."[...]

"Was the cleansing of the temple a summons to political revolution? Jesus' whole ministry and His message - from the temptations in the desert, his baptism in the Jordan, the Sermon on the Mount, right up to the parable of the Last Judgment (Mt 25) and His response to Peter's confession - point in a radically different direction[...]

newdwr54,

The second volume of a new biography, entitled "Jesus of Nazareth", examines your thesis very carefully;

"Even at the time of the Enlightenment, attempts were made to portray Jesus as a political agitator. But the two-volume work by Robert Eisler, 'Iesous basileus ou basileusas' (1929/30), was the first to argue consistently from the whole of the New Testament corpus that "Jesus was a political revolutonist of apocalyptic stamp, who attempted an uprising in Jerusalem and was taken captive and put to death by the Romans."[...]

"Was the cleansing of the temple a summons to political revolution? Jesus' whole ministry and His message - from the temptations in the desert, his baptism in the Jordan, the Sermon on the Mount, right up to the parable of the Last Judgment (Mt 25) and His response to Peter's confession - point in a radically different direction[...]

A theologian called Joseph Ratzinger. Sorry for getting posts the wrong way round

Oops...sorry, not the wrong way round; i deleted the second part instead of cutting it, and now it will have to wait i'm afraid. This might sound like 'a bad workman blaming his tools', but how come both LSV and Ryan got exemptions from the word limit which seems to apply to everyone else?...

Theophane (@44) -

how come both LSV and Ryan got exemptions from the word limit which seems to apply to everyone else?...

Well, today I had to post something in two parts on the PMS thread, so perhaps I've just fallen out of favour!

Newdwr (@ 41) -

It seems a bit much to describe people carrying out their perfectly legal money changing businesses, or selling a few domestic animals as 'fraudsters' just because they were doing it in the temple (with the approval of the Jewish authorities).

Not at all. Firstly the temple was a "house of prayer" not a place for conducting a business that was totally unnecessary - i.e. demanding that the temple tax be paid in shekels instead of Roman currency - especially at exorbitant exchange rates.

Jesus stated that these people had turned the temple - the "house of prayer" - into a "den of thieves". In other words, Jesus was upholding the authentic law of God to act against "looters", who were cynically profiting from people's religious obligations. Your comparison with the car boot sale in a church car park is so ridiculously far off the mark it's laughable, because no one is under any obligation to attend a boot sale!

But, if you really want to twist the evidence into something that satisfies your personal need to see Christianity as the great evil of society, then fine. At least you're not subtle about it, so I suppose you've done the decent thing and "laid your cards on the table".

By the way... we all know that atheism never encourages insurrection, don't we? I mean the French and Russian Revolutions had nothing to do with atheism now, did they? (Ahem, cough cough...)

Charles Colson, special advisor to President Nixon, was later converted to Christ and then became involved in a Christian minstry to people in prison. A few years ago he was invited to Buckingham Palace and was asked by Prince Philip how he thought crime in England could be reduced.

Colson replied: "Send more Children to Sunday School."

The Prince thought he was joking, but Colson was quick to point to a study by a sociologist which showed that back in the days when 75% of children were enrolled in Sunday School, crime rates were low, and as attendance in Sunday School declined, so there was a corresponding increase in crime and disorder.

'If we fill the Sunday Schools, ' said Colson, ' we can change hearts and restore society.'

43. Theophane:

Thanks, I haven't got round to reading these yet. You may be right. But I find it odd that these violent passages have been left in our surviving gospel narratives.

If the NT were trying to portray a man of peace, then what were the authors thinking?

It seems far more likely to me that these surviving fragments hinting at active rebelliousness and apocalyptic by Jesus pronouncements only survive because they were true, and well supported known by his supporters at the time.

When Jesus urged his disciples to sell their clothes and buy weapons, he even went to the trouble of asking how many weapons they currently held.

What have weapons got to do with the peaceful 'lamb of God'?

45. logica_sine_vanitate:

The church car park car boot sale analogy holds at least to the extent that the temple *grounds* were being used by the money changers and livestock sellers.

The temple itself was still under construction when Jesus was alive. The outer areas, the courtyards and annexes were used for a variety of purposes, including business. No doubt a 'contribution' was gratefully received by the temple authorities to assist in building works.

That still happens today at local churches all over this country, with events staged for 'roof repairs' and hall extensions, etc. The people running the car boot sales in church car parks no doubt offer a contribution to the church, but the individual sellers are entitled to keep their profits. Same thing. Jesus's armed gang violently attacked such innocuous events.

You still have not explained why this 'doe-eyed prophet of peace' enquired as to the armed capability of his gang, and encouraged them to sell their important earthly possessions to by weapons.

Jesus's message was simple: the end is nearly here. Arm yourselves for battle. Forget about your families. Follow me.

He would be identified as a 'ring-leader' by any trained senior police officer in a riot situation. The Romans were obviously no slouches at identifying trouble makers.

46. pastorphilip:

The vast majority of prisoners both here and in the US identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another - mostly some form of Christianity.

Typically less than 1% of prisoners in western prisons describe themselves as 'atheist'. Clearly atheists are far less likely to sin than Christians.

Those rioters we saw last week were mostly religious. The atheists were all tucked up in bed with a hot cup of cocoa and an improving book.

Shame on the religious.

newdwr54 @ 41 writes: “It looks like the 'real' Jesus was, at least in part, a violent insurrectionist, stirring up rabble and dissent. How anyone can point to this figure as a model of rectitude when it comes to condemning riotous behaviour is beyond comprehension.”


If only those who comment on this site and quote the Scriptures would read and understand them in context before making gratuitous statements.

Before the events immediately following the last Passover that Jesus celebrates with his followers, there is only a single reference to him speaking about a sword. This is very suprising if Jesus is indeed a violent insurrectionist and rabble rouser. Jesus is sending his twelve disciples out on a mission to preach and heal people. In preparation he says to them, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Mat 10:34). In context it becomes clear that it is the faithful followers of Jesus who should expect suffering, fierce opposition even from closest family, and possibly death.

After the last Passover, Jesus says to his disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This needs to be understood together with what follows. Jesus goes with his disciples to the Mount of Olives. A disciple cuts off the ear of one of the crowd who comes to arrest him. Jesus reprimands the follower and heals the man. He says to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.” (Mat 26:55 and parallels Mk 14:48-9, Luke 22:52-3). This language certainly does not support the idea of Jesus promoting militant insurrection. Instead, he expects his followers to be passive victims. This is consistent with Jesus' teaching elsewhere like in the Sermon on the Mount.

newdwr -

OK, newdwr, you win.

'Cos you say so, we now know for sure that Christians incited all the recent riots. Church leaders were quite obviously to blame, and all the looting was driven by a deep desire to serve the cause of Jesus Christ. Nicking stuff from Argos was a great "work for the Lord", dontcha think? And all that mindless arson clearly had a deep religious meaning, eh? I mean, clearly this must be the truth, because Mr Angry Atheist says so, and we can't have him embarrassed at the thought that all this mayhem had absolutely and totally nuffink, zilch and nadda to do with his personal neurosis (aka chip on the shoulder).

Yep, you're obviously right, newdwr. I mean, how could someone of your incontestably high level of intelligence and analytical skills possibly be wrong?

It's all clear to me now. Blame religion for everything.

Gosh, this is what it must feel like to be a "new atheist". I could really get into all this ranting and raving and, most of all, radical historical revisionism.

Perhaps you ought to write a book about it, newdwr. It's becoming quite a genre actually, this "let's blame everything on religion" fad. You never know, you might make a few bob on the side.

Let me help you get started...

A good place would be Luke 23:4 where Pontius Pilate says: "I find no fault in this man". Obviously because this fact doesn't fit into your theory too well, allow me to suggest that a corrupt editor just made it up to pretend that Jesus wasn't the rabble rouser that he soooooo obviously was!

There you go, pal. I've given you a nice little "redaction" theory to start chewing on (the great Bart Ehrman would be proud of me!).

(How's it going with the French and Russian Revolutions question I asked, by the way?)

50. Michael in Dublin:

Not sure in what sense you are using the word 'gratuitous' here.

Just the one reference to the 'sword' after the Passover then? Maybe the wine calmed him down a bit? (No, I won't get into the Passover debate tonight...)

Even so, the damage had already been done by his earlier attack on the temple traders.

Re 46, Perhaps Colson wasn't acquainted with the history of London. Even at its height in the 19th Century, Victorian London was a dangerous crime ridden place- theft , muggings, murder, infanticide were rife. Nostalgia for a bygone age isn't the same as the reality!

Going back further in the history of London- To quote :

Evil May Day (1517)
The first of May was a day of celebration and public revelry during the reign of Henry VIII, but in 1517 it witnessed a xenophobic riot on the streets of London. Two weeks earlier, a preacher by the name of Dr. Bell had given an inflammatory speech urging native-born Englishmen to defend their land against “aliens and strangers” in their midst. His words resonated with Londoners who blamed the city’s economic and social problems on the thousands of foreign merchants, financiers and artisans who lived there peacefully. Several men were arrested for attacking foreigners in the days that followed, and on May 1 an angry mob of poor laborers tore through London, freeing the prisoners and looting immigrants’ homes. Thirteen rioters were hanged for treason three days later, while hundreds of others received pardons

Gordon Riots (1780)
In 1778, the British parliament passed a law that lifted some of the longstanding restrictions excluding Catholics from public life. Two years later, outrage over the legislation and pervasive anti-Catholic sentiment erupted into 18th-century London’s largest and most destructive uprising. On June 2, 1780, Protestant leader George Gordon led a massive crowd in a march on the Houses of Parliament and presented a petition for the act’s repeal. After it was overwhelmingly rejected, mobs of protestors began ransacking Catholic neighborhoods, razing homes, churches and prisons. On June 7, troops were finally deployed to quell the revolt, which killed an estimated 700 people

51. logica_sine_vanitate:

I think you may be tired?

I can't make much of your rambling post @51, sorry. You sound a little defensive.

As I mentioned earlier, I await your explanation as to why this 'prophet of peace' enquired as to the armed capability of his gang, and encouraged them to sell their important earthly possessions to by weapons?

Sleep on it.

I wonder how someone who feels the last 50 yrs of 'flower power liberalism' has changed the social landscape so irrevocably would react to the Bawdy Riots of 1668. The rights of brothels ( bawdy houses ) were protected from the ritualized attacks by apprentices, which took place on Shrove Tuesday. Four suspected ringleaders were convicted, then castrated before being hanged, drawn & quartered

Ryan

I would have thought that apprentices who attacked brothels would have been more likely to have been 'hung' as opposed to "hanged."

newdwr (@ 54) -

No, I wasn't tired when I wrote #51, and, having slept on it, I stand by what I said (which admittedly was composed in the sarcasm style - in case you hadn't noticed!). Your rather desperate attempt to portray Jesus as a thug has inevitably led me to wonder as to your motives in this discussion. I still can't quite see what point you are trying to make with regard to the recent riots in London and elsewhere. Hence my conjecture.

As for not having answered your question, actually I did. In post #25 I did mention something called "self-defence". There is no contradiction between self-defence and wishing to promote peace. Furthermore, "peace" at any cost - and bought with any level of compromise - is not a Christian idea. That is why Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword, meaning that the truth divides (as it does on this blog, as I am sure you've discerned!). If you want to take Jesus' words literally - and you can't accept that this is a metaphor - and claim that he is (or was) a warmonger, then fine. That's your choice.

(It is worth noting that atheism does not bring peace either, but the sword of division, because of the constant criticism of "religion" and mocking castigation of those who are not prepared to submit to the highly speculative materialist reductionist view of reality.)

Now perhaps you would be so good as to explain to me why Pontius Pilate found no fault with Jesus. Clearly if Jesus was an insurrectionist, then the Romans would have pressed charges on this basis. Pilate executed Jesus because of pressure from the religious leaders who had stirred up the crowd. It was a pragmatic decision, and it is clear that Jesus posed absolutely no direct threat to the Roman state.

(Also, I am still waiting for your view on the violence of the French and Russian Revolutions, which were influenced by atheism).

I think newdr54 makes a compelling argument for Jesus being a serious criminal. I do not know all the details, but Jesus entered a premises where men were conducting their lawful business and proceeded to cause mayhem. I am surprised that he wasn't killed there and then.

Many churches today house shops and post offices, and if someone stormed one of them seeking to destroy legitimate businesses he would rightly be hauled before the courts. In fact, an armed robber caught in the act might falsely claim he was only doing God's work by seeking to rid commercialism from a place of worship. Could Jesus have been a robber wanting cash to buy weapons?

newlach (@58) -

I do not know all the details

That's pretty obvious!

Also... define the phrase "legitimate business".

Is an extortion racket legitimate business in your world?

And please answer me this question (which I have already posed to newdwr): Why did Pontius Pilate say that he found no fault with Jesus at his trial?

@46.pastorphilip :
Many Americans would agree with this and would also add that US crime took an upturn when prayer was taken out of public schools.
Charles Colson did a great service in prison ministry.

57. logica_sine_vanitate:

"I still can't quite see what point you are trying to make with regard to the recent riots in London and elsewhere."

From one of the links in Will's blog Mike Judge of the Christian Institute asks the following questions:

"In what social institution do people learn respect for their fellow human beings? Where do people learn to respect authority? Where do people learn respect for others’ possessions?"

I find this a bit rich, coming from someone who takes his lead from a person who said he came to split up families and arm his followers with swords; who ignored temple authorities and was contemptuous of a court of law; and who drove legitimate businessmen out of their place of work in an armed attack. This was not 'self defence'; this was an unprovoked and sudden violent outburst.

Now Mr Judge (very appropriate name) is criticising rioters for doing more or less exactly the same thing his hero did! He should make his mind up.

LSV: "If you want to take Jesus' words literally - and you can't accept that this is a metaphor - and claim that he is (or was) a warmonger, then fine. That's your choice."

It would be more believable as a metaphor if Jesus hadn't also said:

"...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one..." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. [Luke 22]

According to you the disciples were calling attention, not to two physical swords, but to two 'metaphors'. Did they keep a bag of 'metaphors' handy in case of emergency? It just doesn't make sense unless they were referring to actual swords. Or maybe Peter cut off the high priest's servant's ear with a cunningly concealed metaphor?

LSV: "...perhaps you would be so good as to explain to me why Pontius Pilate found no fault with Jesus"

We don't know that he did. In fact, it is very unlikely that he did. All we have to tell us what Pilate said are devotional Christian texts, each of which gives a different version of what was said and done. All they really agree on is that Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities, and that means that Pilate must have formally found him guilty.

Anything else is likely to be a later elaboration, probably designed to shift blame for Jesus's death away from the Romans, as Christianity spread through the Roman Empire. There is a definite violent undercurrent to the whole Jesus story that has not quite been eradicated from the surviving texts.

newdwr54 @ 52, 54

The context of Mat 10:34, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” simply does support the opinion that Jesus told his followers to use force.

The context of Jesus using the word sword/s in Luke 22 (and parallels Mat 22, Mk 14, Jn 18) shows that his words have nothing to do with militant insurrection.

Newdwr54, you have simply failed to read the Biblical passages closely, carefully and to recognize the context.

Literature cannot be correctly understood unless the language is understood with careful consideration of the immediate and broader context. If not it simply becomes a pretext, in this case an excuse to justify rejecting the clear claims and teaching of Jesus.

I would suggest that you also read what I actually said @50 and to see if your response followed the reasoning.

I would accept the commonly understood definition of a legitimate business: one that works within the rule of law. People may disapprove of certain legitimate enterprises, but a person who simply resorts to criminal means to try and get his way must be met with the full force of the law. I am opposed to extortion rackets, but that doesn't give me the right to, for example, set upon a lender with an iron bar.

As I said, I don't know all the details, but I presume that Mr Pilate knew Jesus was a serious criminal with a murderous band of followers. In modern day Pakistan, for example, when Taleban members come before the courts they are frequently released. The judges, much to the frustration of the police, fear that any other sentence would result in their death. Released Taleban have been know to visit police station of the arresting officer just to say that they have been released and have no hard feelings - "see you around" sort of thing. So, Taleban members now are more likely to be shot by the police than processed through the courts.

In a world where people are filled with murderous intent and where others feel insecure for their personal safety the decision-making process can be affected.

56, Rjb yes you're correct, it may have been a subconscious attempt to avoid double entendre given the subject matter :p

60, Mscracker- you may find this article interesting- US crime figures: Why the drop?

Pastorphilip & mscracker- why is there such a disconnect between perception & reality?

There's a very good article from The Telegraph in the links above: The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom -Hits the mark in many ways

newdwr54,

This is supposed to follow from no.42;

"No; violent revolution, killing others in God's name, was not His way. His "zeal" for the Kingdom of God took quite a different form. [...] The "zeal" that would serve God through violence He transformed into the zeal of the Cross. Thus He definitively established the criterion for true zeal - the zeal of self-giving love. This zeal must become the Christian's goal; it contains the authoritative answer to the question about Jesus' relation to the Zealot movement. [...]

"'The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple, and He healed them.' (Mt 21:14). In contrast to the cattle-trading and money-changing, Jesus brings His healing goodness. This is the true cleansing of the Temple. Jesus does not come as a destroyer. He does not come bearing the sword of the revolutionary. He comes with the gift of healing. He turns towards those who, because of their afflictions, have been driven to the margins of life and society. He reveals God as the One who loves, and His power as the power of love."

In the same text (the forward to which, at least, i reckon Will has read, hence his current pre-occupation with the word 'hermeneutic') we find;

"The cruel consequences of religiously motivated violence are only too evident to us all. Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity. On the contrary, it a favourite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation might be. It serves, not humanity, but inhumanity."

So, newdwr, Jesus was going to lead a rebellion against the Temple authorities and the occupying Roman forces with a few disciples and two swords?

I've seen better plans.

Also newdwr54, given your new-found confidence in setting out the correct interpretation of the Gospel, i just wonder whether you feel the teensiest bit bashful about the way you launched into the "Science and Religion: Duet or Duel?" thread;

"Theology is bunk".

From the intro;

"The riots are about low self-esteem...still others tell us."

I feel this is precisely part of the problem - the whole stupid, bogus, useless idea of "self-esteem". You frequently come across it in modern secondary education and especially in the context of juvenile delinquency. There is a fundamental misapprehension that "self-esteem" is an improvement on "self-respect". It is not, and i'd suggest that there is not even any overlap between the two things. "Self-esteem" is a contrived mentality which dissolves or can be shattered on exposure to the real world. Too often it is instilled in youngsters by grown-ups who are keen to be "down-with-the-kids".

68,

Too often it is instilled in youngsters by grown-ups who are keen to be "down-with-the-kids"

I fear you're too swept up by the culture, behaviour & practices of your clergy to articulate anything resembling the reality of adult interaction many of these youngsters experience

@ 64 Ryan,
Thanks so much for the article link.I think this is correct in some areas of the US which previously had out of control crime rates. But I was thinking back to 1962/1963 when prayer was first taken out of public schools.
Here's a link-sorry, wikipedia:
"Since 1964, the U.S. crime rate has increased by as much as 350%..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

I'm only half serious in thinking school prayer had an overwhelming influence on crime rates in America, but I think it was one of many markers in a change of direction we've experienced since the 1960's.

Theophane,

" "Self-esteem" is a contrived mentality which dissolves or can be shattered on exposure to the real world."

Is that your considered opinion as a psychologist or as an armchair keyboard hitter.

It's my considered opinion as an armchair keyboard hitter.

Michael in Dublin was spot on in what he said.

The problem is 'sin'

There are lots of people trying to work out the reasons why these riots took place but they cant see the real problem.

It was interesting to read view of someone who feels they know the Bible and the account of Jesus life.

I would recommend they actually read what it says and not what they think it says.

Theophane,

I suspected as much, I shall treat the opinion with the credibility which that level of expertise warrants.

Newthornly,

The problem is not sin, it is about people not being responsible or accountable for their actions and the impact they have on others. Sin is a defined set of rights and wrongs from a bygone age with no relevance in today's world for most people. Some of what you regard as sin many, if not most, people do not see as wrong. That is not a problem which will create unrest of itself - the problems lie elsewhere.

newdwr (@ 61) -

OK, so you have decided that Jesus was a violent man who encouraged a violent religion. It's obvious that there is nothing I can say which will dissuade you from drawing such a conclusion.

However, I would like to ask what your alternative ideology is. Please explain the basis of your "peace" ideology. What's your worldview? Let's analyse that, and see whether it's any better than the teaching of the "Prince of Peace".

By the way... I find it rather strange that you dismiss biblical evidence as an elaboration when it suits you, but then rely on that same biblical text to construct your arguments concerning Jesus' supposed violence. Don't you think that's being rather inconsistent, perhaps even a tad hypocritical?

Furthermore, I notice that there is a complete lack of evidence to support your "elaboration" theory.

As for your ultra-literalistic interpretation of the Bible: are you saying that the biblical text is not allowed to contain any metaphorical language at all? If that is the case, then I hope you have the integrity to apply that principle to all other literature.

What do you think of this example: 'Two friends were sitting having a chat over a cup of tea, discussing their respective tastes in music. One of them said: "That kind of music is not really my cup of tea."'

Right, here we see the phrase "cup of tea" used both literally and metaphorically in the same narrative. Are you seriously suggesting that, because this phrase is used literally in one instance it should be used literally in the other? Or that if it is used metaphorically in one place, it should be used metaphorically in the other? How ridiculous!

Ever heard of something called 'context'?!

pastorphilip and mscracker are happy to note a correlation between the end of prayer in school and a rise in crime. While the statistics there are highly debateable, there is a more important issue to be addressed first. Neither pastorphilip or mscracker have presented anything to suggest a causal nature in the supposed correlation between the end of prayer in school and a rise in crime. what makes either of you say that putting prayer back in school would diminish crime rates?

You do know that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, right?

Dave..
Sorry, but that's not sin at all. It is not merely right and wrong or a set of does and donts imposed by God.

Newthornley,

The point is that 'sin' as you call it does not exist in any real way for most people, certainly not these rioters and certainly not atheists, agnostics, wiccans and all the christians which say they are believers but really are not. If you really want to have an impact on society you have to talk to people about responsibility and accountability within the frame of their beliefs (or lack of them) - not yours. Attempting to convert people in order to control them has had it's day and ultimately failed.

76.At 08:18 16th Aug 2011, PeterKlaver wrote:
pastorphilip and mscracker are happy to note a correlation between the end of prayer in school and a rise in crime. While the statistics there are highly debateable, there is a more important issue to be addressed first. Neither pastorphilip or mscracker have presented anything to suggest a causal nature in the supposed correlation between the end of prayer in school and a rise in crime. what makes either of you say that putting prayer back in school would diminish crime rates?

You do know that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, right?"
***
No, you are correct. But I said that it was just one marker in a path or direction our country took after the early 1960's.There were many other influences besides the removal of prayer in public schools.

68.At 18:27 15th Aug 2011, Theophane wrote:
From the intro;

"The riots are about low self-esteem...still others tell us."

I feel this is precisely part of the problem - the whole stupid, bogus, useless idea of "self-esteem". You frequently come across it in modern secondary education and especially in the context of juvenile delinquency. There is a fundamental misapprehension that "self-esteem" is an improvement on "self-respect". It is not, and i'd suggest that there is not even any overlap between the two things. "Self-esteem" is a contrived mentality which dissolves or can be shattered on exposure to the real world. Too often it is instilled in youngsters by grown-ups who are keen to be "down-with-the-kids".
***
I agree partly with what you say, but think there is some credibility re the concept of"self esteem." Perhaps the problem is what it's based upon-which often is nothing of much substance.Kids are encouraged to have self esteem but are given few tools or directions to make anything worthwhile of themselves.

Theophane -

If "self-esteem" is equivalent to "pride", as in "arrogance, conceit and hubris", then I suppose you might have a point. But I am not sure that that is what "self-esteem" actually means.

As far as I understand, "self-esteem" means having a positive view of oneself, in terms of ability and worth. Actually "self-esteem" can be used in a more general sense to include whatever a person thinks about him- or herself, including negative ideas. However, I assume that you are referring to the exclusively positive definition.

I'm afraid I can't see how having a negative view of oneself contributes to peace and stability. I guess it depends where this negative view is coming from. Certainly if I feel that I am being accused and put down by society, then I am more likely to hold extremely negative views about that society, and if I were so inclined I might be tempted to take some kind of action against that society. I really can't see how encouraging low self-esteem can help overcome thuggery!

I am well aware that certain churches have a vested interest in making people feel bad about themselves. This is part of the control agenda, that is the bane of Christian history. According to this kind of methodology, the "good news" only makes any sense if people are made to feel thoroughly miserable and condemned with the "bad news" of their putative inborn condemnation. This is not a view that I share, and it is not a biblical view either, as it happens.

The good news of the gospel always starts with the positive affirmation of the inherent value of the individual, loved by God, and the positive nature of God. Look at the gospel accounts. Those who were accused by Jesus as being "sons of hell" and "whitewashed tombs" were the Pharisees who fancied themselves as spiritually superior. The ordinary people - so often the soft target of religious hectoring - were actually affirmed and befriended by Jesus.

If the church wants to do something useful, then here's an idea: start publicly denouncing the really serious evils in our society, such as greed, avarice and control at the top and give ordinary downtrodden people a break. That's what Jesus did. Not a lot to ask, is it?

Carl Trueman on 'the riots';

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/08/end-of-the-world-or-business-a.php

LSV;

Rather than try to wrestle with the value or otherwise of "self-esteem", i'd just put forward the case for instilling "self-respect". This is the mentality which says, broadly, "I'm not perfect, not the brightest, the best-looking, the hardest, the funniest etc; i have no right to consider myself superior to anyone. But at the same time - no one is perfect, no one is incontestably the brightest, the best-looking, etc. Limitations, in themselves, don't make me inferior to anyone."

God is dispassionate in His great love for His children. He has no favourites.

Yet again Dave..your conclusions are far from the truth.

There are still many people who are turning to Christ for salvation from their sins.

They fully understand their sinfulness before God and they repent.

Becoming a Christian is not merely submitting yourself to the control of some vindictive dictator.

If thats what you think then your understanding is flawed

Newthornley,

Are there really more people in the UK (where this situation we are talking about is) turning to your god ? The bums on seats in churches and every survey would seem to disagree with you. That's really not the point though my truth is true while yours is untrue - there we are - that will get us nowhere which is my point. What is the point of trying to communicate with people and resolve societal issues with things which have no meaning to people. Pontificating and talking about sin wont work.

I would say that submitting to your version of your religion is exactly like submitting to the control of some vindictive dictator, what you have described as your god is miles away from what LSV is postulating and I have to say I know which one I would prefer and I also know which one makes more logical sense (if there turns out to be a real god).

83, What you describe as self-esteem is vanity and what you describe as self-respect is being content & comfortable with who they are. Ironic then that you're very eager to go against the law & rob people of their rights in law & self-respect by likening them to animals.
Theo, It's as if you can't make a statement without contradicting it almost immediately

Hello all, sorry for delayed response. Work raised its ugly head.

Michael in Dublin @ 62: the sword as a metaphor doesn't work because of the specific context of Luke 22. Also because of the Jesus arrest scene: metaphors may be cutting, but they don't literally slice peoples' ears off.

66. Peterm2 wrote:

"I've seen better plans"

So have I. Which might explain why it was an abject failure.

Theophane @ 67 wrote:

"I just wonder whether you feel the teensiest bit bashful about the way you launched into the "Science and Religion: Duet or Duel?" thread; "Theology is bunk"."

Yes. I should have used the word 'garbage' instead of 'bunk'. I was too timid. Theology is a complete and utter waste of time and human brain function. In my view.

That's all I can face tonight.

Best to all.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Newdwr

Perhaps if the five thousand he'd fed earlier in his ministry had turned up they'd have stood a better chance.

I do like the contradictory redaction in Matthew 26 though.

I'd say more, but I think that's enough (of that sort of talk)

Was that an interpretation?

Dave,

What is truth Dave?...is it simply what 'you' believe? Is it just whatever you can agree with or whatever suits you?

God would probably seem appealing to you if he allowed you to live and behave in whatever way or manner you like.

We need boundaries..the loving boundaries that only God can give us.


Please let me know what appears to have some appeal to you from LSV's point of view.

I wonder has the person in posting 87 ever taken a course in theology...it appears we're just getting a bit of a bigotted point of view'

Newthornley,

There is no truth in a religious POV there is only belief and those beliefs vary depending on where you were born and how you were educated. I know you think you have the only truth but so do many others.

We are quite capable as a society of creating our own boundaries which allow people to be as free as possible within a framework which connects actions with accountability.

"...that only God can give us."

is just an abrogation of your right and capability to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. You are welcome to it but it is arrogance to suggest that you have the answers and there is no other source. There is - ourselves.

I doubt god would ever be appealing to me unless of course he could

a) prove he existed and
b) be worthy of my respect

Your god fails both. LSV's has a chance at b) and even if LSV and I may disagree vehemently on some issues I am happy to state when I agree with his logic around a creator who creates everyone in the default unsaved state.

I did not say I would prefer a god who would allow me to do what I wanted, just one that allowed me to be what he made me and free to make my own morality (within the bounds of the law which protects others from my actions should my morality have implications for others beyond their consent)

Do you think that it is only your god that stops you hurting others - if so you have issues.

LSV;

"If the church wants to do something useful, then here's an idea: start publicly denouncing the really serious evils in our society, such as greed, avarice and control at the top and give ordinary downtrodden people a break. That's what Jesus did. Not a lot to ask, is it?"

An absolutely blistering read in this connexion is Peter Oborne (see above), 'The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom', which i've only just discovered. A quick foretaste;

"...he [PM David Cameron] awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.

These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society."

As a Christian preacher, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to be accused of things I've never said! (Check out post #46)

Colson's conversation with Prince Philip mentioned 'Sunday School', (not prayer at school)andit certainly seems to me a real shame that so many children are not introduced to the Bible and Church at an early age. This has meant a lack of moral and spiritual foundations in their lives, often leading to what we now describe as 'anti-social behaviour'.

Of course, today's young people come from a generation of adults who have ignored God and the timeless teaching of Scripture, especially regarding marriage and family.

It all seemed so wonderfully 'progressive' in the sixties and seventies.....pity we didn't look at the price tag.

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any poeple." (Prov. 14v34) As ever, the Bible hits the nail on the head!

pastorphilip,

My apologies for being sloppy in lumping you and mscracker together. She talked about prayer in school while you very correctly point out that you talked about Sunday school.

However, my little mistake there doesn't change all that much, I think. Instead of asking what makes you think the correlation between no more prayer in school and a rise in crime is causal, I would of course ask you what makes you think the correlation between children no longer attending Sunday school and a rise in crime is causal. Regarding young people no longer being introduced to the bible and church you said

"This has meant a lack of moral and spiritual foundations in their lives, often leading to what we now describe as 'anti-social behaviour'."

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further there. It's quite a claim to make and it will take more than you just postulating it on the bog here for me to buy it.

Imagine the hay that our atheist friends would make if a believer made a typo like the one in PK's last sentence.

Pastorphilip,

I have no problem with responsibility and accountability being taught at an early age but it needs to be taught to all children at home and in school and not just those unfortunate enough to have to go to Sunday School. As with others you seem to assume (arrogantly) that church and god are the only solutions to our problems (and that lack of them cause our problems). I would be of the opinion that your morals are severely flawed and have no place in a modern society.

To suggest that things were better before the 60's is to be blind to history, Hogarth did not make up his art and according to “London’s Sinful Secret: The Bawdy History and Very Public Passions of London’s Georgian Age" by Dan Cruickshank things were a lot further from your morals then.

quoting from your bible is pointless as both sin and righteousness are only your interpretation of a book and bear no relationship to peoples lives.

People have not ignored god, they just don't accept he exists or that you preach a reflection of what he is. If you lot cannot agree on an interpretation of christianity why should the rest of us put any store in either it's veracity or your capabilities?

Andrew @ 82 should have quoted the final paragraph of the linked blog

"The UK riots are not some exceptional occurrence; they are just a typical outworking of fallen human nature in a specific context, of a kind that has plenty of precedent and will no doubt happen again. Not the end of civilization so much as business as usual for fallen humanity, I am afraid."

newdwr54 @87

I have given up trying to reason with you because you simply disregard the context of the text both in the chapter, Luke 22, as well as in the gospels corpus.

Dave,

If you think that mankind is more than capable of settinging his own boundaries then it appears he's not doing a very good job....considering this blog is reflecting on last weeks riots.

I think it is arrogance to suggest that mankind has done a pretty good job without God.

You appear to like statistics...divorce on the increase...abortions on the increase.

How do you tackle these issues Dave...or does that not concern you

@99. Newthornley:
I would imagine those issues concern most readers here.
The crime rates in the USA have risen 350% since 1960 if you can believe Wikipedia's charts.A number of changes occurred after 1960 including the removal of prayer in public schools.
Rather than dismiss the idea of prayer being a positive in forming moral character, I'd like to see discussion on what does form moral character or what might be responsible for the crime rate's rise.
I don't have statistics for Ireland or the UK at hand.Are crime rates higher or lower since 1960?