@Joseph:
Hi again Joseph. *smile*
I'm not disputing that it's only a few that break civil or religious laws but there's more than a few that bend them, and this goes over to the general populace too. Adultery? False testament (lying)? Respecting your neighbours and elders?
I'm not saying that everyone does these things (well, except lying perhaps, but that's another discussion and debate) but that they are just as common among religious people than among non- or irreligious people. Catholicism even has a system built in to deal with it (confessions) after the fact rather than trying to stop it. Smart actually. *grin*
As for helping the poor, homeless, and oppressed I can't help but feel that it's only a minute amount of religions that might actually have done so from the start (see, "feel", meaning it's only my opinion even if I do have a few facts under my belt), mainly Buddhism and, ehm, well, not sure about any others. Most that do it now have not been doing it very long, it's a rather modern phenomenon actually. Not to mention that some religions
still oppress people directly too. I'm loathe to name names though but women still don't have full rights in every country/religion still.
In short I believe every person has a built in moral compass (which in a few individuals is broken) which they at least try to follow. Religion might or might not assist in this endeavour, that I'll leave open to own opinions, but things that lie outside a persons moral compass will be hard for any person to ignore (temptation). In this only a few pious believers will be able to follow the strictures while the main body of people will do what for them feels "right and good", aka bending the rules and laws.
In some ways, and this I don't like (even makes me feel ill at times) religions have forced morals on people, morals that live on still today.
Alert, don't read spoiler if sensitive, contains explicit material
@Anyone/Everyone:
I suppose I view the word crime differently than most. For me something is a crime if it has a detrimental outcome on a society, a group, or an individual, regardless of whether it is a written rule or law, a verbal rule or law, an implied rule or law, or not in any way stated as a rule or law.
So for me and my moral compass some things are not crimes even if they are written rules or laws, and some things are crimes even if they are not in any way implied.
For instance I view war itself as a crime even if it's not a written rule or law, while bearing false witness in some cases is not a crime if it only serves to protect an innocent while not having a negative effect on someone else (of course the rules and laws doesn't agree with me here).
But putting that aside and returning to temples/monasteries having a reduced effect on crime rate:
I can agree that mostly throughout the eras the religions have had a reductive influence on crime but in my opinion
not because of what they are, how they operate, or what their beliefs are
but because they give people something to do and a reason to feel good about themselves.
Sports, youth centres, organised activities, most +
buildings in C2C even, should then have the same effect as temples in reduction of crime.
Why not even go as far as setting excess
in a city as reducing crime in that city? Keep the people happy and they have less need of committing crimes.
That could be pretty good actually as bigger cities then would tend to have a lot more crime than smaller cities (which is mostly true) regardless of what crime influencing buildings are built there. But that discussion belongs in another thread.
Thank you for listening, though I did not particularly like having my opinion being referred to as cynical. *grin* In my opinion it is not cynical as I do think religions are and have been mostly for the better, just not all good.
Cheers