Posted on 03/02/2009 4:32:03 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
As if we needed any reminder that times in America have changed, there is further evidence that the nearly decade-long rally of prosperity and reduced crime has ended.
We are officially in a recession, a panel of experts told us last week, after months of speculation and hundreds of thousands of layoffs. At the same time, many big cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Boston and Pittsburgh are reporting an increase in homicides this year, potentially signaling an end to the slide in violent crime.
In Chicago as of last week, police had recorded 612 murders so far in 2001 compared to 584 in the same period last year. And in New York City in a recent four-week period, shootings were up 36.7 percent compared with the same period a year ago and murders were up 25 percent — although crime is still down about 13 percent for the year.
Even urban undesirables such as squeegee cleaners, panhandlers and illegal street vendors are appearing in greater numbers in New York these days, after dwindling during police crackdowns in recent years.
With developments like these, it would be reasonable for Americans to grow concerned that the recession is bringing a return to the urban grime and violence more common in the '70s and '80s.
But criminologists disagree about the connection between a sour economy and spikes in crime and whether aggressive policing strategies introduced in the last decade can prevent a sustained rise in crime.
"There's no iron law linking [the economy and crime]," said UCLA criminal justice professor Eric Monkkonen. "This recession could see a crime wave or could not see a crime wave. It could promote crime, but it could be 15 years from now."
Will Desperate People Turn to Crime?
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So where does the ethics in ethical humanism come from? Without a fixed standard, what keeps it from changing? And who is to say that standard is right? Who determines that standard? Without a Supreme, omniscient being, there cannot be a fixed standard.
_________________________________________________
I understand you but I still think that the world, that mankind is far more complex than you suggest, for better or worse.
You say that; "Without a Supreme, omniscient being, there cannot be a fixed standard."
The truth is that there are deity-based belief systems each with millions of followers across continents and centuries that disagree on what the fixed standard should be. In fact they have frequently gone to war with each other specifically because one standard based on the teachings of one "supreme, omniscient being" so conflicted with the other.
Conversely, there have been humanist movements that strenuously deny the existence of any God but whhich have created extremely ethical societal segments. To coin a phrase...they are good for goodness' sake.
About those humanist movements--they have done far more destruction than religious ones, particularly in recent history. Communism, anyone?
Have a nice night, there's no point in going further.
Russia, China, Cuba, East Germany....135 million dead...Yeah, they’re really well-known for their religious movements. Nice try.
That is ignorance and not worth further discussion.
That's why you choose not to discuss. Fine with me. I got better things to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.