So, who’s the Fascist?

The New Neo Posted on by

Not a Fascist in the economic sense (which isn’t how most people use the word these days, anyway), but in the “willing and eager to use the apparatus of the state to stomp on your liberties” sense.

Why, Frederica Wilson, current Democratic member of the US House of Representatives:

Democratic Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson asserted that people who mock members of Congress online should face prosecution.

“Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable [sic],” Wilson said during comments made Tuesday outside of the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Florida.

“We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted,” she continued. “You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.”

There you have it.

By the way, as far as I can see, this is only a news story on the right. When I Google “Frederica Wilson, CNN” (or NY Times, or MSNBC) I get a bunch of old stories about her. And when I Google a direct quote from this recent statement of Wilson’s, I only get news outlets or blogs on the right.

Wilson seems to be calling for some version of the Sedition Act of 1918, not exactly a high point in American history (although I’m pretty certain that her proposed law would not apply to mockery of Trump and/or other Republicans):

It forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for five to 20 years. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times “when the United States is in war.”

But at least that had the excuse of having been enacted during wartime and of applying only to wartime. Actually, it was passed towards the end WWI and ended with that war’s end. Later SCOTUS decisions indicate that a similar law would probably be held unconstitutional.

Oh, and that 1918 bill passed the House almost unanimously, with only one dissenting vote. It passed the Senate, too, but with quite a bit of opposition. The opposition to the 1918 act came almost entirely from Republican senators.

As San Francisco and Seattle go…

The New Neo Posted on by

…so goes Austin, Texas:

The [Austin] city council has voted to rescind prohibitions on camping, sleeping, and panhandling on public sidewalks – but not in front of city hall, of course.

A couple of observations:

(1) I wonder whether most of these rule changes allowing tents and sleeping on sidewalks in cities are passed by city councils and or mayoral orders rather than by citizens’ votes. My guess is that it’s most if not all.

(2) In the comments to the post I linked, some people said that Austin is already overrun with homeless people sleeping outside. So I’m not sure whether this law actually changes anything.

(3) Greg Abbott has tweeted that the state of Texas will override this.

(4) People in the cities involved have gotten used to a level of squalor that even just a few years ago would have been considered intolerable. It’s partly the old boiling frog thing, and it’s partly that they feel helpless to come up with actual solutions and/or unwilling to implement ones that seem too Draconian to liberal sensibilities.

Does anyone doubt for one moment…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that if Obama had done what Trump did in Korea we’d never hear the end of how wonderful it was? Obama might even get his second Peace Prize.

And that’s without even knowing if the results will be something good. The gesture would have been more than enough, had Obama made it.

But not only is the press down on everything Trump does, they also cannot believe that Trump did this. Their predictions were that he’d start a war with North Korea, a really terrifying war. And although it certainly is possible that could happen, so far the visuals have been anything but.

If “Nixon was the only one who could go to China,” perhaps “Trump is the only one who could go to North Korea.” It makes them livid with anger. Why, or why, couldn’t Obama the Great have done it?

Antifa and anti-masking laws

The New Neo Posted on by

The rise of Antifa and in particular attacks like the recent one on Andy Ngo is an alarming trend that needs to be stopped. It would be good if there was more bipartisan alarm about the phenomenon, but unfortunately there is far too much justification and/or excuse-marking on the part of the left for what are essentially fascist tactics (as long as such tactics are used against someone on the right, of course).

Ngo has this to say to officials in Portland, Oregon, the city where he was attacked:

“How many more people have to be beaten and attacked in the city of Portland before things change?” conservative journalist Andy Ngo told CNN on Tuesday.

“I am by far not the first one. There’s been many other incidents that have happened since 2016 and the policing has remained the same, which is a policy of not engaging with militant protestors.”

I very much doubt that anything will change in Portland regarding police practices, however.

Then there is the possibility of anti-masking laws. One of the many problems with Antifa is that its violent demonstrators usually wear face coverings that make it impossible to identify them from photos or videos. Anti-masking laws have been passed in many US states, and the origins in many cases have to do with combating the KKK.

You can find a list of states that have anti-masking laws here; Oregon does not appear to be one of them. Interestingly enough, New York and Massachusetts do have such laws, as well as California and DC.

Here’s an example of one such statute, the California law:

CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One–Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two–Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Courts have had a mixed record on whether anti-masking laws violate free speech rights or the right to associate, the results seeming to depend heavily on how narrowly or broadly such laws are constructed. For example:

These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech. That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe. Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad. An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.

Many European countries have anti-masking laws as well.

Yesterday David French wrote this article in National Review calling for such laws in the face (pun intended) of Antifa. In it, he cites a 2004 Second Circuit ruling in Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan vs. Kerik that upheld New York’s anti-mask law:

Assuming for the discussion that New York’s anti-mask law makes some members of the American Knights less willing to participate in rallies, we nonetheless reject the view that the First Amendment is implicated every time a law makes someone-including a member of a politically unpopular group-less willing to exercise his or her free speech rights. While the First Amendment protects the rights of citizens to express their viewpoints, however unpopular, it does not guarantee ideal conditions for doing so, since the individual’s right to speech must always be balanced against the state’s interest in safety, and its right to regulate conduct that it legitimately considers potentially dangerous.

Such laws cannot be overly broad or they will constitute an infringement on free speech and/or assembly rights and would be likely to be struck down.

And of course, if passed, they must be enforced to have any teeth, and the penalties must be strong enough to act as some sort of deterrent. If the city of Portland is unwilling to stop Antifa demonstrators from beating someone up, I can’t see that authorities will be willing to arrest those same people for merely wearing masks.

Russian submariners and Pence’s plane

The New Neo Posted on by

Are these two news stories related?:

Vladimir Putin today called an urgent meeting with defence chiefs hours after 14 sailors died in a mystery submarine blast…

It came as US Vice President Mike Pence was called back to Washington for an “undisclosed emergency”.

The announcements came at exactly the same time but it is not clear if the two are linked.

The White House and the Kremlin would not say the reason for the change of plans.

They may be linked, but I don’t think any of this will turn out to be of geopolitical importance, although of course the blast is of great importance to the Russian Navy and to the families of the sailors who lost their lives.

And the news was originally that Pence’s plane was turned back. That turns out to have been incorrect; a trip of Pence’s was canceled, but the report now is that the trip plans were changed before the plane ever took off.

But in this case I don’t think press incompetence was the cause of the error; Pence’s office gave out two conflicting messages, one from Randy Gentry, “a representative from Pence’s office,” and the correction from Alyssa Farah, Mike Pence’s spokeswoman.

Kamala Harris and the busing issue

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I used to spell it “bussing,” but I’m choosing to move with the times here. Each spelling has its own problems. “Busing” makes it seem as though it should be pronounced like part of the word “abusing.” But “bussing,” which is much more phonetically correct, seems like it might mean “kissing.” See more discussion of this pressing (not presing) issue in this thread.]

In using the pre-planned tactic to attack Biden on his long-ago stance on busing, Kamala Harris won the battle for now, at least among some Democrats whose votes she is seeking. Biden has been the supposed front-runner, and the consensus is that Harris harmed him in the debate and that her own star is rising.

I already discussed the substance of the busing issue and Harris’s argument here. I’m bringing this up again, however, to make a different point—the same point that Harris’s former paramour Willie Brown made recently:

“Harris got all the attention for playing prosecutor in chief, but her case against former Vice President Joe Biden boiled down in some ways to a ringing call for forced school busing. It won’t be too hard for Trump to knock that one out of the park in 2020,” Brown wrote.

“Trump must have enjoyed every moment and every answer[ in the Democratic debates], because he now knows he’s looking at a bunch of potential rivals who are still not ready for prime time,” Brown concluded.

Brown dated Harris in the 1990s as the future senator was getting her start in politics. Brown, then Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, appointed Harris to her first significant political office on the California Medical Assistance Commission in 1994.

I’m in agreement with Brown’s observation. Then again, to Kamala Harris’s way of thinking, if she doesn’t take Biden down a peg or two (or three or four) soon, then she can’t ascend. There’s only room for one Democratic nominee, and she aims to be it. So do the others, but they didn’t set their sights so firmly on Biden (at least, they haven’t done so yet).

But there are dangers in the long term to taking a position such as Harris’s. As Brown points out, she will be saddled with the label of supporting busing, a highly unpopular position.

However, there is also the phenomenon of denial and reliance on the ignorance and/or poor memory of the American public, coaxed by the ever-helpful MSM. The MSM favors Democrats over Republicans, of course. But it also plays favorites among Democrats, and Harris is an MSM favorite—or at least, the favorite du jour. As such, she will be helped along in her assertions and then her denials of whatever assertions later prove inexpedient.

[NOTE: I’ve written about Brown before, here and here.]

Antifa assaults journalist in Portland

The New Neo Posted on by

Another ominous occurrence in a sea of them, letting us know that Antifa’s closest relations are the Brownshirts, with the Orwellian twist that Antifa bills itself as being anti-Fascist:

An Oregon photojournalist who covers Portland’s frequently violent protest scene was taken to the hospital Saturday after being attacked by black-masked antifa activists.

Andy Ngo, an editor at the online platform Quillette, said he was struck on the head and face “multiple times” by antifa protesters, who also threw objects and a milkshake at him as he tried to walk away.

“I just got beat up by the crowd — no police at all — in the middle of the street,” Mr. Ngo said in the post. “And they stole my GoPro. And they punched me several times in my face and head, and I’m bleeding.”

And the left’s answer seems to be “He provoked them by reporting on what they do.”

As for the attack itself and the lack of police response, one wonders why there were no police present at a demonstration. One possibility (there are others) is that the Portland police force has adopted what might be called the Canadian model of crowd control, which is to monitor the whole thing from afar through video surveillance and then swoop in after the fact once a disturbance has broken out.

I first experienced that method of crowd control during a visit to Vancouver around 2000, and I was singularly unimpressed with its efficacy.

An unexpected handshake

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump loves to surprise people. That’s part of his power; he doesn’t like to do the expected. And the handshake with Kim Jong Un at the DMZ, and Trump’s stepping over the line into North Korean territory, certainly came as a surprise for most people.

The visuals were strange. Kim looked like an overgrown child next to Trump, but no child he. Those in charge of security were very agitated, running around and pushing other people out of the way. There was a really nervous energy in the crowd.

The event was ceremonial and symbolic, but of what? What will it lead to? Perhaps nothing—except, inevitably, criticism from Trump’s usual opponents. But man, what a showman Trump is.

I think part of the idea is to play to Kim’s massive ego and desire to be treated like a bona fide world leader. Will that backfire? Your guess is as good as mine.

Intermezzo

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a revised version of a previous post.]

Some time ago I was taking a walk, listening on my iPod to some ballet music, and I suddenly wondered—for no particular reason—whether the Eliot Feld ballet “Intermezzo” might have finally made its way to YouTube.

During the 70s I had seen the ballet in person many many times, with the original cast. Certain passages from it are among the most beautiful choreography I’ve ever witnessed, casting an overwhelmingly romantic spell.

The Brahms music was no small part of it, but it was really the choreography that created the emotional effect of a bygone era of grace and lush romance. Three couples dance in a series of vignettes, sometimes all together and sometimes just spotlighting one of the couples. Their movements are marked by dramatic and inventive lifts that are never circus-y despite their breathtaking daring, while still managing to express the mood of an old-fashioned ballroom where couples court and smoldering feelings are kept in check by decorum.

I didn’t really think the ballet would be on YouTube—but when I checked, lo and behold, there it was, the entire thing (including a few parts that are comic, although for me they are very much overshadowed by the serious sections).

The picture is blurry and small. And the dancers are not the original dancers (this version was recorded in 1985).

But there it was and there it remains, after all these years without it. And even though it’s somewhat like watching a gossamer, translucent, diminished ghost of the past, it’s still a very beautiful ghost that stirs up very beautiful memories, all the more precious because I didn’t think I would ever see it again in any form.

I will reproduce the full-length ballet here (in two parts) at the end of this post. But first please indulge me and let me talk a bit more about my memories.

Central to those memories is the extraordinary Christine Sarry from the original cast. Sarry didn’t look like any other dancer I’d ever seen, before or since. She was so small as to be almost midget-like, with a childish body and legs that were also short for a dancer. And she even had short hair, which is highly unusual for a ballet dancer even today and most assuredly was unusual back in those days.

But oh, what amazing attack she had, what speed and calm, what a way of timing her movements and giving them just the right emphasis, breath, and shape without ever being schmaltzy or overdone. Words cannot describe her—well, they don’t have to describe her, because I found a very small clip of her in a portion of a rehearsal, and then a tiny bit of a rehearsal-type performance in the ballet. In the rehearsal Sarry isn’t even dancing full-out. And in the rehearsal-type performance she is not in costume—no puffy romantic skirts to give the requisite light and cloudlike feel—but instead is garbed in leotards in a private rendition for potential backers in 1969, when the ballet was newly choreographed and hot off the press.

It’s easy to spot Sarry—she’s the tiny one with the short hair. This is nowhere near as lovely as a real performance by her. And it doesn’t feature any of the speed for which she was known, and which was fully showcased in other sections of “Intermezzo.” But I still think it conveys some of the special quality of her movement, which Feld exploited by inserting many quick changes of direction where the dancer’s impetus leads one way and then suddenly (and gracefully rather than jarringly) reverses and goes the other way. I’ve cued it up to show a brief part of the rehearsal, and then there’s a small part of the performance. At the end of the rehearsal and before the section with a bit of the performance, the bald man talking to Feld is the great British choreographer Anthony Tudor. If you listen closely, you’ll hear that he is praising Sarry:

Today, Sarry is still affiliated with Feld, although she once called him, “The most difficult person I’ve ever worked with.”

And here is most of the full-length ballet, in costume with the later cast from 1985. The fast parts were Sarry’s, and as I watch this I can see her in my mind’s eye—with her lightening speed, sharp-yet-smooth emphasis, and exquisite phrasing. But these dancers are pretty darn good, so enjoy:

SJWs and the Wayfair beds

The New Neo Posted on by

SJWs are boycotting Wayfair for selling beds to groups that help to furnish border detention centers:

Wayfair drew political criticism and calls from some customers for a boycott after employees protested the company’s apparent sale of $200,000 of mattresses and bunk beds destined for a Texas detention camp for migrant children.

Under the hashtag #BoycottWayfair, customers and businesses took to Twitter to announce they were canceling orders from the online home goods retailer, returning purchases and boycotting the retailer until the company apologizes. One employee estimated that 500 workers walked out of the company’s Boston headquarters in protest at 1:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, holding signs that read “solidarity with migrant families” and “people not prisons.”

Wayfair sold roughly 1,600 mattresses and 100 bunk beds to Baptist Child and Family Services, a nonprofit that works as a federal contractor managing some of the camps along the southern border, according to a copy of the June 13 sales receipt obtained by CNBC and verified by an employee. The merchandise is destined for Carrizo Springs, Texas, where the group is running an emergency influx shelter to house up to 1,600 unaccompanied children who have migrated across the U.S. border.

In what universe does this make sense? It seems the SJWs have gone stark raving mad, doesn’t it?

Well, these are the ways in which it makes sense:

(1) as virtue-signaling
(2) as a response to relentless propaganda from the Democrats and the press, saying that under Trump all immigration/detention is bad, even if it involves something that happened under the Obama administration
(3) as a signal to other companies of the power or potential power of the left to harm them unless they toe the leftist line
(4) as a way to get publicity for a leftist cause

I think (at least I hope) that to most people this will seem an absurd move. After all, this is a group providing beds. Would the SJWs prefer the children to be bedless?

Well yes, of course—the better to take heartrending photos of detained children. Sleeping on the floor, or worse!

Just like the concentration camps, right?

Do the candidates believe their own bs?

The New Neo Posted on by

I saw this in the comments last night from “Sergey” (quoting J. Frank Bullitt):

Every candidate lined up in Wednesday’s debate is living in a fantasy world where they are convinced their decrees can yield a utopia just because they say so.

And commenter “AesopFan” replied:

Well, Obama did it first, and it worked for him!

It did work for him. But did he really believe his own (to put it crudely) bullshit? I’m using that word for a reason; it’s a direct quote from Obama.

Remember this?:

But perhaps the most telling quote in terms of what Obama believes or doesn’t believe is true comes from Obama himself. It occurred during a conversation with journalist Richard Wolffe, and appears in Renegade, a book published in 2009 and based on Wolffe’s coverage of Obama’s 2008 campaign:

“Every now and then in Renegade, a moment arrives when it seems Obama might reveal something, some tiny thing, about himself. ‘You know, I actually believe my own bullshit,’ Obama told Wolffe with a smile. But what for a nanosecond seemed like candor – would the candidate actually examine his own B.S.? – was just another talking point, as he explained to Wolffe that he truly wanted to bring change to America for better health care, for better schools, and especially for ‘the kid on the streets.'”

There’s much about this quote that’s revealing. First, there’s the serious message Obama is trying to deliver within the joke about bs: “I truly believe that I can make people’s lives better.” But if he really does believe that, then why insert a subtle disclaimer (it’s all “bullshit”) inherent in the casually deprecating tone that seems to negate its seriousness and casts an ironic and juvenile eye on the entire enterprise?

And then, of course, there’s the more subtle message beneath. Obama seems to be admitting that, at least at the moment when he utters whatever bullshit he happens to be spewing, he does believe it. That trick of believing and yet not believing is one of the exercises at which narcissists and con men are skilled. In order to sell a product convincingly, it’s necessary to believe your own bullshit, if only temporarily.

But there’s also another level operating here, one that was described very well by Hilton Kramer. In the following quote he is speaking of Stalinists, but what he says is applicable to the majority of leftists such as Obama as well:

“It is in the nature of Stalinism for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying – and not only to others, but first of all to themselves – a fundamental part of their lives. It is always a mistake to assume that Stalinists do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically For their loyalty is to something other than the truth.”

So Obama’s ability to lie, and his relationship to his own lies, is multiply-determined: by his narcissism, by the fact of his being a president who is protected from the harsh truth, and by his leftism. He believes and does not believe at the same time, and shifts between the two depending on the strategic value of one or the other attitude at any given moment.

Is that true of the current crop of candidates? I can’t speak for all of them, but my guess is that it’s true for many or even most, but not all. Some really really do believe their own bullshit. Some are well aware that it’s bullshit, but they think it’s tasty bullshit that will sell. One of the reasons we’re seeing more of this, post-Obama, is that he showed how very very successful it could be in the right hands.

I think this is especially the case with the career politicians among the current crop of Democratic candidates. Even if career politicians start out believing, it probably doesn’t take long for a lot of it to become a game.

I think the phenomenon transcends party affiliation, but I also have observed it to be especially marked with the left, because they tend to promise the moon and they must know it’s fiscally impossible. They’re playing to a combination of the gullible, the wishful, the idealistic, the ignorant, and the greedy.

I think that what most career politicans (and some new ones as well) really really really want is power, whether that was their original motive or not. And the way they believe they can get it is to be elected. And they say what they think they need to say to reach that goal.

Crime and religion

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday there was a lot of back-and-forth in the comments of this post about the relation between violent crime and religious belief. One of the comments was by Richard Saunders, and it went like this:

If I don’t believe in God and some kind of judgement and reward or punishment after death, why should I not give into my basest impulses, take a room on the 34th floor of a Las Vegas hotel, and open fire onto a concert below, and then kill myself?

It’s a somewhat rhetorical question, because of course Richard Saunders isn’t saying that most atheists are mass murderers. It’s really asking whether religion is a major force that stops people who would otherwise be committing violent crimes from following through and actually doing it.

The answer is that we don’t know, but there have been attempts to find out. And, as with most social science research, it’s hard to get a clear idea of what’s going on.

Later in the comments, Roy Nathanson responded to Richard Saunders this way:

In fact, there is a negative correlation [between violence and religious belief] at all levels. The most secular countries are also the least violent. And the prison population in the U.S. has a far lower percentage of atheists than the general population.

The same commenter later added (on the specific topic of the religious beliefs of mass shooters), after some further back-and-forth:

…[I]t turns out that mass shooters do have a strong tendency toward a lack of religiosity. In this case, I think that the lack of religiosity is simply one more symptom of the root cause, which is a near total isolation from society. The people who commit mass shootings are typically isolated loners. It isn’t that they don’t go to church, it is that they don’t engage in any social interactions that would reinforce their natural empathy for other people. They see everyone as “them” and no one as “us”.

It was the statements that Roy Nathanson offered on violent crime in general as it correlates with religion that interested me enough to write the present post: in particular, that “the most secular countries are also the least violent” and that “the prison population in the U.S. has a far lower percentage of atheists than the general population.”

As both participants in that discussion know (and as I’m assuming just about everyone here knows), correlation is not causation. Just to take one example, religiousness is more common in less educated people, and violent crime is more common among them as well. So is it something about religion that reduces violent crime, or something about education—or is it some other factor they have in common?

In addition, crime in the US is far more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, and those groups also happen to have much lower rates of atheism. But that doesn’t mean atheism vs. religiosity is an important independent variable for those groups.

So we have this sort of discussion about religion and murder, for example:

And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.

But what else is different about those two groups of states? The low-murder states are richer and they are whiter (those are not the only differences, of course).

Louisiana is about 1/3 black, and it is the 48th richest state (in other words, one of the very poorest). Alabama is the 46th richest state and it is a little over a quarter black. Both states are highly religious, with up to 90% of the population reporting being affiliated with a religion.

In contrast, Vermont is the 21st richest state and it is 1.27% black, and 63% of its people are religiously affiliated (still rather high, actually). Oregon is number 26 in wealth and has 1.9% black people, and 69% religiously-affiliated people. Very similar to Vermont.

So what causes those high crime rates in those two states? It certainly can’t be ascribed to being religious, just from those figures. All was can see are the correlations.

For that matter, we don’t know why black people have higher crime rates, either, although the issue certainly has been studied rather heavily. Some say it’s because the police are bigoted and target black people. Some say it’s poverty. Or family breakdown. Or any number of other things.

I’m not about to be able to answer the question. But I would wager very strongly that the cause is not the higher rate of religious affiliation among black people.

An interesting study would compare, for example, the violent crime rates of religious black people with the violent crime rates of non-religious black people, matched for socio-economic levels and education. Then you’d be getting somewhere, although I doubt you’d get a definitive answer. But the data at least would be more relevant.

Apparently there hasn’t been a ton of previous research on that sort of thing, but here’s an excerpt from a 2014 review of the picture. It seems to support the thesis that religiousness is negatively correlated with violent crime rather than positively correlated with it:

Chamlin and Cochran’s (1995) state-level analysis finds that, among other indicators of the strength of non-economic institutions, state religious participation dampened the criminogenic effect of poverty. Similarly, Jang and Johnson (2001) find that individual religiosity moderates the effect of neighborhood disorder on drug use by augmenting the social control of youth living in disadvantaged and disorganized communities, just as Pearce et al. (2003) observe that personal religiosity reduces the criminogenic effect of exposure to neighborhood violence.

That same article contained new research as well, by doing a county-by-county and race by race comparison of crime rates and religious affiliation rates, with some interesting results [emphasis mine]:

The dependent variables in this study are county-level White, Black, and Latino violent index arrest rates (sum of arrests for homicide, aggravated assault, forcible rape, robbery) averaged across the 1999-2001 period…

We focus on three unique dimensions of the religious contexts in our sample of counties. First, total religious adherence is measured as the proportion of the county’s population that adheres to a religious institution recorded by the RCMS, as indicated by affiliation or regular attendance in a congregation. Second, civically-engaged religious adherence is measured as the proportion of the county’s population that adheres to a religious institution recognized as being more civically-engaged than the national average according to the General Social Survey (see Tolbert et al. 1998; Lee and Bartkowski 2004). Third, religious homogeneity is measured as the relative diversity of the religious adherents within a county…

Additionally, we include four race/ethnic specific disadvantage indicators – poverty, unemployment, education, and female headship – that have emerged as important macro-structural characteristics in criminological theory and prior empirical research…

First, total religious adherence is negatively related to violent crime for Whites and Blacks, net of other key measures. That is, the greater the proportion of a county’s population that is religious, the lower the violent crime rate for Whites and Blacks (we note also that the effect for Latinos is in the expected direction, though not significant at p< .05). However, there are no significant differences across Whites, Blacks, and Latinos in the relationship between total religious adherence and violence. F-tests for differences were all non-significant (p>.10, two tailed), suggesting that religious adherence has roughly equivalent associations with violence across race/ethnic groups.

Second, civically-engaged religious adherence has a statistically significant, negative association with White violent crime (p< .001), but not Black or Latino violent crime…

Third, religious homogeneity is associated with statistically significant reductions in violence for Blacks (p< .05) and Latinos (p<.01), but not Whites. Put another way, Black and Latino violence is lower in counties where adherents belong to similar types of religious institutions…

Fourth, other key macro-structural characteristics, particularly concentrated disadvantage, have the expected criminogenic (positive) association with violence for all three racial and ethnic groups. That is, a greater confluence of poverty, unemployment, female headship, and low education in a county is associated with increased violent crime rates for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. Likewise, racial/ethnic heterogeneity (or the diversity of a county’s population) also has important criminogenic effects for Whites in all three models, but appears to reduce Black violence net of religious contextual characteristics and other key controls.

Much more at the link.

So there you have it. What little data we have seems to indicate the religious affiliation reduces violent crime somewhat. Once again, though, we don’t know whether there is some other variable that differentiates religious people from non-religious people that is really what is influencing the statistic. After all, religiousness is not randomly distributed in the population.