The research has been plagued by inconsistent conceptual schemes, often making it difficult and undesirable to replicate study findings. Researchers examine relationships presumed to exists, without serious concern for theoretical meanings, logical interrelations, or substantive significance. Most studies have used church membership or attendence as the sole indicators or religious commitment. However, these measures have been so poorly delineated that their conclusions are, at best, invalid. For example, broad categories of religious affiliation fail to encompass the vast differences among the major groups -- Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish -- and within each particular group. The absence of articles or references to religion and crime in mainstream criminological journals can be attributed to criminologists' disinterest and intellectual laxness. Although criminologists may feel that the importance of religion as a control in criminal behavior studies is either questionable or no long relevant, criminolgists are, in general, more closeminded and biased, less creative, and methodologically inferior to social scientists from other disciplines. Many of the theories in criminology origninated in other fields and were adopted by criminologists. Moreover, methodologies in use today were borrowed from 30-year-old textbooks, and most current research consists of efforts to replicate old studies. Criminologists should reexamine their views on religion and criminology. Criminology journal editors need to understand the relevance of this topic and to try to publish substantive articles to foster a literature of religion and criminology. Thirty references are supplied.