Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Revoltingest]

fundamentalism

fun·da·men·tal·ism
(fŭn′də-mĕn′tl-ĭz′əm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Delusion (DSM-5)
Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

Your definitions still do not make mental illness a consequent trait of fundamentalism.
#1 has the qualifier "and often by".
#2a is an example of a subset, rather than a comprehensive definition.
As for delusions, I underlined a problem.

What would you expect to achieve by brand all fundamentalists "mentally ill"?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think you can categorically call all fundamentalists pathological.

Did I say this? What you quoted said this, "I did not say, nor is anyone saying, that "religion" is a pathology. I said fundamentalism is". I'm not sure how you see that as me saying "all fundamentalists [are] pathological". Those are not my words.

There are degrees to fundamentalism.

I'll accept this as true. Some results in suicide bombing and killing abortion doctors. Others just results in diseased thinking, like God will leave you behind when the rapture comes if you're playing with yourself at that time, or that your parents are going to hell because they were baptized with sprinkling instead of submersion in water, or that God brings hurricanes to punish cities for being gay-friendly, and the like sort of tortured thoughts. But it's all pretty dysfunctional for those in it, regardless.

If someone is using religion as a board sword to enact violence or harming themselves or others, sure. But if someone is merely adhering to their sacred text vehemently, holding those beliefs as dear to them and believing in them so strongly they have no other beliefs nor can they be reasoned with, BUT, their beliefs harm no one. What is wrong with that?

First of all, I don't define fundamentalism as holding one's beliefs strongly to the point where they can't be reasoned with. Plenty of people fit that bill without being fundamentalists. There are other factors that go into that, not the least of which is a certain amount of emotional security which allows someone to examine their own beliefs, maturity levels, etc. What defines fundamentalism is a staunchly anti-modernity stance, which means putting one's intellect on the chopping block. It is defined by anti-intellectualism, anti-science, anti-reason, and so forth. It's not truly a pre-modern mythic-literal belief system, but rather a pseudo-traditional, pseudo-scientific enterprise, not really fundamental at all, honestly.

Do their beliefs harm people? Yes! Just ask those who grew up in it and spend their lives trying to recover from it! It harmed them. Yes, indeed it does. Just pop over to any Ex-Christian website and read a few of the "X-emonies" as they call them. Now, add to this harm to others beyond their own ranks. Their desire to mix their "brand" of religion with politics, using deceptive means and methods, lying, cheating, misrepresenting, manipulation, and so forth in their self-declared "war on culture", trying to prevent others from access to equal rights, imposing themselves on others, etc, is neither spiritually valid or healthy, or socially, or morally valid. They harm themselves, and others in their narcissistic, self-righteous, amoral form of religious perversions. Want a very real example of this in action? Please read this post I made a few weeks ago about the predatory practices of these "fundamentalists" who violated the sacred moment of my father's death. Please read it and tell me you think this form of religion is healthy for them, or others. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/religious-predators.186777/

The world is full of fundamentalists. Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Falwell, etc. These men may not be to your liking but do they harm anyone?

Yes, they do. Pop on over to Ex-Christian.net and do some reading there. The man who started the site to help those healing and recovering from the brand of Christianity that we are talking about here, was a former altar working in the Billy Graham crusade. Spend some time reading their testimonies of how their minds and emotions have be messed up from it. For right or wrong in the things they say and the anger they display, you do have to recognize the hurt and harm that has befallen them. In all honesty, it's like those who are recovering from abusive relationships. That's what fundamentalism is. Spiritual and psychological abuse.

OTOH, people like Phelps or that moron in Florida who wanted to burn all Qu'rans, yes, then I could see your point. But there is a great deal of danger is simply calling all people who are religious fundamentalists as pathological.

Again, I never said those words.

 

[Wu Wei]

Your definitions still do not make mental illness a consequent trait of fundamentalism.
#1 has the qualifier "and often by".
#2a is an example of a subset, rather than a comprehensive definition.
As for delusions, I underlined a problem.

I know, I did not make fundamentalism a mental disorder, I simply supplied a definition that is all. Also I did notice that there was no mention of mental disorder in the term fundamentalism, whichis why I posted the definition.

There is no mention of fundamentalism in the DSM-4 or DSM-5 however there is a DSM-4 based discussion of "Religious or Spiritual Problem" and it does make me wonder if there has not been some confusion between "Religious or Spiritual Problem" and "Religious Fundamentalism".

What would you expect to achieve by brand all fundamentalists "mentally ill"?

Since I am not trying to brand all (or any) fundamentalists as "mentally ill" I really cannot answer your question.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know, I did not make fundamentalism a mental disorder, I simply supplied a definition that is all. Also I did notice that there was no mention of mental disorder in the term fundamentalism, whichis why I posted the definition.

There is no mention of fundamentalism in the DSM-4 or DSM-5 however there is a DSM-4 based discussion of "Religious or Spiritual Problem" and it does make me wonder if there has not been some confusion between "Religious or Spiritual Problem" and "Religious Fundamentalism".



Since I am not trying to brand all (or any) fundamentalists as "mentally ill" I really cannot answer your question.

I thought I was responding to someone else!
So my response is inappropriate to you.
S*** on a cracker!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Take a mythical book , bring up a child with some "suitable" religious instructions - thats it, and he or she will follow it for entire life without questioning. Thats what every religion is.

No other religion is more uncivilized and threatful to a nation (and humanity) as Islam is.

Religion (especially islam) is evil in disguise.

But quite a few people brought up in a religious way choose to follow a different religion, or to leave religion behind.

There are many forms of Islaam (as there are many forms of other religions) - some forms may well be 'uncivilised' and 'threatful to a nation (and humanity)', but not all forms.

What's your definition of evil?

 

[Augustus]

Since deeply religious parents can never think against their religion, I do believe that the government should pass laws to ensure that every religion should prove itself scientifically before imparting it to a child especially to check religious fundamentalism

I'm pretty sure whatever ideology you follow couldn't be proved 'scientifically' either.

All of these cuddly, nice, fluffy ideologies are just as fictitious. Maybe they should be mental illnesses too.

 

[lovesong]

What you are saying is true in general. What these really are is just a matter of being developmentally immature. At a certain stage of growth these narcissistic behaviors are in fact part of normal development. Everyone grows through them in early childhood where they are initially incapable of taking on the perspective of the other, to empathize with them, seeing only their point of view as right and true. Then as they mature they become able to move out of themselves as center and take on the other's point of view, putting themselves in their seat and seeing through their eyes in a 2nd person perspective (a perspective of a perspective). Then as they continue to mature they move into 3rd person perspectives (a perspective of a perspective of a perspective), then 4th, 5th, 6th, and even higher perspectives beyond those in truly advanced cases. Most mature people however should be able to at the very least take a 2nd person perspective, if not 3rd or 4th person perspectives to be considered healthy adults.

So why then is fundamentalism a disease? Because rather than becoming a supportive structure which promotes healthy and normal growth through these stages of development (mentally, emotionally, spiritually), it turns in on itself, absolutizing its current perspective, it's own developmental stage and keeps people locked in itself through fear and threats. Anytime the body is constrained in this way, like wrapping bindings around a young developing foot for instance, it becomes diseased, twisted and distorted never becoming fully functional. It makes the foot, in this example, dysfunctional. Fundamentalism is a structure of thoughts and beliefs which systematically targets anything that might mean the individual may grow beyond the structure itself (which is normal in healthy stages of development), and puts itself as the thing in and of itself. This is what a cancer cell does. It takes over the body feeding itself, rather than supporting the individual's growth and health. It's like the scaffolding on a building which entombs the building itself and doesn't allow any new floors to be added. This is no longer a functional support structure, but a dysfunctional one. It doesn't serve development, it cripples it, overtaking the building itself.

When the body does not grow properly, it becomes diseased. Psychologically, a failure to integrate early stages of growth into higher one creates pathologies. Repression, sub-personalities, and so forth result, and it takes years of therapy to help the individual recover. Fundamentalism in fact does create a great deal of damage in individuals for this very reason. If it is imposed upon them they may end up spending years in recovery, trying to reclaim and rediscover what was taken from them, what was denied them in their development. I've been part of several groups which exist for the recovery of individuals from these systems, and it seriously is a form of systematic abuse. It should be called a disease, as people do suffer ill-effects from it and often need to go through some form of therapy as a result of it. This is not just another form of religious beliefs, but something dysfunctional and damaging.

A good healthy religion on the other hand likewise is a structure, but one which ideally helps the individual to grow through early to later more mature stages of growth. When it is functioning, it grows the person from narcissistic early stages, through the more mature, more inclusive stages, where the person even becomes compassion itself in the world, where they have moved from pure egocentric, to world-centric and even cosmo-centric self identification where they identify with, see as all life itself. Fundamentalism again, is when the structure fails to support development of the person as a whole, halting growth which leads to distortions and pathologies.

Even if you call it immaturity, immaturity is not a disorder. If being fixed in your ways and unwilling to "grow" is really a disorder, I guess (almost) every person that's lived before the modern period was diseased in the head! As much as you say that it's constricting, unhealthy, whathaveyou, it just isn't a disorder. There are many things that all of us do that are unhealthy, in fact very little can be seen as truly "healthy" in all respects. This is one thing that really aggravates me about some of this "cutting edge" psychology, it is so intent on finding more disorders to treat that it's taking even the most basic variations in thought and behavior and classing them as problems. We are in a culture that insists we "grow" and are "open to new ideas" yet we seem to have a really hard time being open to people who break our societal norms and expectations.

 

[Demonslayer]

Mental is the middle word in Fundamentalism.

Checkmate, thread over!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Given the range of things the author in the OP brought up, I think it may have been a better point had she not said fundamentalism, but those who don't care if they bomb people for what they want, buy anything they want (including people and wars), and other anti-social behaviors that are driven by a violent, dismissive, and apologetic view for one's ideology. That seems to be more accurate, and it gives us a lot more than just religion to look at, such as the state.

 

[Windwalker]

Even if you call it immaturity, immaturity is not a disorder.

It is when it is in an adult who should be more developed at that stage. For instance narcissism is natural and normal and healthy in very young children. In an adult to be stuck at the stage however it is considered a disorder. NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

If being fixed in your ways and unwilling to "grow" is really a disorder, I guess (almost) every person that's lived before the modern period was diseased in the head!

Not what I said, nor what I am defining as fundamentalism.

As much as you say that it's constricting, unhealthy, whathaveyou, it just isn't a disorder.

If how it functions in the person is detrimental to them, and it is, then it is a disorder. Being unhealthy equals being diseased.

There are many things that all of us do that are unhealthy, in fact very little can be seen as truly "healthy" in all respects.

If what you are talking about is something like alcoholism or chronic abuse, then yes, that is in fact a disorder. One does not dabble in fundamentalism like having a glass of wine at night. It's a chronically unhealthy practice, and like continual drug abuse it will take its toll on your overall health and well-being, to the point you will need some form a therapy or another.

This is one thing that really aggravates me about some of this "cutting edge" psychology, it is so intent on finding more disorders to treat that it's taking even the most basic variations in thought and behavior and classing them as problems.

I most certainly see the effects of fundamentalism on people as something is necessary to treat, and hence why it should in fact being give a DSM category. It's like PTSD in no small way. I believe that's all that is being proposed, and it makes a whole lot of sense to me as someone who has dealt with former fundamentalists for a very many years as they go through their recoveries. It seriously affects them on many levels in very negative and detrimental ways. It takes years and years to begin to recover from it. Do you deny what I say is real? Would you say they are imagining their symptoms?

We are in a culture that insists we "grow" and are "open to new ideas" yet we seem to have a really hard time being open to people who break our societal norms and expectations.

Yes, this is normal. That's not what fundamentalism is about.

 

[JustWondering]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

Mixed, it's too complicated a subject to paint it with a broad brush. The idea of thought police is scary. However, I think we should focus on developing means of identifying people prone to violent behavior before they shoot up schools, abortion clinics and the like. Religion may play a role in a person's motives but I believe some people are prone to violent/harmful behavior regardless of their religion, if they have one. Religion should not be brought into it when determining a persons mental health. Who would be the one determining what is fundamentalist or not anyway?

 

[Wu Wei]

I thought I was responding to someone else!
So my response is inappropriate to you.
S*** on a cracker!

HEY!!! Who you callin' a cracker

 

[Revoltingest]

HEY!!! Who you callin' a cracker

Oh, no....not you.....tis an exhortation of exasperation.
Neither is it meant to be eaten.

 

[JoStories]

Did I say this? What you quoted said this, "I did not say, nor is anyone saying, that "religion" is a pathology. I said fundamentalism is". I'm not sure how you see that as me saying "all fundamentalists [are] pathological". Those are not my words.

when you use a broad all-encompassing term like fundamentalism, you run the risk of including too many or too few in your 'category'. Its much like The Joker...I mean D. Trump stating he will send all Muslims out of this country on the off chance that 3 are terrorists. Who gets to define this term and set the parameters?

I'll accept this as true. Some results in suicide bombing and killing abortion doctors. Others just results in diseased thinking, like God will leave you behind when the rapture comes if you're playing with yourself at that time, or that your parents are going to hell because they were baptized with sprinkling instead of submersion in water, or that God brings hurricanes to punish cities for being gay-friendly, and the like sort of tortured thoughts. But it's all pretty dysfunctional for those in it, regardless.

Well, for one, you reveal your bias here. so having you as one of those who decide who is and who is not on the pathological side of fundamentalism is out of the question. I agree that suicide bombers and those who kill abortion doctors are dangerous but is it not possible that they were dangerous before they found religion and that that religion just gave them a venue for their hatred?

Do their beliefs harm people? Yes! Just ask those who grew up in it and spend their lives trying to recover from it! It harmed them. Yes, indeed it does. Just pop over to any Ex-Christian website and read a few of the "X-emonies" as they call them. Now, add to this harm to others beyond their own ranks. Their desire to mix their "brand" of religion with politics, using deceptive means and methods, lying, cheating, misrepresenting, manipulation, and so forth in their self-declared "war on culture", trying to prevent others from access to equal rights, imposing themselves on others, etc, is neither spiritually valid or healthy, or socially, or morally valid. They harm themselves, and others in their narcissistic, self-righteous, amoral form of religious perversions. Want a very real example of this in action? Please read this post I made a few weeks ago about the predatory practices of these "fundamentalists" who violated the sacred moment of my father's death. Please read it and tell me you think this form of religion is healthy for them, or others. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/religious-predators.186777/

First of all, I am sorry for the loss of your father and furthermore, that your wishes were not honored. IMO, that is reprehensible on the part of the minister. Now, that said, sure, there are plenty of dangerous fundy's. I have mentioned a few. Yet, my mother is a fundy. Would you come here and try to treat her? I will fight you to the death over that one. I strongly disagree that all people of faith are brainwashed. You make me think of Jim Jones and the Heaven's Gate cult. Or Scientology. That one should be medicated! But not all are like these and therein lies my issue. You paint the lot with this all encompassing brush of yours and where does it end? Its nothing short of thought police.

 

[Windwalker]

when you use a broad all-encompassing term like fundamentalism, you run the risk of including too many or too few in your 'category'. Its much like The Joker...I mean D. Trump stating he will send all Muslims out of this country on the off chance that 3 are terrorists. Who gets to define this term and set the parameters?

I'm not sure how you imagine I am broad brush stroking all people of faith as fundamentalists. I am not. I myself could be called a person of faith. Most definitely. The term fundamentalist is a common one that I did not make up. It is applied pretty specifically to certain types of systems and patterns of thinking, including secular as well as religious. I've mentioned this many times in other posts you probably didn't read of mine in this thread, and as such you are probably getting a very limited and skewed understanding of what I am saying and basing all these assumptions you are making about what you think I am saying off that.

Well, for one, you reveal your bias here. so having you as one of those who decide who is and who is not on the pathological side of fundamentalism is out of the question.

Why? I would think because I have some pretty extensive experience working with fundamentalists, and having been one myself actually makes me more qualified to understand what the issues actually are. You think direct, firsthand personal experience disqualifies me? Tell that to your doctor next time you see him because you think his experiences make him too biased to know what he's talking about.

I agree that suicide bombers and those who kill abortion doctors are dangerous but is it not possible that they were dangerous before they found religion and that that religion just gave them a venue for their hatred?

Absolutely! Yes. I made that very argument at the outset of this discussion, if you feel so inclined to read what I've posted elsewhere in this thread. People who are extreme black and white thinkers, fearful, paranoid, etc very often are attracted to fundamentalist groups because they validate and reinforce all these negative qualities. It's people like this who create these groups, and the groups reinforce the negative patterns of thought in a feedback loop. Therefore, they are unhealthy. Therefore, this fundamentalist pattern should be considered a type of dysfunction. Even if people don't ever have any inclination of going out and shooting people it's still unhealthy. Killing others is not the measure of its dysfunction.

Again, what about all those countless droves who exit these groups with all the deep scars and baggage they have to deal with? You're failing to acknowledge them. Is that betraying your biases against wanting to face that 600 pound gorilla in the room? Fundamentalism does cause a great deal of harm to those participating in it, even if they manage to learn to cope with that disease while they live with it. People have to go through a process of recovery after leaving it. Why, if it's healthy would that even ever be necessary? Do people have to go through therapy after graduating high school? No, of course not. It's not a dysfunctional system that messes with people's minds. Fundamentalism on the other hand does create problems for people and they do need therapy many times after they manage to break free from it. That's just simply a fact.

First of all, I am sorry for the loss of your father and furthermore, that your wishes were not honored. IMO, that is reprehensible on the part of the minister. Now, that said, sure, there are plenty of dangerous fundy's. I have mentioned a few. Yet, my mother is a fundy. Would you come here and try to treat her?

Where have I ever said that fundis are dangerous? I have not, yet here you are saying that is what I am saying. Why is that? And no, I don't think anyone is suggesting rounding up fundamentalists and putting them into forced rehabs. We don't do that with people who are alcoholics, unless they actually do something to harm others and it becomes necessary. But at least at this point they can recognize and call what they are doing as a type of disorder: alcoholism. When they are put into treatment, either through court order, or they simply choose themselves to get help because it's making their lives miserable, it can be called a disorder and treated specifically as such by doctors and psychologists.

Fundamentalism should be considered a disorder and recognized as such because people do in fact suffer deep issues as a result of it. It's really that simple. No one is suggesting forcing people into treatment for engaging in some negative self-indulgence. But when they need help, at least we can understand the problems associated with it in treating them. BTW, what I saw with that woman and minister with my dying father recently is very indicative of the sorts of dysfunction you see in fundamentalism. That the woman would be so out of touch with others I can accept as simply a messed up person, but the minister himself? He did the same thing, and as such people like her, dysfunctional people like her, are rewarded and reinforced in this sort of completely out-of-touch behaviors. He is a leader. The blind leading the blind, both falling into the ditch, as Jesus said. That was not some one-off deal. It's typical.

I will fight you to the death over that one.

You wouldn't need to as it would never happen. She's free to drink the kool aid as long as she wants until such a point as she feels it's not helping her life.

I strongly disagree that all people of faith are brainwashed.

I disagree with that as well! Who on earth has said that?

You make me think of Jim Jones and the Heaven's Gate cult. Or Scientology.

Me???? No, actually based on the fact you have been making a lot of unfounded assumptions about what I think and believe, putting words into my mouth, I think it's totally you who has created this fictional character you imagine I am. I'm not part of making you think anything. That's totally on you.

That one should be medicated!

First of all, for those who need treatment following the abuses of fundamentalism, I would never recommend medications! I think things like psychotherapy, talk therapy, CBT, and other forms of psychological treatment is what is needed. I think throwing drugs into people for things only masks the symptoms and never gets to the heart of what is behind the problem. People need to examine what has happened to them and how and in what ways it has affected them psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. You don't do that by simply medicating them.

But not all are like these and therein lies my issue. You paint the lot with this all encompassing brush of yours and where does it end? Its nothing short of thought police.

To recognize that there are lot of ill-effects that come out of systems like this, and to recognize it as a pattern of dysfunction is not being the "thought police". Again, two people can believe in God, but how they think and believe is the issue, not what they believe in. Religion has its healthy, helpful forms, and it has its unhealthy, negative forms. All this is is simply acknowledging the latter, rather that trying gloss it over as legitimate. It's not legitimate. Again, I have asked other and not once gotten a response to it. What good comes from it?

 

[Demonslayer]

You make me think of Jim Jones and the Heaven's Gate cult. Or Scientology.

So you protest the lumping of all fundamentalists together, but then you lump all Scientologists together?

 

[PackJason]

So you protest the lumping of all fundamentalists together, but then you lump all Scientologists together?

Xenu is not pleased.

 

[JoStories]

So you protest the lumping of all fundamentalists together, but then you lump all Scientologists together?

Mea Culpa. I had no idea there were degrees to the faith of Scientology. My apologies to any and all Scientologists.

 

[Windwalker]

Mea Culpa. I had no idea there were degrees to the faith of Scientology. My apologies to any and all Scientologists.

There are as many degrees of faith as their are individuals. That doesn't mean you are not allowed to recognize Scientology as a dysfunctional cultic religion. You have to look at it as a system, and talk with those who have exited from it. Same thing with fundamentalism. Look at its teachings and practices, interview those who have exited from it, and so forth.

 

[Palehorse]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

A majority of religion is based on Judaism (old testament). Isms are teachings.

ism
(ĭz′əm)
n. Informal
A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory: "Formalism, by being an 'ism,' kills form by hugging it to death" (Peter Viereck)

Americas courts are swamped with mental illness. If I own a drug company, like TEVA, I could legally pump the mentally ill up with these mind controlling drugs 5 minutes before their trials. What a brilliant way of controlling the innocent. Jesus wouldn't stand a chance now adays.