Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Shadow Wolf]

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

About the only real different degrees and the initiates, and as they do more "volunteer work" and "donate" more money (I've read some pretty nasty things about the church from former members) to the church they move up in rank, where they are given more information about what Scientology believes. I haven't looked into since the Xenu story became a South Park and late night TV punch line (and sometimes just letting the belief itself be the punchline), but it at least used to be members didn't learn that story until they had moved up in ranks quiet a bit. About the only real and meaningful differences between Scientology and the Manson Family is the Manson Family wasn't upfront about wanting your money (Hubbard did say religion is where the money is at, and he wanted in on it) and Scientology isn't going out and killing people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Scientology isn't going out and killing people.

There's been a number of deaths associated with Scientology and they're known to stalk and basically do what they can to destroy people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#.22Attack_the_Attacker.22_policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/

 

[william7]

Not likely to happen. Better would be to abolition all organized religion, but permit the people access to religious material and to meet in each other's homes to study and worship like the early church in the book of Acts. Acts 2:46. This would stimulate sincere religious study and practice and put an end to religion for profit and politics.

 

[idav]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

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

There are maybe some compulsions which can be used for benefit. Like asking if being extreme about cleanliness is a bad mindset, I start asking if I can have some of that. Then again it is mental to be too compulsive in general?

I do however wonder about the compulsive end of times mindset, like some sort of compulsion with death and afterlife, idk. I don't know if its that healthy to want god to wipe out most of humanity depending on theological test results.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I read a book by a psychologist who said that those who gravitate toward fundamentalist view of religion have generally had early trauma or abuse in life and like a deity that smites their perceived enemies.There are also counselors who specialize in treating people who have been damaged by fundamentalist religion. As much as I wish people would just see the ridiculousness of the concepts, I don't think it's a good idea to necessarily call it mental illness, but just make sure there are more people around to help if they want out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read a book by a psychologist who said that those who gravitate toward fundamentalist view of religion have generally had early trauma or abuse in life and like a deity that smites their perceived enemies.There are also counselors who specialize in treating people who have been damaged by fundamentalist religion. As much as I wish people would just see the ridiculousness of the concepts, I don't think it's a good idea to necessarily call it mental illness, but just make sure there are more people around to help if they want out.

Many groups are similar to religious fundamentalists.....
Feminists who hate MRAs, & vice versa
Marxists who hate capitalists, & vice versa
Black folk who hate whites, & vice versa
Democrats who hate Republicans, & vice versa
This list goes on & on.
It's not useful to classify them all as mentally ill.
But some will be.
The ones who suffer or cause suffering need treatment.

 

[Windwalker]

I heard this perfect analogy from a minister friend of mine yesterday about Fundamentalism. It's like two people going to a bar and sitting and have some drinks together. Even though both may be drinking the same drinks and sitting together at the same bar sharing each other's company, one of the two is an alcoholic and the other is not. They may be doing the same things at the same place, each thinking they are like each other, but when one gets done with the whole drinking scene at the bar with him, he goes home to his life, and the other has nowhere else to go but to stay there with his diseased drinking. It's all he has to go to. He has nothing else but his drinking.

Not everyone who participates in a Fundamentalist group is actually a fundamentalist, the same way not everyone who sits at the bar is an alcoholic. But we treat alcoholism as a disease. We treat alcoholics as those who need treatment. I used to say that I am a former-fundamentalist, but now I recognize that in fact I never actually was one. Even though I was in a fundamentalist church, and even though I tried sincerely to believe, think, and behave as them as in my youth I imaged these were the people who had the answers as they were so self-assured in their beliefs, positive in everything they preached, I never could quite become them. I was not an alcoholic. I couldn't become who they were. I didn't have the disease. And so I left, getting away from what I saw as an unhealthy religious environment.

It is fundamentalism that is the disease, like alcoholism, and their particular beliefs and practices are created around supporting their disease. But not everyone who comes into their midst to have a drink with them is necessarily a fundamentalist themselves, the same way not everyone who drinks in a bar geared for alcoholics is an alcoholic themselves. But fundamentalism itself, like alcoholism, is a disease.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard this perfect analogy from a minister friend of mine yesterday about Fundamentalism. It's like two people going to a bar and sitting and have some drinks together. Even though both may be drinking the same drinks and sitting together at the same bar sharing each other's company, one of the two is an alcoholic and the other is not. They may be doing the same things at the same place, each thinking they are like each other, but when one gets done with the whole drinking scene at the bar with him, he goes home to his life, and the other has nowhere else to go but to stay there with his diseased drinking. It's all he has to go to. He has nothing else but his drinking.

Not everyone who participates in a Fundamentalist group is actually a fundamentalist, the same way not everyone who sits at the bar is an alcoholic. But we treat alcoholism as a disease. We treat alcoholics as those who need treatment. I used to say that I am a former-fundamentalist, but now I recognize that in fact I never actually was one. Even though I was in a fundamentalist church, and even though I tried sincerely to believe, think, and behave as them as in my youth I imaged these were the people who had the answers as they were so self-assured in their beliefs, positive in everything they preached, I never could quite become them. I was not an alcoholic. I couldn't become who they were. I didn't have the disease. And so I left, getting away from what I saw as an unhealthy religious environment.

It is fundamentalism that is the disease, like alcoholism, and their particular beliefs and practices are created around supporting their disease. But not everyone who comes into their midst to have a drink with them is necessarily a fundamentalist themselves, the same way not everyone who drinks in a bar geared for alcoholics is an alcoholic themselves. But fundamentalism itself, like alcoholism, is a disease.

Let's consider my friend & leasing agent, Bart.
(No relation to the Simpsons.)
Bart is a fundamentalist.....the whole 9 yards....all the fundamentals.
He believes the Bible is the literal word of God & he's a YEC.
His work goes well, he & his family are happy & healthy...I see no dysfunction in his life.

As so many would say, he's mentally ill.
But in his deluded state he sees no problem.
What treatment should he receive?
Should it be forced upon him?
There are many millions like him.
If he's to be treated, who will bear the cost?
What if they resist?

 

[Windwalker]

Let's consider my friend & leasing agent, Bart.
(No relation to the Simpsons.)
Bart is a fundamentalist.....the whole 9 yards....all the fundamentals.
He believes the Bible is the literal word of God & he's a YEC.
His work goes well, he & his family are happy & healthy...I see no dysfunction in his life.

Then he's drinking at the bar with alcoholics and he's managing to not let it ruin his life. He doesn't need help at this point. But then again, what you see on the outside, and what's going on in the inside are not necessarily one and the same thing. This is true of what we think about anyone we think "has it together". They may or may not be all you imagine you see. Are you married to the person?

 

[Windwalker]

Should it be forced upon him?

Should treatment be forced on alcoholics? Should treatment be forced on anyone? Who is suggesting this exactly in your mind?

If he's to be treated, who will bear the cost?

Who bears the cost for treating alcoholism?

What if they resist?

What if anyone who is an alcoholic resists treatment? How do you image this is different?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then he's drinking at the bar with alcoholics and he's managing to not let it ruin his life. He doesn't need help at this point. But then again, what you see on the outside, and what's going on in the inside are not necessarily one and the same thing. This is true of what we think about anyone we think "has it together". They may or may not be all you imagine you see.

But you imagine that he's mentally ill, & a total mess on the inside.
How do you see into the soul of a man you've never met, while I'm unqualified to make observations about someone I've known for decades?

Are you married to the person?

Heavens no!
Same sex marriage is an affront to Cthulu!

 

[Revoltingest]

Should treatment be forced on alcoholics? Should treatment be forced on anyone? Who is suggesting this exactly in your mind?

I'm just asking to explore your views on the subject.
I implied nothing.

Who bears the cost for treating alcoholism?
What if anyone who is an alcoholic resists treatment? How do you image this is different?

I don't know.
Just curious about all the ramifications.
(There is a huge diversity of governmental philosophy at this place.)

 

[Windwalker]

But you imagine that he's mentally ill, & a total mess on the inside.

Did you not follow my analogy of two people sitting at the bar which is designed around supporting alcoholic behaviors, that even though both are drinking at the same bar, the same booze, and each thinking they are just like each other, only one is an alcoholic and one is not? That was the whole post. Why are you then imagining I'm say both are ill, that anyone who drinks there is an alcoholic? Can you show me where in that post I said that?

How do you see into the soul of a man you've never met, while I'm unqualified to make observations about someone I've known for decades?

I don't. And I was extremely clear that he may or may not be an actual fundamentalist, even though he is part of the "scene". I was part of that "scene" too, and was not an actual fundamentalist. All I was saying to you is don't assume that you truly know what is going on inside someone, even your close friends, because what people show you and what they are can be two different things. I was simply saying that just because you don't think there's an issue, you don't actually know that. He may, or may not, be all you think about the person. No one is, no matter what we think about them. "I had no idea they had that many problems", we are shocked when they come out and share the struggles they've had for years. All's well in paradise, until the curtain is pulled.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm just asking to explore your views on the subject.
I implied nothing.

I don't know.
Just curious about all the ramifications.
(There is a huge diversity of governmental philosophy at this place.)

The answer I gave is that it's no different than how we handle and treat other diseases, physical, mental, emotional, or otherwise. What I do not understand is why you or anyone is suggesting or imaging that designating fundamentalism is a disease, like we designate alcoholism one, means we might possibly go and round people up and put them into forced-treatment facilities? That's seems a really bizarre question to even suggest, since we don't do that with anything else currently we recognize as a disease.

 

[Sunstone]

What I do not understand is why you or anyone is suggesting or imaging that designating fundamentalism is a disease, like we designate alcoholism one, means we might possibly go and round people up and put them into forced-treatment facilities? That's seems a really bizarre question to even suggest, since we don't do that with anything else currently we recognize as a disease.

But folks just love and cherish their straw men, Windwalker! How can you be so cruel as to try and take those straw men away from them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you not follow my analogy of two people sitting at the bar which is designed around supporting alcoholic behaviors, that even though both are drinking at the same bar, the same booze, and each thinking they are just like each other, only one is an alcoholic and one is not? That was the whole post. Why are you then imagining I'm say both are ill, that anyone who drinks there is an alcoholic? Can you show me where in that post I said that?

As I read your analogy, it was about the bar representing a fundamentalist group.
The non-alcoholic wasn't a fundamentalist, but was in the group.
The alcoholic was a fundamentalist.

In the case I spoke of, Bart is a fundamentalist, & you would (as I understand your posts) classify him as mentally ill.

I don't. And I was extremely clear that he may or may not be an actual fundamentalist, even though he is part of the "scene". I was part of that "scene" too, and was not an actual fundamentalist.

I assert that he is a fundamentalist.
(So does he.)
With no outward signs of any dysfunction, how on Earth can anyone say that on the inside he's clinically mentally ill?

All I was saying to you is don't assume that you truly know what is going on inside someone, even your close friends, because what people show you and what they are can be two different things.

If I see no signs of trouble, it's pretty safe to assume there's no trouble.
But for what reason should anyone presume there is trouble when there are no signs of it?

I was simply saying that just because you don't think there's an issue, you don't actually know that. He may, or may not, be all you think about the person. No one is, no matter what we think about them. "I had no idea they had that many problems", we are shocked when they come out and share the struggles they've had for years. All's well in paradise, until the curtain is pulled.

By this line of thought, I could say that every religious person is mentally ill.
You couldn't prove otherwise for any individual because I could always say, "There could be something inside which you cannot see.".
Quod erat demonstrandum by reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Sunstone]

A bad thing. A dangerous precedent.

Is treating alcoholism as a disease a bad thing, a dangerous precedent?

 

[atanu]

The answer I gave is that it's no different than how we handle and treat other diseases, physical, mental, emotional, or otherwise. What I do not understand is why you or anyone is suggesting or imaging that designating fundamentalism is a disease, like we designate alcoholism one, means we might possibly go and round people up and put them into forced-treatment facilities? That's seems a really bizarre question to even suggest, since we don't do that with anything else currently we recognize as a disease.

I think one's belief is subjective and unless it objectively becomes destructive to self or to society, you cannot identify the people to treat. OTOH, alcoholism is very objective.

 

[Revoltingest]

The answer I gave is that it's no different than how we handle and treat other diseases, physical, mental, emotional, or otherwise. What I do not understand is why you or anyone is suggesting or imaging that designating fundamentalism is a disease, like we designate alcoholism one, means we might possibly go and round people up and put them into forced-treatment facilities?

I did not imply that anyone supported that.
But since it's possible that some might, I asked how this mental illness should be dealt with.

That's seems a really bizarre question to even suggest, since we don't do that with anything else currently we recognize as a disease.

I our country, we have had forced detainment & treatment of the mentally ill.
Some still advocate that.
So I asked the question of you, rather than making any assumption.
You answered, so now I know.

What kind of treatment do you think would benefit someone suffering from religious fundamentalism?

 

[Revoltingest]

But folks just love and cherish their straw men, Windwalker! How can you be so cruel as to try and take those straw men away from them?

What is the straw man in my question?