nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Religious fundamentalism as mental illness

clairefontaine

Should we lock them all up in asylums?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351347

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wibbs

studiorat wrote: »

Believers in what?

Indeed. That "the religious live longer" theory is bogus in the extreme. It applied only to the US, where religious types make up the majority, so of course being excluded, if even a little from the wider community would have an impact on health. When you go to the wider world, usually the more religious a country is the lower it's life expectancy is.

GorillaRising

I guess fundamentalist anything should be locked up so?

What about those mental militant feminists that show up to men's talks to abuse people? Let's lock them up while we're at it.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course there are. You're making the usual mistake of conflating "fundamentalist" with aggressive xenophobia. Hell some conflate fundamentalist almost exclusively with Islam. Often those who do so are fundamentalist Christians. The irony is delish.

A fundamentalist is simply someone who rigidly follows the teachings of a religion(or sometimes a political system). A fundamentalist Jain would be about the safest human being you could find yourself in a room with.

Yes I know a fundamentalist takes literal readings of doctrine and religious texts. I've never come across a fundamentalist Quaker. I thought their whole vibe was moderation.

As for Jains, sure you'd be safe, if you were only with other Jains. If an oncoming tiger or army or murderer were coming at you, you wouldn't be that safe would you? Plus their supernatural beliefs are nuts.

So no I'm not making the "usual mistake". Thanks. Plus the article isn't just about violence, its also about black and white thinking in connection to mental illness. You jumped to "the usual" conclusion.

Edited to add....

I was too hasty. You make an interesting point. Given what you say,perhaps the problem isn't with
Fundamentalism in a religion, Islam for example, the problem is in the very fundaments of that religion?

On the other hand if you look at fundamentalist Christians, they don't really practise the fundamentalist of the religion, which is about loving your enemy and forgiveness (aside from the Jesus Zombie stuff), not the death penalty and shooting abortionists. But this is what has come to mean fundamentalist Christian.

Leftist

GorillaRising wrote: »

I guess fundamentalist anything should be locked up so?

What about those mental militant feminists that show up to men's talks to abuse people? Let's lock them up while we're at it.

why, are all people with mental illnesses 'locked up'?

Links234

what is it with boards lately and "blah de blah de blah LIBERALS!"

it's starting to read like fox news

suicide_circus

Tolerant liberals seek to section those with different opinions shocker.

GorillaRising

Leftist wrote: »

why, are all people with mental illnesses 'locked up'?

Don't mind me. I was thinking of American Horror Story season 2 when I was typing that!

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I know a fundamentalist takes literal readings of doctrine and religious texts. I've never come across a fundamentalist Quaker. I thought their whole vibe was moderation.

One can be "fundamentally" moderate. Quakers have gone to prison, even to their own executions, because they refused to take up arms against other human beings. That's pretty hardcore.

As for Jains, sure you'd be safe, if you were only with other Jains. If an oncoming tiger or army or murderer were coming at you, you wouldn't be that safe would you?

Well yes you would. In extenuating circumstances they see self defence as OK, but the circumstances have to be extenuating.

I was too hasty. You make an interesting point. Given what you say,perhaps the problem isn't with
Fundamentalism in a religion, Islam for example, the problem is in the very fundaments of that religion?

Exactly. Some faiths, the Abrahamic in particular tend to be more xenophobic in their teachings and aggressive on the back of it.

However it's not the whole story. The people within the faiths are as much or equally to blame. EG Christianity. The founder of the faith was a peaceful preacher type. Never harmed anyone, certainly never killed anyone, yet his cross carrying followers have happily slaughtered millions in the last 2000 years*. Your aggressive Christian fundies nearly always quote old testament stuff in defence of their craziness as the new testament stuff doesn't give nearly so much support for that sort of guff.

Islam on the other hand was started by a very martial founder, who had people killed on his orders and there's much talk of battles, enslavement and wars in the texts, yet their impact on wholesale death and destruction is lower than the Christians. When both empires of faith were equal, you'd be far better off in the Islamic state than the Christian one.

*on the other hand they were also the first to speak out about slavery, even when it went agin the prevailing theological opinion. EG St Patrick railed against the practice and because of that and other followers the practice near vanished in Ireland, yet in Rome at the time and for a few centuries after there was an operating slave marke, with nary a word from the popes.

Baked.noodle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Ancient times

3rd century BC: Ashoka abolishes slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well but does not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India, which was under his rule.[1]
221-206 B.C.E: The Qin Dynasty’s measures to eliminate the landowning aristocracy include the abolition of slavery and the establishment of a free peasantry who owed taxes and labor to the state. They also abolished primogeniture and discouraged serfdom.[2] The dynasty was overthrown in 206 B.C.E and many of its laws were overturned.
17: Wang Mang usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform. After his assassination in 23 C.E., slavery was reinstituted.[3][4]

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

One can be "fundamentally" moderate. Quakers have gone to prison, even to their own executions, because they refused to take up arms against other human beings. That's pretty hardcore.

Well yes you would. In extenuating circumstances they see self defence as OK, but the circumstances have to be extenuating.

Exactly. Some faiths, the Abrahamic in particular tend to be more xenophobic in their teachings and aggressive on the back of it.

However it's not the whole story. The people within the faiths are as much or equally to blame. EG Christianity. The founder of the faith was a peaceful preacher type. Never harmed anyone, certainly never killed anyone, yet his cross carrying followers have happily slaughtered millions in the last 2000 years*. Your aggressive Christian fundies nearly always quote old testament stuff in defence of their craziness as the new testament stuff doesn't give nearly so much support for that sort of guff.

Islam on the other hand was started by a very martial founder, who had people killed on his orders and there's much talk of battles, enslavement and wars in the texts, yet their impact on wholesale death and destruction is lower than the Christians. When both empires of faith were equal, you'd be far better off in the Islamic state than the Christian one.

*on the other hand they were also the first to speak out about slavery, even when it went agin the prevailing theological opinion. EG St Patrick railed against the practice and because of that and other followers the practice near vanished in Ireland, yet in Rome at the time and for a few centuries after there was an operating slave marke, with nary a word from the popes.

Hmnnnn ... Ok, thanks for that about the Quakers. Thats really interesting. I'd like to read more about that.

Perhaps the definitions of fundamentalism have changed? The article and the connection between fundamentalism and mental illness isn't just about violence but about black and white thinking, which has certainly be tied into mental illness. (We can of course criticise the psychs too...would they have called the Quakers nuts in that instance? And have them put in asylums like the Soviets did to their dissenters?)

That aside, Christian fundamentalists are not forgiving or loving of their enemies. They have come to mean something else entirely. Or how the Irish Church treated its women. Not all that Christian, and yet recognisably fundamentalist no?

Also you don't have to be a fundamentalist of your religion to practise cruelties, like circumcision, or denial of blood transfusions. Those are the "norms" in some religions.

Wibbs

Baked.noodle wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Yep, sorry should have said in Europe.

clairefontaine wrote: »

The article and the connection between fundamentalism and mental illness isn't just about violence but about black and white thinking which has certainly be tied into mental illness.

I'd argue that too TBH. Which mental illness? Many show very muddled thinking, the very opposite of black and white thought. The very definition in our heads and culture of "madness" is highly disordered thinking.

(We can of course criticise the psychs too...would they have called the Quakers nuts in that instance? And have them put in asylums like the Soviets did to their dissenters?)

Oh no doubt that kinda thing has happened alright. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness not that long ago.

That aside, Christian fundamentalists are not forgiving or loving of their enemies. They have come to mean something else entirely.

Probably because it would have been very hard to build an imperial faith on the back of actual Christian thinking. And imperial faith it was. The Roman Catholic church for the guts of 1000 years was a de facto European empire. When Protestants came along they had only the books left to them by the Roman church to go on and in many ways just went on as before.

Or how the Irish Church treated its women. Not all that Christian, and yet recognisably fundamentalist no?

While Jesus was remarkably open to women and the very early church followed that idea, when the Greco Roman got it's hands on it it became very male centered. Ireland's woes and especially it's women's woes were just an extension of that.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, sorry should have said in Europe.

I'd argue that too TBH. Which mental illness? Many show very muddled thinking, the very opposite of black and white thought. The very definition in our heads and culture of "madness" is highly disordered thinking. Oh no doubt that kinda thing has happened alright. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness not that long ago.

Probably because it would have been very hard to build an imperial faith on the back of actual Christian thinking. And imperial faith it was. The Roman Catholic church for the guts of 1000 years was a de facto European empire. When Protestants came along they had only the books left to them by the Roman church to go on and in many ways just went on as before. While Jesus was remarkably open to women and the very early church followed that idea, when the Greco Roman got it's hands on it it became very male centered. Ireland's woes and especially it's women's woes were just an extension of that.

As far as I can see, unless you cherry pick your Catholicism and be a hypocrite about it, you end up in another crackpot fundamentalist religion.

The Jews and the Protestants are far more reasonable.

As much as I hate crackpot religions I don't support the idea of asylums for dissident thought.

Benny_Cake

Wibbs wrote: »

One can be "fundamentally" moderate. Quakers have gone to prison, even to their own executions, because they refused to take up arms against other human beings. That's pretty hardcore.

Quakers undoubtedly have a record of not trying to enforce their beliefs in others but I recently began attending a Quaker meeting, and from chatting to a member I learned that Quakers were pretty hardcore in the 18th and 19th centuries, disowning plenty of members for stepping out of line. Being declared bankrupt or marrying in front of a priest were some of the more common reasons. Which probably helps explain why there are now only 1500 Quakers in Ireland now! A thing of the past now, they're very liberal minded these days.

I'm of the view that any form of fundamentalism, be it political or religious, usually ends in tears. That said, locking someone up in an asylum simply because of their personal beliefs us an obscene idea.

gcgirl

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

If one person suffers from delusions, it's called mental illness.

When a large group of people suffer from delusions, it's called religion.

Plus a million

Ghost Buster

zachaus wrote: »

Speaking of mental health, believers are more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and have better mental health than bitter, nihilistic atheists. Believers also have a happier family life and live longer.

These surveys are always carried out by noble religious types (Iona institute anyone:rolleyes:) whom i suspect may have a teeny weeny bit of an agenda just like those scientisty types who are all baby eating atheists.

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

As far as I can see, unless you cherry pick your Catholicism and be a hypocrite about it, you end up in another crackpot fundamentalist religion.

Not necessarily.

The Jews and the Protestants are far more reasonable.

I disagree. While Catholic church bashing is a popular sport, particularly here in Ireland, it is often ill judged in it's history, targeting and bile. Protestants are far more reasonable? Really? Protestants killed way more "witches" than Catholicism ever did. It was almost an entirely Protestant thing. The Inquisition? The majority of the images we have of that are Protestant propaganda. The record of the various inquisitions is not nearly as crazy. Oh yea they had their moments, but given a choice between canon law and civil you would have gone for canon every time.

Civil law as it stood meant death for "heretics" and the only trial consisted of the local lord or ruler, or worse mob rule would kick off like the later witch hunts in the Protestant churches. The church sought to change that and in the 12th century brought in religious courts for such crimes. Many ruling types weren't too happy at this, but the church ploughed on and rulers had to obey or game over. They demanded evidence from expert witnesses in theology for a start. Now that may sound odd to the 21st century mind but theology was a science as far as they were concerned(and would lead to many scientific discoveries). In the end records show that the vast majority of people brought in front of the Inquisition were set free, with sentences overturned or suspended. Even those found guilty were offered penance to return to the church*. Yes people were condemned to death and handed over to the civil authorities for execution, but in numbers not even close to the lurid imaginings of nascent Protestantism.

Where the Church and inquisitions were culpable was in their treatment of European Jewry. It was not a good time to be Jewish. Even there though you had outliers in the church all the way up to various pope. Pope Alexander the Borgia lad allowed safe passage and settlement of Jews fleeing Spain. Leo 10 another who even employed practicing Jews in his court.

Now let's regard Protestant churches and fundies among em. As I said they loved their witch barbeques and pursuit of heresy. The other problem with them is because in many of them there is no central authority, they're more free to interpret scripture. This is both good and bad. You see this with Islam. Same book, same passage and one Muslim will take "be peaceful" from it and another will read "kill all infidels!". A central authority tends to mitigate excesses over time. It also makes them more flexible in interpretation and better at spreading that interpretation. So over time the Catholic church has theologically changed stuff in the original texts(which is what got Protestants up in arms about in the first place). They're less likely to be literalists.

Take creationism. Oh the church was well dubious about us coming from monkeys but today sees this as valid and that the adam and eve thing is an allegory. Compare to your many Protestants, particularly in the US who are extreme literalists who actually believe Noah built a huge effin boat. Vanishingly few Catholic scholars or laypeople would buy that guff.

As for Jews being more reasonable? Indeed they seem to be. However for much of their history they were happy to stone people to death and remember some of the worst episodes in Christian thinking comes is inspired by the old testament. which is an entirely Jewish book. Plus because they were so cruelly oppressed for so long it pays to be reasonable and keep your head down. If they had taken over Europe I'd put money we would have seen similar levels of guff from them. Indeed you don't have to look far today to see examples of it. Go to modern day Israel and who are about the worst bastards to non Jewish peoples in the area? Hardline fundamentalist Jews tooled up with M16's. And their women aren't exactly models of feminism either.

As much as I hate crackpot religions I don't support the idea of asylums for dissident thought.

Yea just a tad Stalinist that guff.

* people can forget that while a heretic was considered a social danger by civil law, canon law and the theology of the church saw them more as lost sheep that needed to be brought back to christ. A subtle but important difference as it meant the church was happier if they succeeded in the fight against satan by bringing such people into the fold. Killing a heretic would have meant they had failed.

conorhal

Good point Wibbs.

The reformation was in England akin to 'The Terror' in revolutionary France. Heretics burnt at the stake were a common occurance, thousands died and the reformation was a shield for some really unplesent puritans who persecuted people for doing things like 'singing'. The reformationists behaved in a manner akin to the Taliban, everybody was running around pointing at neighbours and shouting heritic! while burning books, art and smashing sculptures. Henry was delighted that he had dissolved the monistary's as he could enrich himself and his lords by parcelling out the land while Cardinal Woolsley and Cromwell competed to see just how many they could burn at the stake. Not really 'good times'.

I agree also on the point about Stalinism. We seem to have worryingly re-entered a period where 'though crimes' will see you spending a stint in a Siberian mental institute. I'm specificaly thinking of that youtube video of the woman on the tube that launched into a racist rant. Was she charged with being drunk and disorderly or with verbal assault and threatening behaviour? No, she was detained indefinately under the mental health act for her own saftey. That's worrying.

Wacker The Attacker

zachaus wrote: »

I wonder do boards.ie Ltd. tolerate similar OPs on gay people or Jews?

You think that's bad.

Wait until someone starts a thread about muslims

Baked.noodle

Fundamentalists of adult age and of any kind are wholly responsible for their actions, regardless of any indoctrination. Whether they believe something is right or wrong is largely irrelevant, they must adhere to the law in whatever country they reside like almost everybody else or face clear consequences. The lines between the law and religion can blur in some countries, yet even there the law is widely anticipated and understood. When somebody of sound mind seriously breaks the law they should go to jail as punishment. Obviously the punishment depends on the crime committed and the law where the crime was committed. Fundamentalists who break the law understand that what they are doing is unlawful and punishable. People of sound mind are understood to have agency, or will with an acceptable measure of responsibility. Some of these people may have some questionable beliefs but at the very least they understand the lawfulness of their actions and decide to adhere to the law or break it.

Most people who suffer, or have suffered mental illness keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, some people who suffer from mental health problems have lost this agency. They can no longer be held responsible for their actions as the person’s agency has been undermined by mental illness. The consequences of such a person’s actions were not fully understood by the person experiencing mental illness. This person may still be aware that what they are about to do is breaking the law, but lacks the judgement and self-control to rationally evaluate and become responsible for their choices. These people really need help. Unfortunately, if you become criminally insane in Ireland you will probably spend most of your time in solitary confinement in prison. Not surprisingly, “patients” get inadequate treatment and what’s kept out of sight is out of mind. It seems to me that we have an unusual breed of fundamentalist in Ireland. Its proponents follow a doctrine of cruelty and indifference.

Mardy Bum

The kids in the Westboro Baptist Church can count themselves lucky if they manage to escape that cult when they get older. The leaders of that group are all lawyers who defended themselves in the Supreme Court if I'm not mistaken. Now being an able lawyer but being completely warped socially and ethically either means they have socio/psychopathic tendencies or fundamentalism in and of itself is to blame.

kunst nugget

zachaus wrote: »

Speaking of mental health, believers are more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and have better mental health than bitter, nihilistic atheists. Believers also have a happier family life and live longer.

Beliebers on the other have very short and anguished existences, persecuted on all sides.

And in truth, I'm sure that believers probably have better mental health than bitter, nihilistic atheists but I'm sure the mental health of the contended, positive thinking atheists are probably doing fine in the mental health stakes.

KyussBishop

It's surprisingly easy for anyone to start believing nonsense, then throw in a bit of insecurity and defensiveness, and you'll see many of them become devout when challenged and their personal integrity/self-image come in danger, due to the worrying thought that what they believe might be complete nonsense, often coupled with a massive waste of past time/efforts (so ironically, you get a doubling-down on the stupidity, and doubling-down of investment into intellectual 'sunk-costs').

It's not a mental illness, it's just plain old stupidity, engrained in human nature - literally everyone is susceptible to it, whether they'll admit it or not (even stuff as small/simple as picking up negative stereotypes off of TV ads, simply through repetition).

There's no way to uncontroversially label what beliefs should and should not constitute a mental illness either, so it's just primed for political abuse.

The main problem that many of the mentally ill among the religious have (where the belief directly/indirectly leads to the mental illness), is for those who base far too much of their life, self-worth and sense of security on religion itself, meaning that shedding belief also has enormously negative personal ramifications for them in the short/mid (maybe even long) run.
That's not mental illness, but is either brainwashing or severely misguided personal development (or lack of personal development).

Being indoctrinated into religious belief (certainly more extreme kinds), can certainly lead to mental illness (even severe mental illness), but isn't innately a mental illness in itself, and it's dangerous to try and class it that way, due to the potential for political abuse of what beliefs constitute a 'mental illness'.

Baked.noodle

I agree. I think one flag for mental illness it the likelihood of a sick person to invent his psychosis. People who are susceptible to fundamentalist indoctrination usually adopt whole world views, or occasionally mix and match. A person who suffers from psychosis changes their mind many times a day or week. A person with deep religious or philosophical views will probably make some slight change in behaviour but not beliefs under the influence of medication, whilst a mentally ill person can change both their behaviour and beliefs dramatically in a short period of time using meds.

Nodin

clairefontaine wrote: »

..............
The Jews and the Protestants are far more reasonable.

............

Fanatic settlers are "reasonable", Ian Paisley, Rev Willie Mc Crae "reasonable".

Truly, your home dimension is one of wonders and marvels.

TwoShedsJackson

zachaus wrote: »

Speaking of mental health, believers are more likely to lead healthier lifestyles and have better mental health than bitter, nihilistic atheists. Believers also have a happier family life and live longer.

Did you just come to this conclusion yourself?

Amerika

"We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would except that it would put them on the same side as the United States." - Ann Coulter

Wibbs

Nodin wrote: »

Fanatic settlers are "reasonable", Ian Paisley, Rev Willie Mc Crae "reasonable".

Exactly. I would even go so far as to say that of the Abrahamic faiths the Catholics are the least likely to be literalists regarding their holy books and by a goodly margin too. In Islam while there most certainly is interpretation and many debates have gone on within their theology for most of it's existence, the book, the Quran is The Word and not open for discussion on that point. Among fundie Protestants a not dissimilar notion is in evidence. If it's in the holy book it is real and did happen.

Catholicism is not nearly so literalist and hasn't been for a very long time. The Genesis story was seen by many church theologians going back to the early medieval as an allegorical story that could be explored as such. So 10th century catholic theologians would be more open to Darwinism than many modern US protestant groups.

What about Galileo I hear some cry? Interesting case. For a start it's one of the rare occasions where the church butted head on with a scientist. It wasn't because of his heliocentric views as such, it was because he got into theology and encroached on the clergy's patch as much as anything. The heliocentric view of the universe had some legs already and wasn't a new theory by any means and the church had discussed it. Indeed old Nick Copernicus who solidified the theory was himself a churchman, his only official degree was as a canonical lawyer and it's likely he took some minor holy orders.

Plus who was the first audience to request a lecture on his theory? Place your bets folks and you may be surprised.... The pope and a bevvie of cardinals and various thinkers. Yep and they encouraged him to publish this theory ASAP as it really intrigued them. No burning stakes in sight. The highest echelons of the Catholic church in the 1600's of all times, being gangbusters for science? Yea really doesn't fit the stereotype does it? Oh sure there were a few who had issues with it and that impacted on Galileo's subsequent grief with the church. Again it's not as simplistic as is often portrayed. Galileo remained a devout catholic to the end and Copernicus dedicated his finished book on the theory to the pope.

clairefontaine

No Wibbs, what I mean is within Protestanism you have a multitude of options, at least in the US, episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, etc eat...there a re hundreds.

And the Jews have options too. You can be reformed and not Orthodox for example.

Catholics don't do this. You follow or you don't.

Transubstantiation. Are you kidding me?

How about those guys in the Phillipines who crucify themselves on Good Friday? Or some of the weird stuff in Latin America? Or those weird parades in Spain?

Nodin

clairefontaine wrote: »

No Wibbs, what I mean is within Protestanism you have a multitude of options, at least I the US, episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, etc eat...there a re hundreds.

And the Jews have options to. You can be reformed and not Orthodox for example.

Catholics don't do this. You follow or you don't. Eh Transubstantiatipn anyone?

....you seem a tad confused. Catholicism is a church/faith etc. Lutherans likewise, as are Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians etc. Each has a fairly specific set of beliefs which you sign up to, and if you believe something else, there may be no leeway whatsoever for dissent.

Nodin

clairefontaine wrote: »

How about those guys in the Phillipines who crucify themselves on Good Friday? Or some of the weird stuff in Latin America? Or those weird parades in Spain?

What about them?