Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Have a look at this:
en.wikipedia.org - Scrupulosity...

Scrupulosity is a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning.[1] It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD),[2] although this categorization is empirically disputable
...........
Scrupulosity is the modern-day medical diagnosis that corresponds to a traditional use of the term scruples in a religious context, e.g. by Roman Catholics, to mean obsessive concern with one's own sins and compulsive performance of religious devotion....
.............
In scrupulosity, a person's obsessions focus on moral or religious fears, such as the fear of being an evil person or the fear of divine retribution for sin. Although it can affect nonreligious people, it is usually related to religious beliefs. In the strict sense, not all obsessive–compulsive behaviors related to religion are instances of scrupulosity: strictly speaking, for example, scrupulosity is not present in people who repeat religious requirements merely to be sure that they were done properly.
.........

Some of Obama's Bots should be treated the same way and I sure other presidents follow have been the same .

I do understand the danger in an idea like this but really think
about this, if someone says god told them to kill the person they
just killed we as a society don't just go, oh ok well heck you
believed so vehemently that you get a free pass, belief does
not dictate reality, unfortunately we have found this out the hard
way.

How many mothers swear god told them to murder their
children, i know of a few serving life prison terms for that very
reason right now, they believe with their whole heart that god
told them to murder their children...... belief cannot be treated
with respect when it is extremely harmful to society.

On the other hand not all fundamentalist are that extreme in their
views, but i know many that claim with pride mind you, if god told
them to kill their children they would have no choice but to obey.....

Then we have fundamentalist who destroy their childrens education
in a strange attempt to protect them, even though in reality they
are doing the exact opposite, ACE schooling comes to mind
in that category, belief does not equate to forcing your own belief
on your children, why would we be ok with lying to our kids and
taking opportunities away from them, how many great minds has
this belief cost us already i wonder?

Cant do it..cant follow the line on this one. This woman, imnsho, is a nutjob. And a dangerous and naive nutjob at that. She cant even see she is subscribing to the same pattern of belief in the righteousness of her views, as a rampant fundie does in his. This blindness makes her *exceptionally* dangerous.

The idea that you, I or anyone has the right to define belief for others, let alone to determine belief for others by labeling and drugging them against their will, is a sickening case of specious reasoning! A gross violation of all the principles of liberty and justice as much as common sense and reason.

To openly seek to label and drug people for believing differently to you or out of line from some constructed 'norm' - a norm that is based on some abstract ideal that the artificial construct of society sees fit to apply this week, is near criminal in its egotism!

This woman is claiming godhood status right in front of your eyes and ppl here are applauding her? Unbelievable.
And those who think this is a triumph of atheism need to go read some Albert Pike on the subject! Atheism just another tool being used and manipulated, the same way as religion has been a tool and used. Damn..we're here supposedly trying to deny ignorance ffs..wake up!

It remains, that unless you are God and prepared to take up all that comes with that title.. then you have no RIGHT to decide belief for others about God...even the worst beliefs....no one alive has the right to choose for another what they believe or how... EVER. On ANY issue. No one!

Anyone laying claim to that right to usurp the inherent rights of another human being IS playing god...IS setting themselves up to act with 'godly powers' in the life of others. Not cool!

We have fought so hard for the freedom to think and believe as we choose..that to see everyone here seemingly so ready to jump on the wagon and disavow all we have collectively sacrificed so much for..is depressingly sad. To me, it's like watching people applauding the axe bearer at their own execution. it is a failure.

Do you really think this power to define, judge, and condemn/medicate/label is safe in the hands of any one human or group of them? Has it been so far? The mental health system, UK US EU and Au is run by the deluded, operated and controlled by big pharma and only exists as it does as a weapon of social engineering and control NOW. How much say do you have in what happens out there NOW? What makes you think you will have more if you grant them godhood by proxy?

You really want to give this group MORE power? The MHS worldwide is one of the sickest systems on earth! It CREATES fundamentalists it doesn't CURE them! Its not enough they want to control every human action and behavior according to a set of norms that are a fallacious lie in themselves..now they want to determine not just what is 'acceptable' to think and believe in..but HOW you believe it?
Really this ok for you? HELL NO for me!

Have you not learned what having absolute power can do already...have you not seen the the current MHS stats? 75% of UK 2 and 3 yr olds being placed on anti-psychotics simply for being kids..nothing else - oh..my mistake sorry - for upsetting the nice quiet peaceful wishful thinking social norms'?? WTF!

This is nothing short of evolution control..creativity control. Power abuse.Period. It wont work..no matter how ginger beer and Jesus they approach it and it hasn't worked so far either. This kind of bs control taking and power seizing is already happening now all over, and I really struggle to believe that people here would willingly hand more power over to someone or some group so simply and without question thinking its ok because they will just stop mind control at the fundies..they'd never do it to you?

BIG NEWS: They are ALREADY doing it to you!

They have already f*cked with society and humans so much that being human itself is a crime and people don't grow up mature or become truly independent free beings anymore..millions and millions of ppl already doped up not knowing their as* from Sunday...and here's this chick..thinking that if we just f*ck with peoples brains - the right peoples brains juuust a little more it will all get better somehow is a JOKE!

The potential power and the right being claimed as potential fact by this woman, a power that this program of drugging and 'reeducating' anyone who thinks differently according to a panel of 'experts' would give to any wielding it..this is THE problem. The already present and the potential for abusive exercise of power is the problem. This generates FEAR which underlies ALL of our problems.

The result of that power abuse is already clear and evident as a danger to our society right now.....we don't need to look far to grab a hundred million examples of abuse in the MHS. Yet we know..already..that fundamentalism in itself is an outcome of many other problems...most of them caused by the illogical, sick, depressed and oppressed state of human life in society itself. Fundamentalism in this sense, in itself it isn't *the* problem - it is an outcome - a symptom...but our reactions to it, very much ARE the problem.

If this woman gets her way..you can kiss your a*s goodbye....there wont BE a coming back from it. GATTACA to the tenth power will seem a day at the beach.....unbelievable.


Ro
....a non religious non atheist, free human, wearing suitably well worn and well tailored flame retardant underwear.

reply to post by bloodreviara


You are not talking about religious fundamentalism, you are talking about criminal actions.

You are trying to make a case saying,

Premises:
A. Some religious fundamentalists are also criminals
B. All criminals are a social liability
C. Social liabilities must go through a process of rehabilitation or exile

Conclusion:
1. Religious fundamentalists must go through a process of rehabilitation or exile

Logical fallacy of this argument:
Some A are B, all B are C and therefore all A are C

This argument is fallacious and lacks validity. The truth is some A are also C, but no more than any other segment of the population.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Guenter

 

The Supreme Court has logically and accurately

labeled

atheism

as a RELIGION . . .

This is not true. What the USSC stated in Wallace v. Jaffree - 472 U.S. 38 (1985) was:

At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. [Footnote 36] But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

So they are saying that the right to follow "no religion" has equal protection under the First as following a religion. Only a good spin could turn that idea into one that implies that athesim is a religion.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by bloodreviara

 

You are not talking about religious fundamentalism, you are talking about criminal actions.

You are trying to make a case saying,

Premises:
A. Some religious fundamentalists are also criminals
B. All criminals are a social liability
C. Social liabilities must go through a process of rehabilitation or exile

Conclusion:
1. Religious fundamentalists must go through a process of rehabilitation or exile

Logical fallacy of this argument:
Some A are B, all B are C and therefore all A are C

This argument is fallacious and lacks validity. The truth is some A are also C, but no more than any other segment of the population.

edit on 10-8-2013 by djr33222 because: (no reason given)

**THANKYOU**


2nd


Ro.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Guenter

 

The Supreme Court has logically and accurately

labeled

atheism

as a RELIGION . . .

This is not true. What the USSC stated in Wallace v. Jaffree - 472 U.S. 38 (1985) was:

At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. [Footnote 36] But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

So they are saying that the right to follow "no religion" has equal protection under the First as following a religion. Only a good spin could turn that idea into one that implies that athesim is a religion.

Well..they are building churches.....
www.thepunch.com.au...
Even though this article is taking the p*ss...churches for and run by atheists are springing up everywhere..If I were less a cynic, this new movement could be viewed as a great anthropological insight into the initial birth and formation processes of actual religions.

Ro

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I asked for a Constitutional right and not a single thing you posted is mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

So again, what "rights", do Christians want to deny non-Christians? Just give me the amendment numbers if that would be less complicated.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The attempts by Christians to block the interfaith Mosque that was planned to be built near Ground Zero.

Additionally, the vandalism, theft, and desecration of Islamic, pagan, and secular Christmas decorations set up alongside Christian ones also qualifies as an attempt by Christians to interfere with the rights of non-Christian peoples. So do the petitions (and successes) at having atheistic billboards and bus signs removed, despite allowing Christian advertisements on both forums to remain.

As for the same-sex couples, I'd love to point out the amendment Christians are violating by trying to prohibit them from marrying. But you're right, I can't. Do you know why that is? It's because the Constitution never defines marriage, therefore, it is unconstitutional for Christians to continue to try and prohibit them from marrying, and to limit their rights other places.

Yet, what do Christians do at every turn? Try to remove the rights for same-sex couples to marry and receive the same benefits legally granted to heterosexual couples, try to ban them from serving in the military, try to prohibit them from having legal rights when their partner is hospitalized, try to get homosexuality defined as a mental illness, and so on, and so forth.

Just because you, as a Christian, are not doing it, doesn't mean other Christians aren't. Take a look at the very logical fallacy you accused me of: you're only one Christian, you don't speak for the majority. The majority speaks for itself, and the fact that it took us this long to give women the right to vote, to recognize African-Americans as human beings, to allow inter-racial marriage, and now to allow same-sex marriage in some places, speaks volumes about how much the Christian majority in our country had interfered with the rights of the people.


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

The attempts by Christians to block the interfaith Mosque that was planned to be built near Ground Zero.

That doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion for Muslims. Just as a city council refusing a permit to build a church prevents a Christian from freely exercising the Christian faith.

Yet, what do Christians do at every turn? Try to remove the rights for same-sex couples to marry and receive the same benefits legally granted to heterosexual couples, try to ban them from serving in the military, try to prohibit them from having legal rights when their partner is hospitalized, try to get homosexuality defined as a mental illness, and so on, and so forth.

That's not a valid argument for gay marriage, that's an argument for Federalism. That has nothing to do with the bill of rights, and you're 100% correct, the government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to have anything to do with marriage, hetero or homo.

reply to post by Rosha

I was replying to a post which stated that the USSC had labled atheism a religion. How a percentage of atheists choose to spend their sunday doesn't change the fact that the USSC never really said such a thing.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Rosha

 

I was replying to a post which stated that the USSC had labled atheism a religion. How a percentage of atheists choose to spend their sunday doesn't change the fact that the USSC never really said such a thing.

yes...and what the USSC says and reality on the ground are often two different animals.
I'm not fussed either way..was just adding a perspective and thinking that if they will become one..it wont be long anyway.

reply to post by Rosha


Very insightful, witty, and humorous. Bravo

People generally blame religious fundamentalism for brainwashing people, starting wars, eroding the fabric of a future Utopian society, etc... but they don't talk about the social conditioning going on in the classroom, the workplace, or in front of the TV screen and how that has contributed to a docile, materialistic, petty, mean, and soulless population.

If one includes all types of indoctrination on the crazy checklist there will be no more sane people left...

Originally posted by Rosha
yes...and what the USSC says and reality on the ground are often two different animals.

But, the post I was replying to clearly made the appeal to authority, which means nothing, and it means even less if that authority never made that statement.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion for Muslims. Just as a city council refusing a permit to build a church prevents a Christian from freely exercising the Christian faith.

Oh, really?

A number of American politicians spoke out against the Park51 project:.

Among them have been Republicans Senator John McCain (AZ, 2008 presidential nominee; "would harm relations, rather than help");[87] Sarah Palin (AK, 2008 vice presidential nominee; posted to microblogging site Twitter, "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" (sic));[88] Mitt Romney[89] (former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate), Senator Johnny Isakson (GA; "could be totally insensitive"), Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine; "insensitive to the families"), Idaho Senators Jim Risch[90] and Mike Crapo[91] (not "proper"), Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson ("inappropriate and insensitive"), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty,[92] and North Carolina congressional candidate Ilario Pantano ("It is about ... territorial conquest. This mosque is a Martyr-Marker honoring the terrorists").

Park51 controversy

Religion, and attempting to prohibit the free practice of it, is instrumental in the controversy which continues to stall the Park51 plans. It is hardly just about zoning laws and building restrictions. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, John McCain, all are Christians, Christians attempting to deny Muslims the free practice of their religion because of their religion.

Any way you slice it, Christians in America absolutely want to orchestrate the rights of non-Christians, either limiting them, of removing them entirely.

That's not a valid argument for gay marriage, that's an argument for Federalism. That has nothing to do with the bill of rights, and you're 100% correct, the government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to have anything to do with marriage, hetero or homo.

Exactly. So why don't gays have the legal right to marry? Why are Christians so adamant in denying them that equality, if there's no constitutional reason to do so?

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Rosha
yes...and what the USSC says and reality on the ground are often two different animals.

But, the post I was replying to clearly made the appeal to authority, which means nothing, and it means even less if that authority never made that statement.

edit on 10-8-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I starred this because I agree.. yes, what you say is true..but.....I wasn't attacking you..nothing needed defending..k?

2nd

Ro

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by Rosha

 

Very insightful, witty, and humorous. Bravo

People generally blame religious fundamentalism for brainwashing people, starting wars, eroding the fabric of a future Utopian society, etc... but they don't talk about the social conditioning going on in the classroom, the workplace, or in front of the TV screen and how that has contributed to a docile, materialistic, petty, mean, and soulless population.

If one includes all types of indoctrination on the crazy checklist there will be no more sane people left...

lol ty..I think

I really was blinking..in shock at ppls responses..still am a little...I thought most folks were at least willing to wake up..seems I am the naive one.
Ya know..that old saying.... * know what is right in front of your face and what is hidden to you will be revealed* is so true..and yes..it came down through the ages in the vehicle of a " fundamentalist" religion....yet it applies more meaningfully now..more than ever before in history - imo.


cheers

Ro

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
The thoughts, or beliefs, in question led to inaction. That inaction led to the death of a child that didn't have to die. Are you telling us it's okay to let a child die?

The problem here is to not take a child to the hospital. When a person murders another, the problem his him murdering another. What "thoughts and beliefs" led to him murdering another? Well, it could be a few Billion different kind of thoughts and beliefs. He could use political beliefs, atheist beliefs, christian beliefs...anything, to justify his crime. You are seriously and earnestly proposing to consider thought as crime. Unbelievable.

Orwell predicted this would happen.

edit on 9-8-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

No, I'm not. Think what you want and believe what you want, but when that thought or belief leads to what is considered a crime in the society in which you live, I think it's high time we get to the bottom of WHY that crime was committed and address that issue. Laws are useless if we cannot determine why they were committed and rectify THAT problem. Without a certain amount of reasoning as to why people do what they do, we're just walking around in circles bumping into each other.

What the scientists are wanting to do is put the reason why extremists do what they do under the microscope by putting a label on it that we can legally address. As it stands now, all citizens can do is sit back and watch extremists do what they do because they're protected by religious freedom. Which is sort of a contradiction of terms anyway if you think about it.

As far as actual murder in the first degree is concerned, as in one person shooting another, the only justification under the law is self-defense or acting in defense of a third party. If I stumbled across the parents of the child in question and I were a trained medical professional, I could act in defense of a third party, that child, and take the parties involved out. My defense? I knew by way of my training that inaction would lead to that child's death, therefor, I took the situation that was leading to that child dying, out of the picture so the child could live. Is that a problem Skyfloating?

I could care less what the parents were thinking, what they were doing was leading to the death. As things are now, I could do that and get away with it, but I would need a VERY good lawyer. If those parents were actually diagnosed with a mental illness, that would make my defenders job a whole lot easier because that proof would work in my favor. That proof would help justify my actions. Remember, I'm not some random vigilante in this scenario. I'm trained to recognize peoples' physical well-being or lack thereof, and I acted accordingly.

I'm not advocating The Minority Report, I'm advocating obtaining absolute proof, by way of scientific and medical research that isn't biased by corporate grants, that pinpoints a persons mental state that came about by way of their religious beliefs. This, in my opinion, is a proactive measure that is essentially acting in defense of a third party that cannot adequately defend oneself. Common sense will tell people which religious fundamentals to focus on. The one's who have a history of believing and doing such things and who advocate violence against others of contradicting beliefs. It's a bit more civilized then the other option I already pointed out, don't you think?

Sorry Skyfloating, but that live and let live attitude you seem to have is very dangerous. It's a form of inaction in a very active world.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

No, I'm not. Think what you want and believe what you want, but when that thought or belief leads to what is considered a crime in the society in which you live, I think it's high time we get to the bottom of WHY that crime was committed and address that issue. Laws are useless if we cannot determine why they were committed and rectify THAT problem. Without a certain amount of reasoning as to why people do what they do, we're just walking around in circles bumping into each other.

Its commonly known that negative thoughts correlate to negative actions. Its also commonly known that negative thoughts do not have to lead to negative actions. I can either act on a thought or I can choose not to. So I could think about strangling you but then decide not to. Not only does a negative thought not have to lead to a negative action, but you couldnt even prove which of the Millions of thoughts caused the action. So a murderer may have had murderous thoughts, but the loss of his dog that got run over by a car, may have caused him to snap.

This makes your thought-crime model pointless. And its why law judges by actions, not by thoughts.

Sorry Skyfloating, but that live and let live attitude you seem to have is very dangerous. It's a form of inaction in a very active world.

Your mindset is thoroughly totalitarian.

The action of parents not letting their child get treatment is enough grounds for police intervention. You on the other hand wish to take it a step further and have action taken for mere thoughts.

Are you really interested in the welfare of the children or is it some other motive that drives you?

Its fair to say that religion has driven spirituality out of the human soul for some people, but these people love rules usually the harsher the better and, once thoroughly miserable but still smiling and muttering the mantra of their particular persuasion, they then proceed to try to inflict it on us or make us feel inferior to them because of their supposed piousness.

My thought is though, where do you stop with this kind of medical technology it would have to be so rigorously policed - and there is my problem