Religious belieft - human rights case in the making?

[Simple_Linctus]

There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like “belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief”.

It seems to me that a belief in x is by its nature a religious belief - you cannot differentiate between the two except by commonality. And to differentiate between the two like that is quite likely a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.

So are we eventually to see a court case where some mental person challenges their detention on this basis? And what fun consequences are predicted? I would love it if the courts called religious belief delusional but I’ve no idea what will happen. How can one go about causing such a case to occur?

[ITR_champion]

@Simple_Linctus

There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like “belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief”.

I strongly doubt this claim. Please give us a citation from a reliable source.

[Human_Action]

It’s my understanding that in the U.S., after O’Conner v. Donaldson, a mentally ill person may only be confined against their will if they are a danger to themselves or others. Merely being mentally ill or delusional isn’t sufficient.

Thus, the truth of a person’s delusions wouldn’t be the basis for challenging detention, since it’s not the basis for the detention.

[Simple_Linctus]

@ITR_champion

I strongly doubt this claim. Please give us a citation from a reliable source.

Read the following passage:

[quote=]

If only I’d known that I’d end up working on an ambulance I might well have paid extra (that is paid anything) to get the advanced certificate. Let me tell you why …

Every so often we get sent to ‘person behaving strangely’, sometimes this is an adult and sometimes it is a child. When we reach the patient we are told, with a straight face nonetheless, that the patient is possessed by ancestors/spirits/demons.

Despite being an evangelical atheist, I have to take this sort of thing seriously. There is however a problem - our training guidelines pull us in two directions.

Direction one: we should respect the culture and traditions of our patients.

Direction two: we should never collude with, or reinforce the delusions, of someone who is psychotic.

(Psychosis is defined as ‘irrational beliefs not shared by the patient’s traditions or culture’.)

You can see the problem that we have.

I have been to a 13-year-old boy who has been possessed by spirits and, when the police arrived, ran off like Linford Christie. Of course, he reckoned without the police van coming around the far end of the street.

I’ve been to a teenage girl who was ‘protected’ from demons by some wall hangings, but they might have found a way through and this was what was making her sick.

I’ve been to a mother who was channelling spirits in order to drive out the evil ancestors plaguing her daughter (who, unsurprisingly perhaps, had mental health issues).

I’ve been to members of an evangelical Christian cult who were trying to drive evil spirits out of their elderly relative by throwing salt at them.

I’ve been to countless people who have believed that they were possessed and have had near superhuman strength to prove it. I’ve seen them ‘levitate’ off beds despite their father sitting on top of them. I’ve seen them running down the street naked, covered in their own excrement, all in order to fulfil some direction from God.

So where do I stand? Do I respect the culture and agree that ‘yes, it might be demons’, or do I not reinforce their delusions by reminding them that a urine infection can cause similar symptoms?

More importantly, where does madness end and religion begin?

[/quote]

The above creative commons licenced passage is from a great book by a very well respected london ambulance technician. He is either quote london ambulance definition verbatim, or he is paraphrasing it more or less exactly.

Also note that it shows very well the arbitary definition trouble I am getting at.

If you really want formal cites they can easily be given but they’re a lot… drier. And remember if it’s rational, it ain’t religion. It’s ethics teaching, an archaic legal system, or fun tales.

[ITR_champion]

@Simple_Linctus

If you really want formal cites they can easily be given

That’s what they all say. In your OP, you said, “There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like ‘belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief’.” If you want anyone to believe that’s true, you should give us a citation for it. If you can’t give a citation for it, you should admit that it’s not true.

And remember if it’s rational, it ain’t religion.

Why should I believe that?

[Lobohan]

@ITR_champion

Why should I believe that?

Because there is no real evidence that religious beliefs are true. All there is, is a bunch of people *feeling *that God did something or other.

[Simple_Linctus]

@ITR_champion

That’s what they all say. In your OP, you said, “There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like ‘belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief’.” If you want anyone to believe that’s true, you should give us a citation for it. If you can’t give a citation for it, you should admit that it’s not true.

It’s in the DSM. You will have to buy the book - or of course accept quotes from it such as at the start of this.

@ITR_champion

Why should I believe that?

It’s inherent in the definition of religion.

[ITR_champion]

@Simple_Linctus

It’s in the DSM. You will have to buy the book - or of course accept quotes from it such as at the start of this.

What you just linked to provides no justification for your statement that “There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like ‘belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief’.” I suggest that you read things before you link to them. As for your statement that I “will have to buy the book”, it’s incorrect. You made the assertion, so you have the burden of proof. I do not have to wade through a 943-page book looking for a quote that you claim comes from that book. Instead, I can simply conclude that your statement is untrue, thus explaining your inability to provide the source for it.

It’s inherent in the definition of religion.

I here atheists say this sort of thing a lot. I always ask them what dictionary I should look in to find the definition they’re using and I never get an answer. (The most recent user to try this was named Victor Charlie if I recall correctly. After I asked him to back up his claim with a dictionary definition, he spit some insults at me. Shortly thereafter he left the board.)

[Human_Action]

Just to facilitate discussion, I believe Simple Linctus was referring to this quote from his/her link:

Delusional disorder is an illness characterized by the presence of nonbizarre delusions in the absence of other mood or psychotic symptoms, according to the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). It defines delusions as false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.

Bolding mine.

[Malthus]

@Human_Action

Just to facilitate discussion, I believe Simple Linctus was referring to this quote from his/her link:

Bolding mine.

The quote seems to be about the effect of culture on one’s perceptions. The idea (to summarize) is that people view external reality through a cultural filter and that this is normal and not evidence of a disorder or illness, even when it leads to conclusions about the external world that are objectively false.

This may or may not necessarily be concerning belief in a religion. Religion is certainly an aspect of culture, but it is not the whole of it. More to the point, each culture necessarily is of the view that its particular take on reality is “true” and none are wholly correct in this: nor is anyone immune from cultural bias.

[Human_Action]

@Malthus

The quote seems to be about the effect of culture on one’s perceptions. The idea (to summarize) is that people view external reality through a cultural filter and that this is normal and not evidence of a disorder or illness, even when it leads to conclusions about the external world that are objectively false.

This may or may not necessarily be concerning belief in a religion. Religion is certainly an aspect of culture, but it is not the whole of it. More to the point, each culture necessarily is of the view that its particular take on reality is “true” and none are wholly correct in this: nor is anyone immune from cultural bias.

I agree with your take.

The point that I feel the OP overlooked was that merely being delusional, in itself, is not grounds for involuntary confinement, at least in the U.S. Thus, it’s hard to imagine a court ruling on the objective truth of such delusions.

[Simple_Linctus]

@ITR_champion

What you just linked to provides no justification for your statement that “There are a bunch of mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include things like ‘belief in x… except when as part of a religious belief’.” I suggest that you read things before you link to them. As for your statement that I “will have to buy the book”, it’s incorrect. You made the assertion, so you have the burden of proof. I do not have to wade through a 943-page book looking for a quote that you claim comes from that book. Instead, I can simply conclude that your statement is untrue, thus explaining your inability to provide the source for it.

I was making a highly cunning indeed joke. You may not have gotten it, but let’s just say I’ve been reading some archived threads in which you have participated. I like to think someone else will have gotten it but then again this thread is probably not very popular due to the way I put the OP, so maybe not.

I agree it to be my burden of proof. I do however believe the evidence I have provided proves the spirit if not the letter of my assertion.

@ITR_champion

I here atheists say this sort of thing a lot. I always ask them what dictionary I should look in to find the definition they’re using and I never get an answer. (The most recent user to try this was named Victor Charlie if I recall correctly. After I asked him to back up his claim with a dictionary definition, he spit some insults at me. Shortly thereafter he left the board.)

I do not self identify as an atheist, btw, although most would probably call me one. The reason no one answers your question as to what dictionary you should look in is because it’s a very silly question based upon probably intentional misinterpretation of the phrase “definition of”.

[Simple_Linctus]

For a hint about this magnificent joke of mine, the finest joke that was ever made on this message board, or indeed the entire internet, have a look at this post.

On the other hand since we’re talking about past threads, while I was just googling for the post I wanted to bring up I happened upon another one of your threads, which I have to say was an excellent idea and was ruined by other posters and not yourself, had a suggestion of atheists (which, as I said, I do not self identify as although most people would call me one) and theists swapping book recommendations. I am rather game for that.

Also, you will see above that I have not linked “this post”. That is because while I had a post in mind when I typed it, I have been trawling through google for ten minutes to find the one I am after and my search skills are just not up to it - I read it in the last week but I just can’t find the darn thing. I have to say though that during that search I have seen that you have taken a heck of a lot of abuse from posters here. While I cannot agree with your religious positions you deserve a lot of credit for sticking around and as far as I can see arguing said positions honestly and with dignity.

I also have to say I understand your “opponents”’ frustrations. But while it may explain their loss of civility it doesn’t excuse it.