BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?

Subject: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM

Check out this article in today's Washington Post. Apparently this cult deliberately starved/thirsted a 16-month old to death for not saying Amen; then they carried his dead body around in a suitcase for months, waiting for his resurrection; now Mom is facing murder charges which must be dropped if the poor kid actually does come back to life. There are phrases like these:

Her attorney, Steven Silverman, said the doctors found that her beliefs were indistinguishable from religious beliefs, in part because they were shared by those around her. (para break) "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors' psychiatric evaluation.

and

Silverman said he and prosecutors think Ramkissoon was brainwashed and should have been found not criminally responsible; prosecutors declined to comment. Although an inability to think critically can be a sign of brainwashing, experts said, the line between that and some religious beliefs can be difficult to discern. (para) "At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion," said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. "It's a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system."

??!?

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM

Yes - what about the other children in the cult? Is anyone protecting them from religion or delusions?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 09:42 PM

You'd think that after some months in a suitcase they'd be pretty sure the kid was dead and going to stay that way.

Murder is murder.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:10 PM

And then, there's religion AS delusion...

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:20 PM

Pretty much the same thing, I'd say!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:29 PM

The definition of the term "delusion", from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), of the American Psychiatric Association, specifically excludes religious beliefs. So, yes, according to the APA, "it's not delusional if it's religious".

I strongly doubt that ANY religion requires starving a child to death. Sounds more like a convenient excuse to me.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:17 PM

But the DSM has been a political document since its first edition. The fact that a group can agree on something does not mean it is not a delusion, or they would be no need for the psychiatric terms from mass hypnosis and mob-think.

It is not true to say "IF religion==>THEN not delusion"

It is not true to say "IF religion ==> then Delusion", either. Nor is it true to say "If delusion==> THEN religion."

There are such thing as religious experiences, as well as religious delusions, and these may be intersecting sects. This while subject was well covered by William James, for goodness' sake.

Make an article of unquestioned faith about space-time by asserting anything of a spiritual nature is delusion is really adventurous, as well as being illogical.

A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:36 PM

Recipe for disaster: Take a psychotic individual who combines delusions of grandeur and at least some measure of charisma. Add even one other person who is at best unstable enough to be very vulnerable and suggestible. Hope against hope that no one dies a horrible death.
Now we'll have some people here pretty much implying that this is what is to be expected of anyone in the world with religious faith. I don't know that there is any way to even try to reason with that level of bitter hatred.
At the same time, I don't know that you can say that a belief isn't religion because it's been hopelessly twisted by a demented individual or group of demented individuals who have gravitated together.
So go ahead; fight it out. The people involved in this incident are totally incompetent, whether from lack of intelligence or lack of sanity. They're also totally culpable for the horrific death of a little child. I have no idea how to sort out the legal definitions.
We've just lost a good friend to murder-suicide; he was the perpetrator; it had nothing to do with religious belief, and he had never been suspected of anything more threatening than a degree of emotional immaturity. I have no stomach right now for the kind of exchange I anticipate here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:17 AM

frogprince--You have my condolences on the loss of your friend. The loss of a friend, for any reason, is painful enough, but the circumstances you've described make the burden many times more difficult to handle. I wish you strength in coming to terms with the many and conflicting thoughts and feeling that must come.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:07 AM

Surely, religions rely on delusion for their very existence.

Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs/delusions unless they impact adversely on other people – especially children. By 'impact' I mean everything from physical and mental abuse to evangelising – which can, in itself, range from mildly annoying or extremely disturbing, depending on individual circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:59 AM

I see from the Washington Post story that the mother had been in the ROTC, i.e. had already had plenty of practice in blindly obeying immoral and murderous orders. I guess the American justice system doesn't regard following the military hierarchy as delusional either.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:32 AM

At the end of the day,no amount of legislative obfuscation or beaurocratic self-importance can mask, alter,deny,ignore,or justify the fact that this person has committed an horrific ,obscene,unthinkable and COMPLETELY unforgivable or excusable crime, whatever her beliefs or motivations might have been, and,therefore,she MUST forfeit her own life .
      Never mind HER beliefs ; what about the "beliefs" of the MAJORITY of the rest of us ?? Which is that she should die, I think you'll find,although,sadly,our so -called "civilised " governments would never agree.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:13 AM

Must forfeit her life? Not on your nelly.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 12:04 PM

Sigh - Yes - Let's find the unusual nut cases out there that use religion as an excuse for their whacked out behavior and use that as the yardstick to claim that all religion is bad. That's using logic. Two and two equals five. And all folk singers play the banjo. I know that because I saw Pete Seegar once on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 12:23 PM

Delusion and religion are neither an either/or thing nor a both/both thing. One can be religious and rational, and one also can be religious and delusional. One can be rational and not religious. One can also be both rational and delusional.

They are apples and oranges that can be bagged separately, or together.

Unless, of course, when relied upn as a convenient excuse to renew old thoughtlessnesses. :~) From eithew "side" of the ageless debate.

It's essentially a narcissistic loop with no out:

"You're more XXX than I am."

"No, YOU are."

"You don't repect meeeeee...."

"NO, YOU do not respect MEEEE..."


There is actually life outside this locked-tight, narcissistic argument mode. It's a nice one, actually! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:29 PM

What worries me is the idea that you can have delusions that aren't labeled as such if others share the delusion. That's what the article said - she wasn't delusional to believe her son would be resurrected because so did the rest of the cult.

Wesley, I don't see anyone but you saying what you're afraid of people saying... I think you're jumping the gun on thread hijacking.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

Mrrzy - It's just past experience with these types of threads. You've pretty much said in that past that anyone who has a belief system for a God or a higher power is delusional. That all of us are in the same boat. No qualifiers, no delineations. Jim Jones and me are just two peas in a pod. Both guilty of thought crimes. If I've put words in your mouth set me straight.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:17 PM

At best, religion is wishful thinking. We don't wanna die, so we won't.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:22 PM

No, the article did not say that "she wasn't delusional to believe her son would be resurrected because so did the rest of the cult." Her lawyer said that. Lawyers say all kinds of strange things in an effort to get their clients off.

Oh yeah...and "the mother had been in the ROTC, i.e. had already had plenty of practice in blindly obeying immoral and murderous orders." Well, no - she had been in high school junior ROTC. The most immoral order she probably ever had to follow was to clean under her fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM

It's not a matter of whether we are going to die or not--there's plenty of evidence everybody takes that ride. The question is how you define the ride.

A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM

About a good 50% of everyone's beliefs are delusional. That applies to both the religious and the non-religious in this world.

They sure enjoy pointing out the others' delusions, however. It makes them both feel way superior.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:19 PM

Believing that your imaginary friend told you to kill your neighbour is delusional yet believeing that god told you to do it is not. No wonder they say the law is an ass...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:43 PM

The law is an imperfect attempt to deal with absolutely EVERYTHING that goes wrong...or might go wrong...in an immensely complicated human existence filled with millions of unique and unpredictable individuals who might do anything at any time. It will never provide the perfect solutions we all yearn for.

Therefore, I find your characterization of it as "an ass" to be cynical, self-serving, and pointless. You're just blowing off steam.

That, of course, is the main form of activity people indulge in around here most of the time, so why should I be surprised?

You're all in a state of delusion uniquely your own, and yet you spend your days pointing the finger at somebody else and saying: "He's so delusional."

We're all delusional. It's the basis of the human ego to be delusional. It delights in its delusions. The more honest among us might have the decency to admit it, but that's a very rare thing.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:28 PM

When does a system of belief become a religion? For example, will vegetarianism or environmentalism become religions? Or even football. These systems especially in their more extreme forms certainly share the characteristics of a religion, such as blind faith. Does there have to be a god?
When I go to a conference, I often recieve a form about dietary requirements; it's not about allergies etc but are you a vegetarian, are you Jewish etc. No, I'm just a fussy bugger: but that doesn't count, it seems.
And when does a religion become a mental illness? Disordered thinking, delusions, hallucinations etc are shared by schizophrenia and certain religious systems.
And how do I start a religion? I want believers to give me lots of money and be surrounded by beautiful priestesses. You need charisma: I'd better forget it!
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM

How the brain creates God, from New Scientist. An interesting sidebar.



A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:41 PM

About a good 50% of everyone's beliefs are delusional

And what good percentage of everyone's utterances are confidently presented as if they were self-evident truths... and without a shred of evidence? Must try it. It also allows you the advantage of appearing to take the moral high ground without actually doing anything to get there.

Little Hawk, are you offering lessons in this technique?

Meanwhile, back amongst the sinners, I would put it to you that the various belief systems at the hearts of our many religions and variants of religions are not so much delusional as contested.

As for the woman in the article, the only thing we can categorically say at present is that she was not right on some level. Whether this was due to the cult she was in or pre-existing issues or something entirely different, none of us here can say. It's a profoundly horrible story. Not one you'd want to remedy by demanding further blood is shed, though.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:52 PM

Therefore, I find your characterization of it as "an ass" to be cynical, self-serving, and pointless

Not my characterisation. I don't mind being likened to Charles Dickens but doubt very much if I ever will achieve his fame. Cynical? Maybe, but true. Self-serving? If you mean it was used to underline a point then, yes, I suppose so. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Pointelss? As pointless as starving a child to death in the name of god? Maybe, but it does less harm.

As to blowing off steam. Not at all; just stating my opinion. I would not get annoyed over anyones mental condition. Unless they told me that I had to take notice of their imaginary friends as well:-)

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:33 PM

Amos,

As a psychologist and as a physician working at a mental health center, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the DSM is, and always has been, political. I never said or implied otherwise.

In answering the question asked in the title of this thread, I first gave the answer the APA would give, when I said, "The definition of the term "delusion", from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), of the American Psychiatric Association, specifically excludes religious beliefs. So, yes, according to the APA, 'it's not delusional if it's religious'."

When physicians make a diagnosis, they don't normally just make up their own personal definitions, nor do they just follow common informal usage. If a given diagnosis has an "official" definition, they will generally use that definition. The term "delusion" has an "official" definition. A person may be, shall we say, "reality challenged" and yet not meet the standard definition of "delusional".

My PERSONAL answer to the question in the thread title is that the whole dispute is nothing but a legal red herring, that the "religious" angle is nothing but a lawyer's excuse.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:28 PM

I think some folks are missing the point here. The fact that the court decided that "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," is not in any way a finding that favors the woman's defense.

It would be far better for her if she had been found to be delusional. If she were delusional, her actions could be defended on mental health grounds. But "She was following the precepts of her religion," is not a viable defense in this country.

We do not live in a theocracy. Our legal system does not allow abdication of personal responsibility based upon religious belief. That's why her attorney is trotting out the "brainwashing" defense. To get her off, he has to prove that she is mentally impaired. If she did it because of religious belief, he has no defense and she's guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:51 AM

"The law is a   ass was not Dickens. It was, I think, Lord Berkeley, iIRC.

Handing out official therapeutic positions codified in an essentially political document, Kent, is the tragedy of trying to make physicists out of psychologists and calling them psychiatrists. I mean that it creates an arbitrary, ill-founded framework of perception which is, itself, delusory in many instances.

Maybe psychiatry itself is a sort of bad-tempered religion... ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: mrdux
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:12 AM

actually, it is from Dickens:

"'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is a ass — a idiot.'"

                      -- Oliver Twist

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:57 AM

Gee, Dickens' spirit has been raised but no one has got around to Hitler yet. Why the delay???

If it's from Obama then it certainly CAN'T be delusional... can it???

There are nut jobs in every human endeavor and for every nut job there are hundreds, if not thousands, who do NOT think; they just follow.

Every great scientist who has discovered a new approach or way of looking at the phenomenon has been branded "delusional" by some colleagues or other faction of mediocrity.

The poor innocent in the luggage might be likened to Schrodinger's Cat. It's status was unknown and unknowable by the delusionals who carried it around. To them, like Schrodinger Cat, it was both alive and dead. They just didn't have sufficient information ( for them, that is) to make the determination. Had they really believed the child dead would they have carried it around in a suitcase? That seems to me to be the real question in this matter.

OK fellas... have at it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:41 AM

This isn't about religion, it's about authority. The mother was obeying orders from her leader. No different from one of Our Boys obeying orders to take out an Afghan wedding party.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:50 AM

The case has not gone to trial. The court hasn't decided anything.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: john f weldon
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:55 AM

In the words of Bob Dylan...

God said "Abraham, kill me a son!"
Abe said "God, you must be puttin' me on!"

(..where'd he get that anyway?..)

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:28 AM

You may be right, Wesley, but we haven't gotten there yet with this one!

No, just kidding. Of course there is a difference between people who believe in reality and have faith in deity, and those who believe that deity can contradict reality. I have always held that my issues are with the latter, not the former.

My issue with this particular article is that they are actually arguing in a 21st century court of law that because her delusion (and nobody is saying that the belief that the kid would come back to life wasn't delusional in actual point of fact) was shared, it wasn't delusional in actual point of LAW. That is scary.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,the sad prophet
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:45 AM

God moves in mysterious ways.




(the all time favorite explanation for psychotic delusions)

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Alice
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:56 AM

US courts are still woefully ignorant about destructive cults.

child abuse and deaths in religious cults

"CHILD Inc. reports on and opposes religion-based child abuse and neglect. Some religious groups have justified severe beatings, rejection of medical care, starvation, forced marriages, child labor, slavery, isolation, exorcism rituals, and sexual molestation as religious practices."

snip

"Nevertheless, state and federal governments have created many religious exemptions allowing parents to withhold some medical care from children, almost entirely because of Christian Science lobbying."

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Alice
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:58 AM

More from the CHILD Inc web site:

quote
"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom, but does not confer a right to abuse or neglect children. The leading case is Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM

I think "the leap" is where we go wrong. That's where the wishful thinking comes onto it. To the extent that it is a chasm we leap over, it does seem to me that the chasm is a wide one.

Personally, I will almost never say "I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE."

I prefer "I THINK that is true"---and only after some serious ruminations from my point of view.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:19 PM

they are actually arguing in a 21st century court of law that because her delusion (and nobody is saying that the belief that the kid would come back to life wasn't delusional in actual point of fact) was shared, it wasn't delusional in actual point of LAW. That is scary.

And American soldiers who shoot up Afghan wedding parties argue that because they're part of a humungous state-funded bunch of thugs who all think the same way, they aren't murderers.

That's a hell of a lot more scary.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM

Just remember that the legal process is NOT about truth; it's about PROOF, under a systematic order of evidence presentation.

A trial court is NOT "a court of justice" but "a court of law", which is a different thing altogether. "Justice" is subjective thing, and the rule of law has as one of its chief aims to arrive at resolution of controversies by as nearly objective means as the rules can contrive.

Many a judge issues--HAS to issue--judgments with which (s)he philosophically would disagree in his/her private capacity.

It is mainly because of the near-universal misunderstanding of the points in the three paragraphs above that so many of our population are contemptuous or dismissive of lawyers and the courts.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM

To reiterate my point above:

Nobody is arguing, has argued, or will argue that the woman is innocent because she acted based upon her religious convictions. That doesn't fly in US courts. Christian Scientists are not allowed to withold life-saving medical treatment from their children. If they do, they go to prison. Satanists are not allowed to hold human sacrifices. If they do, they go to prison. Muslims are not allowed to kill their sisters for having premarital sex. If they do, they go to prison.

So, stop acting like the finding that the woman is not delusional, but acted upon a religious conviction, is going to keep her from prison. It's not. It's what's going to send her and her cohorts to prison.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:12 PM

Muttered aside:

Be it noted that it wasn't Charles Dickens who said "The law is a ass," it was Mr. Bumble, one of Dickens' fictional characters. What an author puts in the mouths of one or more of his characters may or may not reflect the author's own beliefs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:37 PM

Nice point, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 02:22 PM

I still remember when Christian Scientists were withholding medical treatment from children.....and there were court battles over their right to do so. I am not sure how far the law now goes to decide 'exactly' what degree of 'faith' is permitted before medical treatment is required.

The whole issue of where regular religious beliefs leaves off and delusion begins is always awkward, because it operates on a continuum! The Heaven's Gate group was almost universally admitted to be delusional cult led by a charismatic personality. The Christian Scientists seem to be borderline, while the Jehovah's Witnesses, with their unusual beliefs about the nature of Heaven, seem to be, legally at least, on the 'safe' side. And Catholics, with belief in transubstantiation, are judged to be quite sane...by most.

All we are really arguing about is the gray areas..... and the details of the argument depend on our individual sensitivities to 'grayness'. And, in almost all debates about subjective issues, we find unstated premises behind folks' overt claims, beliefs and opinions.
   Often, it all depends, as the old saying goes, on "whose ox is being gored". When one person or group sees a potential for a court ruling or new law, even if not directed specifically at them, to interfere with their perceived 'rights' or behavior, they object.
   We see this in debates over gun laws; over red light cameras; over roof color rules in gated communities...and BOY do we see it in debates that might affect religious rights! In guns, traffic laws & roof colors, there are at least obvious standards and reasons to refer to....that can be POINTED at. In religious debates, the ultimate claims are not subject to any test, and have thousands of years of cultural norms as shelters.

In a totally neutral, scientific analysis...(theoretically), of course any non-'provable' belief suffers from some degree of delusion! But the courts and laws are created & administered by humans who almost always have some of the 'un-stated premises' in their own belief systems.

What it all comes down to is similar to the old definition that "a trial is a legal procedure to determine who has the best lawyer".

Until reason is TAUGHT in enough places to replace 'wishful thinking', we will always have these quandaries. The most egregious cases, like this one about this poor child, will get 'justice', and less clear abuse will continue be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 02:54 PM

If anyone needed another example to my points, today's Washington Post has an article about those wanting MALE circumcision banned, versus those who consider it required.


an excerpt:

"It is a sensitive issue. Pun absolutely intended.

* * *

How intactivists define circumcision: a cruel, traumatic and unnecessary surgery (the American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits are not sufficient enough to recommend the procedure) that causes enduring sexual and psychological injury to a helpless infant who can't give his consent.

How much of the medical community defines circumcision: a simple, nearly painless operation that removes an obsolete part of the body that can increase a man's susceptibility to infections and sexually transmitted diseases (circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV by 60 percent, studies show).

How religion defines circumcision: as a covenant with God, as conveyed to Abraham.

It's a lopsided fight, but each side has doctors and lawyers. Each side has data. Each accuses the other of denial. One side is labeled as a bunch of baby-cutting sex criminals. The other is labeled as sex-obsessed, fanatical loonies who are duping the public.

"We don't want to understand this," says Van Lewis, who has protested infant circumcision in Tallahassee since the '70s and helped make Florida one of 16 states that no longer publicly fund circumcision. "We're living in denial as a nation. Of what we've done to ourselves."

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:02 PM

Spleen Cringe, you asked: "Little Hawk, are you offering lessons in this technique?"

Yeah. $30 an hour. Contact me at your convenience. ;-)

As Jack Campin so aptly pointed out, it's not about religion, it's about authority. People do all sorts of destructive and insane things on the basis of obeying some authority...regardless of whether or not that authority happens to be a religious one or not.

And therein lies the problem. Most people are followers, and the people or authority systems they choose to follow can be extremely unreliable.

To quote Dylan again: "Don't follow leaders"

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:11 PM

People will do anything if some form of authority they have decided to obey without question tells them to.

Anything.

Consult the records of history for proof of that. It almost defies imagination what has been done by people obeying the authority of...

their leader
their superior officer
their mother/father/teacher
their president
their pastor
their doctor
their lawyer
their gang leader
their boss
their wife or husband
their party leader
their holy book
their political manifesto
their local officialdom
their club policy
their "friends"
etc.

To incessantly blame it all (or practically all) on religion simply indicates that one has a serious emotional problem regarding the issue of religion, and should probably seek some kind of counseling to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM

I chose not to have my boys circumcised (not circumsized, as I tried to type...) and am now sorry, but the data weren't in about AIDS at the time.

Also, secular authorities, at least, exist...