Do you think religion should be ...

[Tender Branson]

Example A)

A GOP candidate is elected President in a favorable Republican year after he claimed "God wants me to win".

The GOP President then says "Look, there's this country that has a leader that tried to kill my dad once. We have to get in there, because the country has weapons of mass destruction and engage in some "nation building", because God told me it's the right thing to do."

500.000 people or so will die. 9 years later the former President is still not on trial.

Example B)

A man from a poor neighbourhood in St. Louis kills 3 people because "voices told him to do so". He's sentenced to death by lethal injection.

...

The actions in Example B) would be clearly seen as a consequence of "mental disease".

But what about Example A) where the person did also "hear voices", yet a majority/plurality in the country he governs is also hearing these "voices" ? Is it not a disease because it's the "norm" ?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

I'm not surprised you'd want to suppress/ban religion, however.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, of course I wouldn't think that.

Entirely independent of truth values, (1) In Example A there were of course clear secular reasons for doing what was done even if the ones stated were bullsh**t, and (2) since 'mental disorder' is constructed socially and defined normatively it's not a mental disorder if hearing or claiming to hear the voices in question is normative. If it were to cease to be normative (which is depressing far into the realm of possibility in the West), and if it were to be classified as disordered (which is far unlikelier), that still wouldn't necessarily make it illegitimate or wrong.

No.

I'm not surprised you'd want to suppress/ban religion, however.

Hey now. It's an interesting question and Tender Branson's a reasonable fellow.

[Tender Branson]

No.

I'm not surprised you'd want to suppress/ban religion, however.

I didn't say anywhere that I want to ban or suppress it.

I asked if it is legitimate to regard it (or some fundamentalist forms of it) as some kind of mental disease by providing 2 examples that show sociological similarities, but result in 2 different situations/sentences.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No.

I'm not surprised you'd want to suppress/ban religion, however.

I didn't say anywhere that I want to ban or suppress it.

I asked if it is legitimate to regard it (or some fundamentalist forms of it) as some kind of mental disease by providing 2 examples that show sociological similarities, but result in 2 different situations/sentences.

There are certainly religious manias and mental disorders that manifest themselves in religious ways. I think that's one of those instances where we need to look at things as particulars, though.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's normal for humans to want to believe in something,  whether or not it is rational.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

I'm not surprised you'd want to suppress/ban religion, however.

I didn't say anywhere that I want to ban or suppress it.

I asked if it is legitimate to regard it (or some fundamentalist forms of it) as some kind of mental disease by providing 2 examples that show sociological similarities, but result in 2 different situations/sentences.

Ok, I clearly stand corrected. I still don't consider it a mental disorder.

That said, I don't approve of politicians saying "God wanted me to win". People only win elections because more people voted for them than for the opposition. So I guess we do agree on that one line.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's a pretty grotesque misunderstanding of what a religious person of that particular stripe means when they say 'God has told me to do X'. On a par, actually, with asserting that people with no religious beliefs are incapable of a sense of morality.

Needless to say it's also highly problematic in certain other respects; I am, of course, thinking of the stigmatisation of mental illness.

In conclusion: not cool.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Religious fanaticism, for sure. The question is poorly worded, though.

[Tender Branson]

Religious fanaticism, for sure. The question is poorly worded, though.

Do you think there would be a big difference in opinion here if I worded it "Religious fanaticism" instead of just "Religion" ?

[Redalgo]

Religion is, among other things, arguably a useful product of evolution that comes with an array of costs and benefits for people. Religion is not a mental disease or disorder - it's just an adaptation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Religious fanaticism, for sure. The question is poorly worded, though.

Do you think there would be a big difference in opinion here if I worded it "Religious fanaticism" instead of just "Religion" ?

I think differences of opinion as to what constitutes fanaticism would render the question not very useful to ask.

[ZuWo]

If you can be confronted with the facts, and still support religion, I don't think a diagnosis of schizophrenia is out of order.

It's humorous to hear such a statement from someone who considers himself a communist.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No.

[morgieb]

Of course it shouldn't.

[nclib]

Not in a clinical definition, but in a vernacular sense, perhaps, at least in some cases can be seen as akin to that.

Take Scott Roeder (abortion doctor George Tiller's killer).  Some said that a sentence of five years would be appropriate since Roeder genuinely believed he was doing the right thing (even though the vast majority of pro-lifers would not condone that). That same line of thinking could be applied to a schizophrenic murderer in some cases. Both the anti-abortion fanatic and the schizophrenic believe their behavior is acceptable, though there's no rational/secular justification. It's not necessarily relevant that one comes from religion and the other a psychiatriatic disorder (though part of the schizophrenic's sentence could include medical treatment).

[John Dibble]

No. Having irrational or delusional beliefs might be a sign of a mental disorder in some cases, but in and of itself that is not enough.

[Oakvale]

Depends what you mean.

I mean, if Bush literally thought he heard a voice speaking to him telling him to invade Iraq then, yeah, he's clearly insane and should be in asulym. But I think people saying "God told me" is just their articulation of their rationalisation process, not that they literally believe a supernatural being is giving them orders.

[Donerail]

Depends what you mean.

I mean, if Bush literally thought he heard a voice speaking to him telling him to invade Iraq then, yeah, he's clearly insane and should be in asulym. But I think people saying "God told me" is just their articulation of their rationalisation process, not that they literally believe a supernatural being is giving them orders.

The difference between:

"After thinking it over and considering my morals and religious beliefs, I consider it right to invade Iraq."
and
"The voices say I should go bomb Saddam. I shall bomb Saddam. Bomb Saddam. Bomb Saddam. Bomb Saddam."

[Supersonic]

No. -facepalm-

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Throwing 90% of the world in a nuthouse is a bad idea.

[Beet]

Advocating Classifying huge swaths of people , perhaPs a majority, as a mental disorder is not the direction that debate on this board should proceed. This thread is basically an invitation to trolling. If the issue is literal claims of hearing voices, then title the thread about that.