Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting suggestion, and if you read and listen to Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, who said, "Recent developments suggest that we will soon be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness.", it makes sense.
But making sense doesn't mean it will ever happen, especially with the 1st Amendment in place. But, it is a way to treat radical Islam, however, it also means that fundevangelicism is treatable.
Other comments include:
Taylor admits that the scope of what could end up being labelled "fundamentalist" is expansive. She continued: "I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness. In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm."
The moral-ethical dimension arises from the predictable tendency when acting on the problem, armed with a new technology, to apply to the label "fundamentalist" only to our ideological opponents, while failing to perceive the "fundamentalism" in ourselves.
Most on here are not opposed to religious freedom, as long as it is OUR religious freedom at play. Do radical Muslims have religious freedom? Should they? How are they different from radical Christians? Or Jews? Or Hindus?
Makes TOO much sense, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the treatment and the criteria for administering it. "Radical" WITH expressions of intent to harm, for instance.
We also need to raise awareness in that we must learn to use our intelligence better. To recognize that the human mind is easily sweet talked, fooled by persuasion techniques, overwhelmed or subverted by other hard wired tendencies, sometime themselves disguised as right of reason. All of this is worrisome and we have seen the horrific effects of how easily human minds can be persuaded.
If our brain is the only edge we have - then we must lean to use it better, to sharpen it, to understand it's limitations and deficiencies.
Interesting suggestion, and if you read and listen to Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, who said, "Recent developments suggest that we will soon be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness.", it makes sense.
But making sense doesn't mean it will ever happen, especially with the 1st Amendment in place. But, it is a way to treat radical Islam, however, it also means that fundevangelicism is treatable.
Other comments include:
Taylor admits that the scope of what could end up being labelled "fundamentalist" is expansive. She continued: "I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness. In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm."
The moral-ethical dimension arises from the predictable tendency when acting on the problem, armed with a new technology, to apply to the label "fundamentalist" only to our ideological opponents, while failing to perceive the "fundamentalism" in ourselves.
Most on here are not opposed to religious freedom, as long as it is OUR religious freedom at play. Do radical Muslims have religious freedom? Should they? How are they different from radical Christians? Or Jews? Or Hindus?
yeah cupper, how long have I been telling you that.
now all you do is have to say "fundymental" is not based on belief. Its a personality disorder, but thats another fact that will get in the pathological agendas.
As much as I may applaud this, this surely opens the door to many scary things. Who will determine what a mental illness is and isn't? The list frequently changes, and sometimes the changes are prompted by social pressure rather than scientific advances. Don't forget, that until 1973, certain sexual lifestyles were considered a mental disorder.
I get very suspicious when a group of people take it upon themselves to determine that certain social behaviors need to be treated. Just because we have identified and area in the brain that could receive "treatment" certainly doesn't mean it needs to be treated.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
As much as I may applaud this, this surely opens the door to many scary things. Who will determine what a mental illness is and isn't? The list frequently changes, and sometimes the changes are prompted by social pressure rather than scientific advances. Don't forget, that until 1973, certain sexual lifestyles were considered a mental disorder.
I get very suspicious when a group of people take it upon themselves to determine that certain social behaviors need to be treated. Just because we have identified and area in the brain that could receive "treatment" certainly doesn't mean it needs to be treated.
You make a good point.
That being said, how do we determine whether a mode of action is mentally destructive? It is a consensus of medical professionals? Is it a consensus of a society? Eugenics was considered modern medicine not that long ago.
Personally I think fundamentalist tendencies ARE destructive, especially to children in that situation. Adults? I really don't care what deep end they want to go to, as long as it does not effect a greater society or other individuals. So, what is the solution? Education? Partly, but that requires a population or segment of a population to want to be educated. We all know that there is some significant resistance in some elements of North American society to education that is not fundamentalist based.
Perhaps (it would never pass any legislature I can think of), it should be illegal for children to be indoctrinated and exposed to religion, and let them make their own choices after they reach the age of majority. Let those children have only a secular education, one that includes discussions of religions and all religions, including the impacts they have on various societies and cultures from a historical and current point of view, including the tenets of those religions that drive them.
That would give the young adult a basis on making a decision if they would choose to explore any particular belief.
As much as I may applaud this, this surely opens the door to many scary things. Who will determine what a mental illness is and isn't? The list frequently changes, and sometimes the changes are prompted by social pressure rather than scientific advances. Don't forget, that until 1973, certain sexual lifestyles were considered a mental disorder.
I get very suspicious when a group of people take it upon themselves to determine that certain social behaviors need to be treated. Just because we have identified and area in the brain that could receive "treatment" certainly doesn't mean it needs to be treated.
how we fell about it is irrelevant. its clearly a personality disorder. I get very suspicious of people that toss out commonsense for fear. or observation for personal emotional needs.
"treatment", true, anymore then a limp can always be treated. He limps, and that's what we say.
That being said, how do we determine whether a mode of action is mentally destructive? It is a consensus of medical professionals? Is it a consensus of a society? Eugenics was considered modern medicine not that long ago.
Personally I think fundamentalist tendencies ARE destructive, especially to children in that situation. Adults? I really don't care what deep end they want to go to, as long as it does not effect a greater society or other individuals. So, what is the solution? Education? Partly, but that requires a population or segment of a population to want to be educated. We all know that there is some significant resistance in some elements of North American society to education that is not fundamentalist based.
Perhaps (it would never pass any legislature I can think of), it should be illegal for children to be indoctrinated and exposed to religion, and let them make their own choices after they reach the age of majority. Let those children have only a secular education, one that includes discussions of religions and all religions, including the impacts they have on various societies and cultures from a historical and current point of view, including the tenets of those religions that drive them.
That would give the young adult a basis on making a decision if they would choose to explore any particular belief.
I can't see that ever being passed anywhere.
"fundamental" is not dependent on belief or religion.
So you are actually proving his point.
you must teach children both sides of the story or they didn't choose. Or in this case, all sides of the story.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
"fundamental" is not dependent on belief or religion.
So you are actually proving his point.
you must teach children both sides of the story or they didn't choose. Or in this case, all sides of the story.
Isn't that what I said when I said:
Quote:
....one that includes discussions of religions and all religions, including the impacts they have on various societies and cultures from a historical and current point of view, including the tenets of those religions that drive them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
