Should religious people be detained n mental hospitals?

Post Reply New Topic

I believe stationary mental institutions are only necessary if the subject is endangering themselves or others through abnormal mental behavior. That means for example undiagnosed schizophrenics or schizophrenics who refuse to be medicated when their behavior is hostile toward others or makes false claims about others (such as stalking). Also people with aggressive antisocial behaviors, such as remorseless psychopaths/sociopaths.

Yep...

https://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Reality-John-F-Schumaker/dp/0879759356

Since I value truth/reality/objectivity, I think his suggestion to embrace reality corruption to make individuals and society feel good is offensive...
What a nonsense...

Yes, there is a link between religious beliefs and psychopathology, imo...

Fifasy

In the united States, the current counselor told me that, just because someone has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, does not make it legal to lock them up in mental institutions.

In United States, someone has to violate the Mandated Reporter Law (danger to self or others, as defined by relevant professionals), to get locked up against their will. 5150. And that is just three hours. Not for the rest of their lives.

Once under 5150, in some cases, a court could order a client to get psychiatric meds, against their will.

Some schizophrenics fulfill the requirements for 5150. Some clients that are not schizophrenic fulfill the requirements for 5150.

Anyone that fulfills the requirement for 5150 should get locked up, according to the united States law right now.

It does not matter their religion or diagnoses.

It costs money to pay for a professional diagnosis. 5150 costs money

The solar system contains a lot of schizophrenics and religious zealots. With them locked up, the rest of the world would have to pay for their living costs, out of taxes.


According to your profile, you are in England. Different countries and different years have different laws

By the way, some symptoms of schizophrenia and autism overlap.

Not all diagnoses are correct.

Some articles claim that autism is often diagnosed as schizophrenia, and vice versa.

So the policy you are proposing might not sound too attractive on an autism forum

Schizophrenics are often grossly misunderstood, just like autistics

I believe Fifasy was upset when he started this thread.

But I still find it a ridiculous notion for religious people to be locked up anywhere.

I don't think it can be done, except maybe in North Korea. But then again, the Kims are seen as gods there.

Outside of the Muslim world, virtually every country has freedom of religion (or no religion) in their constitutions.

Well ... it's more complex than that. Not every Christian country has full freedom of religion.

For example, non-Christians are often targets of religious persecution in Armenia. This is because the Armenian government recognises the Church of Armenia as the official church of the country.

I think this suggestion, whether knowingly or unknowingly, hedges toward the notion that subjective life or individual needs for structuring it should be medicated away in general.

A person who has paranoid delusions that a being is telling them to subjugate other people under their system has a real problem that they need to look in the mirror on and if for some reason it turns out that they're right, ie. that they've been hit with a truly better way of living, they either need to phrase it in non-religious language and see if it can survive on its own in the marketplace of ideas and - if not - it was their own narcissism talking, or keep it to themselves.

OTOH a person using symbols as keys to their own inner terrain - different story and IMHO quite practical. Also it's not necessarily crazy for a person to hypothesize, or even consider the possibility of their own subjective experience pointing toward, a central hub or source of consciousness. It's one thing to say there's no scientific proof, a very different claim to suggest that there's no valid subjective proof and perhaps even more narcissistic, naive, or both, to suggest that such considerations or hypothesis should lend themselves toward forced medical treatment.

Remember: the Soviets used to lock people up in mental hospitals merely for being dissidents.....

I think we'd need to bring all of the new gods into this as well.

Belief in Marxist utopia, enforced equality of outcome, the inviolable sacredness of not being offended, belief in The Patriarchy (TM), belief that any workplace that doesn't have exact % of men and women or minorities per local census is discriminating or that such exact balance is even desirable - they'd all be sitting in the same big padded room with the religious.

Religious people should be locked up if they engage in terrorism, self harm, etc, but simply being out of touch with reality is the norm as a consequence of the evolutionary process...

Take the madness of the love honeymoon where all things are blue birds and roses...
This mindset allows for the "justification" of procreation, for many...

"Love is a state of mind", they say...
A state of mind out of touch with reality, I and many others say...
<booo...hisss...from the audience>



People are self-serving...
What is right for them is right for them...

They won’t be detained—they’re far too numerous and therefore far too powerful to be detained. What should happen matters very little if it has no chance of ever happening. On the other hand, the occasional poor soul here an there who falls out of favor with the wrong person or group will be detained or suffer an arbitrarily worse fate, simply because they lack the power to do anything about it. No matter what you think should happen, this is what always will.

"Should Atheists Be Detained in Mental Hospitals?"

There. Fixed it for you. How bloody, f***ing insulting!

Doesn't this discussion topic violate one of Wrong Planet's rules? If I were a moderator I would close this crap down!

PEOPLE should only be detained in mental hospitals if they present a serious, demonstrable threat to the physical health of others due to a mental illness, or if they volunteer. You do NOT need to place the word "religious" at the start of that sentence there. It is redundant (or are you trying to imply something?).

Mental hospitals should go to people rather than imprisoning people & drugging them over presumption of liability. I don't give a rats arse why someone in scrubs says they're above me; history will be the judge of them.

Mods are very tolerant here...
Do what I often do...
If I find a thread objectionable, I just ignore it...
Well actually, mostly I don't shy away from it...
But that's just me...

The thing is, do you value freedom of speech and thought more than censoring someone you don't agree with?...

I guess you could start your own thread...<shrug>

One has the option of reporting a thread.

I do use that option but with caution. While I do not like the overall trend to limit free expression of ideas, Wrong Planet serves a different purpose then a college campus or what college campuses used to be.

I have not reported this thread. This thread does have relevance because of the history of autistics being institutionalized and Trump advocating bring institutions back.

Is attacking religious people considered attacking a group in a similar vain as attacking people of a particular religion?