Should religious people be detained n mental hospitals?

Post Reply New Topic

"should", "can", and "will" are all different things

President Trump did mention a Muslim registry

I think some people are missing something here...
The subject of the thread wasn't meant to be taken literally...
Well I hope not...
It was simply highlighting a point...

if that were the new law, then maybe some atheists and agnostics would wrongfully claim to be religious, for the purpose of going to mental hospitals. because, in some areas, it requires working two or more full time minimum wage jobs, just to pay for room and board. patients in mental hospitals do not have to pay for room or board. taxpayers pay for the living expenses for the patients in mental hospitals.

likewise, that would leave a lot of jobs unfilled, because there are a lot of religious people with jobs. nonreligious people would have to take on more work, to compensate.

I did take it literally, and that's why I hated it so much.

No, I'm not against free speech, but if you're going to suggest something like this, if you're going to suggest that those who are "religious" (a term you haven't even clarified) need to be locked up for whatever reason, then you need to do more than just basically say "because they are irrational", or "because they believe in things we can't prove". Being a Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever, isn't the same as having schizophrenia you know, and I thought that the one thing we all agree on here is that people shouldn't be locked away simply because they are different.

Ezy fix if:
1. The OP is still reading this thread...
2. The OP is willing to reply to this post...

The OP said:

To the OP:
Do you literally mean this or are you simply making a point for discussion?

I DID think you were serious. There are people out there on the internet, and they are easy to find, who say far worse things about us.

Hang on...
How did *I* become the main focus?
I never suggested religious ppl were mentally ill...
They can be, like anyone else, and I do believe theists are out of touch with the objective reality, but I also suggested that most people live in a state of mild dissociation due to the evolutionary influence...

Take it up with the OP...

I think the original poster meant it seriously. My guess is they're no longer reading as they realized, likely within a few posts, that the rest of the board wasn't agreeing with them.

We tend to be forgiving of certain kinds of posts if they seem uber-naive, especially if we don't know the person's age or the identity of the poster isn't well known.

Why we give more forgiveness to religion bashing than other topics? I don't know, I'd suppose because most people find bashing the low-hanging fruit once in a while within reason while other topics, like holocaust denial, seem harmful in almost any dose immediately to people. Suggesting haldol and straight-jackets might clearly step over that line but again I think tolerance falls back more on the possibility that this could be a very young poster or someone whose just new to these issues.

I think what at least several of us put to rest in this thread early on - religion is much more anchored as a complex sociological phenomena of social code and cultural ideals than the irrational belief in a super being and this is why people don't just assume that the bulk of humanity is schizophrenic and in need of medication, it's a really naive read of the situation. I might add though, as I don't think the universe is necessarily 'dead matter', the concept of egregore is an important one and in a way they project a sort of super being - whether in the memetic sense or even the giant servitor sense - that embodies something like the communal soul of that institution, giving it cohesion and a source of constant reflection back and forth between deity and organization (the Body of Christ and the New Jerusalem as his bride in the Revelation of John comes to mind here as well).

This thread should be retired to a rubber room. And forced to wear a straightjacket so it doesn't harm itself, or others.

He is talking about bullying here, not mental illness...
Bullys harm ppl but that doesn't mean they are psychotic...
They are simply tapping into the dark side of humanity...

That's all well and good but my point was that I don't think he was using the tongue and cheek in his OP that you were ascribing to him.

Where did I suggest he said it tongue-in-cheek?
I re-read everything I posted and didn't see anything like that...
Post the section where you thought I did...
M8, you are misrepresenting what I said...

I had/have the impression the OP was pissed off and was venting, but not to the point he seriously/literally believed they should be hospitalised...
Have you ever had a rant?

It was a stupid statement that no reasonable person could take seriously...
I.E. Religion = psychotic episodes...
Apparently we will never know definitively...<shrug>

This below, and from what you said above I think you're just objecting to my saying 'tongue in cheek' rather than 'ranting but not really believing'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e-in-cheek

The expression "tongue-in-cheek" is not the same as venting...
The OP was pissed...
He was not joking...
He was ranting...

I never suggested his comment was tongue-in-cheek...
Because I am convinced it wasn't...

No, I know several people diagnosed with schizophrenia who are not locked up in any mental facility. As long as their symptoms don't make them a threat to themselves or other people, nobody has the right to lock them against their will. False beliefs, delusions or hallucinations are not enough of a reason for locking a person.
So even if you compare being religious to a mental illness, you still don't have enough of a reason to lock someone.

Ok got it, he didn't say it jokingly or ribbingly.

We might have an interesting side thread on a slightly different topic - ie. the question of whether people really mean they say when their mad. Is there some kernel of actual truth to what a person says regarding what they believe or how they feel, even if hyperextended and out of proportion with other facts? If they're angry in the moment and saying something particularly caustic, if what they're saying isn't what made them angry or at least somewhere in very tight correlation why would they say it? As an example if I got fired from a job under spurious pretenses I try to think of something else I might go on a rant about like how much I hate red traffic signs or how much modern pop music sucks, and it's tough for me to imagine going that route or doing anything like it unless I was talking to a really hostile audience. Even then that's understating or scapegoating something milder, not saying something even more controversial.