--Observing the Disturbing: Mormonism is a Form of Mental Illness, As Is Its Sibling, Christianity--

Both are in the business of selling sin, submission and self-hate.

Yet, there are some defenders of the faith who appear to be in denial, in denying that religious belief can clearly represent a classic form of debilitating and destructive mental illness. For example, in a recent, now-closed thread, RfM poster "summer" asserted that Mormonism is hobbled with mental dysfunctionalities, while arguing simultaneously that Christianity deserves to be cut a break:

" . . . Christianity has evolved, and is still evolving to keep up with the times. Mormonism is pretty far behind the curve. Mormonism has also institutionalized dysfunctional, controlling, and psychologically unhealthy behavior."

("Re: MaInstream Christianity believes in free agency?," by "summer," posted on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 28 November 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,351854,352156#msg-352156)


You'll get no argument here that when it comes to cultivating good mental health, Mormonism is definitely "behind the curve."

But you will if you insist that its sibling, Christianity, isn't.

Before proceeding further, let it be noted that there is a definite Mormon-Christian connection--although not the one Mormonism's propagandizing proponents would have the gullible believe. Perceptive observers of the “religious belief-as-mental illness” proposition are encouraged to compare reported findings on dysfunctional Christianity with their own mentally-disturbing experiences in Mormonism. The similarities are striking, sobering and, to use an especially appropriate term here, “sickening.” To appreciate that fact as one reads further, simply replace the words “Christian,” “the Christian Church,” and “religion” with the words “Mormon,” “the Mormon Church,” and “Mormonism,” and those parallels will become manifestly evident.
_____


--The Religion Belief/Mental Illness Connection--

Rather than attempt on my own to persuade “summer” and other like-minded posters that religious belief (including the weed-infested Mormon garden variety) is a form of mental illness, I'll instead refer interested readers to the observations and findings of others--both in and out of the Christian realm of belief--on the subject of both Christianity's manifest dysfunctionalities and harmful effects.

One highly-regarded critic in this arena is Wendell W. Watters, M.D., professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Watters is the author of the book, “Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness, and Christian God-Talk” (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1992, 198 pp.).

By way of professional credentials, Watters is a trained psychoanalyst who spent seven years in that area and 25 years as a practicing psychiatrist. He credits working with his patients has having led him “to the conclusions I have reached about the hitherto unrecognized role of Christianity in people's lives,” adding that it “became evident that in the social woodwork of the Western world, the cross of Jesus has been carved deeply over the past two thousand years and that even people who [have] never darkened a church door [have been] strongly affected by many teachings of Christianity, often without knowing it.”

As to his own personal background, Watters does not come to religion ignorantly, noting that his “early upbringing was in the Anglican (Episcopalian) faith,” with “many of the messages emanating from that institution still reverberat[ing] at some level of my being.”

(“Introduction,” pp. 11-12)


But Watters is a seasoned--and reasoned--foe of religious belief, having concluded that it is a pernicious, mind-hampering form of mental disease.. Indeed, his book banners the warning across the top of its front cover: “Christianity May Be Hazardous to Your Health!”

The other experienced author and critic is Leo Booth who, as vicar of St. George Episcopal Church in Hawthorne, California, authored the book, "When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse" (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1991, 273 pp.)

Booth describes himself this way: "My name is Leo. I'm an alcoholic. A co-dependent. A religious addict and religious abuser. I'm a recoverying priest."
_____


--The Challenge in Escaping the Prison of Mentally Destabilizing Religious Belief--

In making his case for religion as a perceivable and preventable mental illness, Watters minces no words. He dedicates his book “to all those who choose to think for themselves on existential issues, no matter how lonely and painful that may be,” and quotes freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll on the facing page:

“If people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish--if a little more enlightened, religion would perish.”

(pre-Introduction, pp. 4-5)


Watters' book starkly warns the reader of what they are about to encounter as they run up against his bold arguments on the devastating effects of religion on the human psyche:

“Churchgoers who are committed believers may be offended by this book, if, indeed, they read it all,” he acknowledges. And no wonder. Watters forthrightly announces that his thesis, “based on many years of clinical experiences, is that, despite the so-called comfort of the Christian message, Christian doctrine and teachings, deeply engrained as they are in Western society, are incompatible with the development and maintenance of sound health, and not only 'mental' health, in human beings.”

He has work cut out for him in cutting through religion belief's mental morass, observing that “[t]raditional believers tend to cling to their religious systems with a tenacity not demonstrated in the area of scientific research. Addictive belief systems become so much a part of the identity of some people, that it is often impossible to determine where the individual being stops and the religious, group-think starts.”

However, to the searching and open-minded, Watters offers hope and encouragement:

“People who are atheists, freethinkers, or humanists (who comprise approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's population) may find much to help them in their never-ending quest for genuine meaning in their lives.”

Watters informs the reader that, ultimately, he has “written for those who, while nominally religious, are increasingly dissatisfied with the theist orientation to life and, in spite of the guilt they are encouraged to feel for doubting, are prepared to explore the humanistic alternative.”

That sounds like a lot of visitors to this “Recovery from Mormonism' site.

(“Introduction,” pp. 9, 12)
_____


--Religious Belief as a Dangerous Addictive Drug--

Watters likens religion to a habit-forming narcotic, describing it as “an existential soother to which individuals, having been born atheists, are encouraged to become addicted as they grow up in our theistic society.” In this regard, he declares that “Christianity is the pacifier PAR EXCELLENCE, claiming to alleviate cosmological fear--fears largely of its own creation--and to relieve guilt that has been stimulated in the believer by Christian god-talk.”

(original emphasis)

Like pushers trying to entice their customers to inhale the “wonder drugs of deity” they peddle, Watters says that “[i]n order to sell their product, god-talking salesmen do everything possible to prevent the believer from growing up emotionally and psychologically, manipulating the greedy egocentric infant in us all with preposterous promises of eternal bliss in the hereafter.”

Watters might as well be talking to true-believing, saddled-by-their-faith Mormons who are convinced against all reason and evidence that their brand of mind-twisting religion is absolutely imperative for long-term happiness and survival:

“In our addiction, we tend to lose sight of the price tag carried by most drugs, some higher than others. . . . Christians [substitute 'Mormons'] will find it difficult to entertain the notion that the tenets of their faith (one many claim to be as essential as food and air) have side effects that are deleterious to their health and that of their children. Simply put, Christian indoctrination is a form of mental and emotional abuse that can adversely affect bodily health in the same way a drug can.”

Watters' book explains the negative side effects of hallucinatory religion to those searching for healthy meaning and economic practicality in their existence:

“ . . . [E]vidence that religion is not only irrelevant but actual harmful to human beings should be of interest, not only to other behavioral scientists, but to anyone who finds it difficult to live an unexamined life. . . . [T]he argument advanced [against habit-forming religion] should stir political decision makers, who complain about the high cost of health care even while continuing to subsided that very institution that may be actually making the public 'sick.'”

(ibid., pp. 9-10, 12)
_____


Watters isn't the only critic who finds religiousity both harmful and addictive. Author Leo Booth defines "religious addiction" as "using God, a religion or a belief system as a means both to escape or avoid painful feelings and to seek self-esteem. It involves adopting a rigid belief system that specifies only one right way, which you feel you must force onto others by means of guilt, shame, fear, brainwashing and elitism. Thus religious addiction nearly always results in the abuse of someone else in the name of your beliefs."

Booth also describes religious addiction as "a hidden epidemic," in which "the concept of God . . . is used to create guilt, shame and, ultimately, self-hate."

Religious addicts, Booth explains, are driven by their "need to control, judge and proselytize," which he says "make abuse [of themselves and others] a virtual imperative."

The driving force behind that imperative is "[t]he all-or-nothing mindset [and] the belief that sex is dirty, [along with] other symptoms [which] unite to build a wall of shame and fear around the spouses and children of religious addicts. When a religious addict's rage is couched in scripture, when it literally appears to be the wrath of God, the guilt and shame imbedded in the family go straight to the core. In this way, religious addiction destroys families as much as do other addictions."

In the end, Booth says, it amounts to "using God or religion as a fix. It is the ultimate form of co-dependency--feeling worthless in and of ourselves and looking outside ourselves for something or someone to tell us we are worthwhile. . . . It is using God, religion or a belief system as a weapon against ourselves or others. . . . [In reality, however, it is an] addiction [that] has very little to do with God or spirituality, just as food addiction and alcoholism have less to do with the substance involved than with the way in which they are abused. Religious addicts use the accessory items of religion--rituals, dogma and scriptural texts--to reinforce the dysfunctional message that all humans are evil, stupid or incapable of merit. Thus, far from enhancing spiritual development, religious addiction stunts or paralyzes spiritual growth . . . ."

Booth speaks of religious addiction as an obvious "mental disorder" in the same breath as he does "compulsive behavior and psychiatric disorders;" "drug addiction, eating disorders, co-dependency, sex and love addictions, gambling;" and "such psychiatric illnesses as depression, anxiety, paranoia and post-traumatic stress due to sexual and other physical and mental abuse."

As with drug addiction, there are definite symptoms of religious addiction, which Booth lists as follows:

--"Inability to think, doubt or question information or authority.

--"Black-and-white, simplistic thinking.

--"Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough or aren't 'doing it right.'

--"Magical thinking that God will fix you.

--"Scrupulosity: rigid, obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics or guidelines.

--"Uncompromising, judgmental attitudes.

--"Compulsive praying, gong to church or crusades, quoting scripture.

--"Unrealistic financial contributions.

--"Believing that sex it dirty, that our bodies and physical pleasures are evil.

--"Compulsive over-eating or excessive fasting.

--"Conflict with science, medicine and education.

--"Progressive detachment from the real world, isolation, breakdown of relationships.

--"Psychosomatic illness: sleeplessness, back pains, headaches, hypertension.

--"Manipulating scriptures or texts, feeling chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God.

--"Trance-like state or religious high, wearing a glazed happy face.

--"Cries for help; mental, emotional, physical breakdown, hospitalization."

While a professed believer in God, Booth nonetheless is convinced that the most effective way to treat and recover from religious addiction is not through religion itself, but through personal spirituality.

He defines "religion" as "being essentially a set of man-made principles about God, focusing on a teacher or prophet," which often contains "negative messages" that produce feelings of "alienation and and shame." Borrowing from Eric Fromm's "The Dogma of Christ," Booth explains the three-fold function of religion:

--"for all mankind, consolation for the privations exacted by life;

--"for the great majority [of humankind], encouragement to accept their class situation; and

--"for the dominant majority, relief from guilt feelings caused by the suffering of those they oppress."

Booth writes that these functions have historically been carried out by "[t]he controlling authority of the [Christian] clergy," who are tasked with "teaching and interpreting religion" in order to maintain abusive "social control" by "keep[ing] people in submission [and] fearful of error."

He notes that "[t]his divinely appointed power group claims not only to speak for God but insists that it is also the only way to God. From cradle to grave, we are trained to look to someone else to tell us what to do, when to do it and what will happen if we don't." Booth explains that this power group "make[s] the rules and say[s] the rules are God's, so that questioning the teachers or teachings equals questioning God. Those rules, those messages have been, still are, often dysfunctional and abusive." And thus, he laments, "[s]o it is that people allow themselves to be abused in the name of God."

By contrast, Booth defines "spirituality" as an individually-determined "process of becoming a positive and creative person" through "a search [for] a healthy spirituality that . . . enhance[s] our self esteem" and which leads to "the spiritual freedom of truth."

(Preface, "Leo's Story," pp. 1-2, 13; Chapter 1, "Sin, Shame, Fear and Control: The Roots of Religious Addiction," pp. 20-21, 23, 27, 30-31, 36, 38; Chapter 3, "Where Does It Hurt? The Symptoms of Religious Addiction," p. 59; Chapter 4, "Religious Addiction: A Family Disease," p. 92)
_____


--The Broad Case for Classifying Religious Belief as a Mental Disorder--

From the cover of Watters' book, "Deadly Doctrine," on through its final pages, he lobs salvo after well-aimed salvo at the negative, ignorant and unhealthy impact of religion's “deadly doctrines“ on humankind. Starting at the beginning, he draws a bead on the mental backwardness that religion creates—and the social ills that it also produces:

“Christianity's influence actually militates AGAINST human development in such vital areas as self-esteem, sexuality and social interactions. The tragic result of Christian conditioning is too often anti-social behavior, sexual dysfunction, poor psychological development, anxiety and even major psychiatric illness. [original emphasis]

“Christian indoctrination is not simply a problem affecting individuals or single families; the noxious effects of its teachings over nearly two millennia pervade society at large, even those who are not Christians, and in ways that seriously undermine human welfare and the quality of life. Christianity's aggressive pronatalist policies have encouraged large families despite parents' ability to cope either emotionally or financially. With this the Christian church has formulated rigid sexual roles, forbidding all practices not leading directly to conception. By actually promoting sexual ignorance and irresponsibility, Christianity has allowed the proliferation of such social ills as rape, child molestation and pornography.”

Watters' book further argues that “[r]ecent research data in the field of psychology and religion . . . show that patients with rigid belief systems manifest greater racism and less open-mindedness and flexibility than those with a more questing scientific attitude toward life. Biological predispositions toward severe depression and schizophrenia may also be aggravated by Christianity's promotion of an extreme body-soul dualism, self-denial and narrowly defined social roles.”

Watters' work notes how reluctantly “the Christian church” has come to grips (or “rectification”) with the mental illness-producing nature of some of its most notorious traditional and officially-peddled doctrines on such matters as “slavery, democracy, psychoanalysis, sexuality and reproduction, and religious toleration.”

(from flyleaf)
_____


Booth agrees that all is not well in the world of religious belief. He points out, for instance, that "the messages and teachings concerning the concept of original sin [which] offer the explanation that we were born bad and only by following God's rules can we overcome this inherent blight" is a manifestation of "the disease of religious addiction and abuse" which serves only to create "negative effects on self-esteem and spirituality" and which results in harming people "as individuals and as a society."

He warns that "[t]eaching the concept of original sin--that people are born bad--and keeping the focus on avoiding error, which religious addicts equate with sin, makes people slaves to following rules . . . . Promising heavenly rewards as compensation for suffering and deprivation in this life conditions people to escape into magical thinking and denial of reality. Teaching that acceptance of Christ (or any other prophet/teacher) is the way to absolve sins lead to rationalization and the inability to take responsibility for one's actions."

"This," Booth says, "is the foundation of religious addiction and abuse: We are bad and God will magically fix us if we do what someone tells us is God's wish." It is, he writes, "the conflicts and sources of guilt and shame within Christianity [that] have left us vulnerable to victimization by those who would abuse the power we give them."

Booth observes that religious addicts "all share a common experience: in the name of God, they have been made to feel fear, guilt, shame and anger. In the name of God, they have emotionally, physically or sexually abused themselves or others. In the name of God, they have brought themselves or others to the edge of financial ruin. In the name of God, they have judged and condemned themselves or others as worthless or inherently bad."

Booth notes that "[much] shame comes from dysfunctional religious beliefs" and that "[d]ysfunctional religious messages about sin, about sexuality, about God as an angry judge or Cosmic Fixer have created these toxic beliefs--from which people have tried to escape by means of addictive practices."

(Preface, "Leo's Story," p. 16; and Chapter 1, "Fear, Shame, Fear and Control," pp. 25, 31, 36)
_____


--Treating the Mental Illness of Religious Belief--

Watters, in "Deadly Doctrine," argues for rapid, intense and focused remedial action to counter the perverse, pervasive and poisonous role of Christian dogma in perpetuating a range of debilitating mental illness:

“In the face of so much human suffering resulting from Christian doctrine, it is imperative that health care professionals, recognizing the Christian belief system as an addictive disease, develop a religious status examination to help evaluate how notions about life derived from Christian god-talk compromise individuals' healthy functioning. In failing to to determine the role of oppressive religious beliefs in mental illness, physicians and other health care workers actually promote Christianity's continued stranglehold on human happiness and self-fulfillment.”

Watters' work lays out the aggressive course that must be taken to effectively counter the mental disease of religious dependence--a course that Mormons in their various stages of recovery could also arguably benefit from:

“If we are to free ourselves from the destructive end toward which god-talk is leading us, we need to cure ourselves of our addiction to religious doctrines that teach us to deny self-responsibility in all areas of our lives. . . . Only with proper education comes the promise of RECOVERY that will restore the primacy of reason and critical thinking.”

(from the fly leafs, emphasis added)

“Recovery.” As in “Recovery from Mormonism”--and in that rehabilitation process, as in recovery from Mormonism's contributing cousins in cranium-crushing crime.
_____


--The Role of Religious Belief in the Development of Significant Psychiatric Disorders--

Watters, in his chapter entitled “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” cites the work of behavioral scientist Albert Ellis in making the case that “there exists an irrefutable causal relationship between religion and emotional and mental illness.” Noting that Ellis “identifies 11 characteristics of religiosity that run counter to the development of sound mental health,” Watters offers the following summary of findings:

“Adherence to a religious view of life, in contrast to the scientific humanist view, discourages self-acceptance, self-interest and self-directedness, which are all necessary for sound mental and emotional functioning.”

Watters presents Ellis's contention that “religion tends to make healthy human-to-human relationships difficult, and encourages intolerance of others and inflexibility." Ellis asserts that “[s]eriously religious people have difficulty accepting the real world and trying to change what can be changed for the better; especially problematical is the acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Religious people make use of scientific thinking, but only until it comes too close to areas that threaten their religious beliefs. They are also prone to fanatical commitments, in contrast to the less fanatical but nonetheless passionate commitments of emotionally healthy non-believers. Generally speaking, emotionally stable people are more inclined to be risk-takers in the sense, first of all, of recognizing what they want and then taking appropriate risks to pursue their personal goals. Deeply religious people, by contrast, are more inclined to feel too guilty to pursue their goals, since self-sacrifice is such an important component of their world view.”

(Chapter 8, “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” pp. 135-36)
_____


Below are explicit examples of religious belief manifestations of mental illness.

Watters notes that “Christian doctrine and teachings are incompatible with many of the components of sound mental health . . . . ” Sound mental heath, he says, includes the following indicators:

--”self-esteem

--”self-actualization and mastery

--”good communication skills

--”related individuation and the establishment of supportive human networks,” and

--”development of healthy sexuality and reproductive responsibility”

Watters then observes that in family situations “[w]hen the couple are not only partners to each other but parents to children in a family, the destructive effects of Christian doctrine combine to compromise the healthy development of yet another generation.”

Watters writes that women, in particular, have been trapped in a mentally-battered world of their own where religious dogma denies their personal identity and right of choice:

“Until recently, women in our society were not encouraged to look upon themselves as autonomous individuals capable of developing their human potential in whatever direction it took them. Even their identities were submerged in that of their husbands. . . . Nonetheless, women were somehow expected to be effective catalysts in the self-actualization of their own children. But how can a woman be expected to develop the adaptive potential of her own biological offspring if her own adaptive potential has been compromised, not only by the gender role she has been obliged to play but by many other teachings inherent in our Christian doctrine?"

Those destructive teachings include the following:

“Consider the tendency of Christian indoctrination to produce self-loathing, guilt over pleasure, the inability to be in charge of ones won sexuality and reproductivity and a built-in orientation away from human support systems and toward the divine. Could anyone design a more inefficient training program for parents?

"The fact that most mothers in our society do not raise schizophrenic children has more to do with the innate humanity and good judgment of most women and their ability to defend themselves against the more destructive effects of Christian doctrine, even when they may repeat that doctrine like parrots Sunday after Sunday.”

(Chapter 8, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness," pp. 140-41)


In the authoritarian scheme of sex roles still largely imposed in the Christian church, Watters writes that the saving grace, so to speak, of protecting church-raised children from church-created psychiatric illness is the “female characteristic that comes to the rescue;”--namely, “the mother is expected to be 'emotional' and allowed to be demonstrably affectionate,” while in the history of Western religious culture, “that has long been denied to men. . . . Coupled with this is the traditional pressure on the male to control his feelings as much as possible, . . . [and] never to attempt to express them verbally and directly. . . . The longing for contact with a male God may be a reflection of this longing for contact with an earthly father denied to most people in the Western world because of the roles males have been and still are encouraged to play.”

Such factors, Watters argues, play their own role in the toxic relationship between “Christian doctrine and mental health,” where children are mentally imprisoned and developmentally stunted in a religiously dysfunctional and destructive environment. He notes, for instance, how “Christian teachings [demonstrably] interfere with the process of 'related individuation,' [in] that a child who is under-individuated shows poor ego boundaries and runs the risk of remaining fused with or absorbed into the stronger organism, the parent. In order for this to be the case, the parent, whose individuation has also been severely compromised, would have to remain over-involved in the life of the child.”

Watters notes that “[e]xcess criticism and hostility toward the growing child also interfere with healthy adaptive growth, making it difficult for the child to feel good about himself. Negative attitudes toward the self . . . are actually favored by Christian doctrine [and] lead naturally to negative attitudes toward others."

(ibid., pp. 140-41, 145-46)
_____


Booth likewise illustrates the plight of women in double-minded, schizophrenic-like religious belief systems, where they "are particularly vulnerable to . . . behaviors [of religious addiction] because of the secondary roles into which they are cast. For women with a Christian background, religion has given a definite message concerning their conduct:

"'. . . [W]omen should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet women will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.' (1 Tim. 2:9-15)

"'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands.' (Eph. 5:22-25)

"These verses," writes Booth, "have been the basis for the religious abuse of the female population. They help make women susceptible to becoming both addicted and abused. When religion is used as an external means of identity, of finding self-respect, these verses can become the standard against which women measure themselves. The woman who has been abused, who is seeking to purify herself or attain perfection, has only to adhere to this code to assure herself of salvation. This is how women use religion as a fantasy means to compensate for their secondary status--by becoming exemplary models of that role."

"At the same time, these texts set up a rebelliousness, an internal conflict that causes some female religious addicts to become abusive and sexually conflicted. . . .

"Just as often, the same verses . . . are used to justify sexual abusiveness [by men]. The idea of women as examples of submissive purity and sanctity sets up powerful conflicts in men, which have contributed to sexual double standards and abuse. Even today, the myth persists that there are sexual acts that men should not perform with wives, but rather mistresses. Another myth holds that women should remain sexually inexperienced, but that men should know what they're doing. . . . The conflicts produced by such mixed messages no doubt add to the range and sense of guilt felt by many religious addicts."

(Chapter 4, "Religious Addiction: A Family Disease," pp. 108-09)
_____


*Religious Belief and the Inability to Forge Meaningful Human Inter-Connectedness

A “major affective disorder” that Watters causally associates with Christian doctrine and liturgy is the actual “discoura [ment] [of] the kind of human-to-human communication and negotiation skills that make for genuinely supportive human networks, the phenomenon of 'Christian fellowship' notwithstanding.” As an example, he points to “[the] beesch[ing] of [lonely] listeners to 'come unto Jesus Christ,' thereby reinforcing the barriers that separate lonely people from their fellow human beings, [which are the] very barriers that Christianity has helped to erect.”

(Chapter 8, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness," p. 147)
_____


*Religious Belief and Depression

Another major mental illness that Watters blames on Christian contribution is depression:

“If an individual has grown up with poor human relationship skills, his or her human support systems may not be very effective, in which case full-blown clinical depression may emerge. This illness may show varying degrees of intensity and require a variety of psychiatric treatments; when it reaches the degree of intensity requiring mood-altering medication, we consider that we are then dealing with a major affective illness. The main classification system used today is BIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood disturbance is alternately one of mania and depeession) and UNIPOLAR DISORDER (in which the mood is only one of depression).”

(original emphasis)

Watters blames Christianity for contributing to the affective illness of depression through a combination of “personality factors, early maternal deprivation, loss of human supports associated with incomplete mourning, stressful life events that exceed the coping capacity of the individual and learned helplessness,” together with “low self-esteem, strong super-ego, clinging and dependent interpersonal relations, and limited capacity for mature and enduring object relations.”

Watters notes that all of these “are inevitable products of the Christian belief system, one that preaches self-abasement as a means of ingratiating oneself with the deity, that discourages ego growth and inner-directedness and promotes super-ego growth and outer-directedness with its reliance on external authority. The dependent, clinging relationship Christians are encouraged to develop with their God quite naturally becomes the paradigm for their relationships with each other in the absence of any training in how to make adult human relationships work.”

(ibid, pp. 147-48)
_____


*Religious Belief and Maternal Deprivation

“Maternal deprivation,” as a contributing factor to mental illness generated by unhealthy religious influence, is, as Watters writes, “largely a direct result of the authoritarian pronatalist sex code operating in our society, which promotes the idea that motherhood is the only legitimate role for real women and which has encouraged women, even those who genuinely wanted children, to have more of them then they can care for emotionally or economically. Paul stated the childbirth was the only way in which women could be forgiven for the sins of Eve. By continuing to make it difficult for women and men to become knowledgeable about their sexuality, by continuing to resist the establishment of contraceptive and abortion services, many Christian denominations continue to contribute to unwanted pregnancies and maternal deprivation.”

Watters emphasizes that “[b]eing a competent mother is an adult activity and women can give OF themselves TO their babies only if they have been able to give TO themselves without feeling guilt. A Christian society that promotes suffering as good for the soul, while it discourages adult self-esteem and human inter-dependency, is hardly an environment for encouraging women to develop their full potential as human beings; and if a woman has been socialized to ignore her own needs, how can she be expected to be sensitive to the needs of her infant?”

(ibid., pp. 148-49, original emphasis)
_____


*Religious Belief and Unhealthy Mourning

In addition, Watters writes that the Christian practice of mourning losses is likewise conducive to the development of a depressive mental state:

“. . . [I]t is not the loss itself that appears to play an etiological role in depression but rather the way the loss is mourned. Christian attitudes toward death discourage healthy mourning in many ways, starting with the destructive impact of the resurrection myth. Since Jesus promised Christians a life after death, much of the message of 'comfort' delivered at Christian funerals is geared to a denial of the very existence and permanence of death. . . . The essential Christian denial of death is illustrated in the famous hymn, 'Abide with Me;' here we find the words 'Where is death's sting? Where, grave, the victory? I triumph still, if thou abide with me.'"

By contrast, Watters notes that “[h]ealthy mourning occurs when the bereaved is able to experience and express the full range of painful feelings mobilized by the loss of a loved one.” Unfortunately, as he reports, “Christian doctrine and practice encourage people to deal with such emergency emotions by beseeching 'God' to take the painful feelings away, thereby making it difficult for human supports to sustain the mourner through these difficult times. It is often said at Christian funerals that 'the widow was a real brick,' or 'he held up so well during it all.' Denial of emergency emotions of all kinds is really encouraged in Christianity.”

(ibid., p. 149)
_____


*Religious Belief and the Inability to Cope with Anxiety

Watters points to religious belief as contributing to debilitating mental illness in failing to offer healthy, self-aware mechanisms for dealing with stressed-caused anxiety:

“Christian doctrine and liturgy . . . discourage the development of adult coping behaviors and the human-to-human relationship skills that enable people to cope in an adaptive way with anxiety generated by stress.”

As Watters notes, Christian teaching and practice require that “adaptational challenges associated with anxiety are not to be resolved by using ones human support system to help develop a higher level of coping skills. Such feelings should be suppressed or denied. One Christian psychologist, John A. Hammes, put it bluntly: 'Not only should needless anxiety be avoided. Other unhealthy emotional responses should be resisted This means avoiding anger, hate, jealousy, envy, bitterness, and depression . . . . For the Christian, however, indulgence in such moods indicates a lack of trust in divine providence.'

"If such denial is impossible, the anxious Christian is encouraged to regress to a dependent symbiotic state with the great anthropomorphized unknown and unknowable. A prayer in the Anglican prayer book titled, 'For Those in Anxiety,' teaches this message specifically. . . . [T]he prayer does not ask God to help the anxious and distressed to maximize their human support systems in order that they might bear their own burdens and learn and grow thereby. It says nothing about asking God to enlighten the anxious and distressed as to the sources of their suffering, and to enhance their problem-solving skills by tackling those problems that can be solved. It says nothing about asking God to help the anxious and distressed develop confidence in themselves; rather, it urges the supplicant not to make the effort, but rather to 'put our whole trust and confidence' in God.”

(Chapter 4, “Dependency, Interdependence, and Self-Actualization,” pp. 61-62; and Chapter 9, "Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” p. 149)

Which leads to the next religion-exacerbated mental affliction.
_____


*Religious Belief and Learned Helplessness

Watters compares and contrasts a healthy human-centered attitude toward individual self-confidence and ability, against the Christian lack of one:

“It is . . . generally accepted that children who, from an early age, live in a human environment that encourages them to develop mastery of their intra- and inter-personal environments, as well as the physical environment, are likely to develop a sense of competence and ultimately sound mental health. They are the adults who are more likely to cope with loss by allowing the mourning process to go forward naturally and to adapt well to challenges and cope with stress by use of their human support systems. These individuals are less likely to become depressed, having grown up with a life-long sense of their own personal worth and competence, and an ability to trust in the human beings they cherish.

“By contrast, children who grow up influenced by Christian teachings develop a sense of powerlessness in the world, rather than a feeling of competence and mastery, together with an inability to trust in the human support systems around them. It is logical that such individuals are more likely to grow up with a tendency to develop 'clinical' depression when faced with loss or stress.

“Christian doctrine,” Watters summarizes,. “promotes human helplessness by making it a virtue, indeed the 'sine qua non' of a good Christian life. Paul said, 'For when I am weak, then I am strong.' (2 Cor. 12:10) A perusal of a common Anglican hymn book today will convince one that this is not simply an outmoded notion pushed by Paul, but is one constantly reinforced: 'Stand up! Stand up for Jesus! Stand in his strength alone; the arm of flesh will fail you; you dare not trust your own;' and 'Jesus Savior, pilot me over life's tempestuous seas.' It is important to note that these lines explicitly discourage the development of personal mastery, warning that 'the arm of flesh will fail you.' They do not implore Jesus to help one find strength in oneself and human support systems to sail over 'life's tempestuous sea.' In order for a growing child not to be damaged by repeated exposure to such message, he would have to be blessed with a considerably high level of innate adaptive capacity and with a familial and social environment that was able to neutralize the destructive impact of these messages.”

(Chapter 8, “Christianity and Major Psychiatric Illness,” pp. 149-50)
_____


*Religious Belief and Co-dependency

Booth defines "co-dependency" using terminology from Robert Subby's book, "Co-dependency: An Emerging Issue," as "an emotional, psychological and behavioral condition that develops as a result of an individual's prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of oppressive rules--rules which prevent the open expression of feeling as well as the direct discussion of personal and interpersonal problems."

Booth explains that "[i]n religious co-dependency, the family members either take on the belief system that the addicts bring into the home or resign themselves to putting up with it, living in martyred victimhood. They may also rebel.

"When the family members take on the addict's belief system, they rarely do so out of their own inner convictions. Children who are raised in this kind of religious environment seldom have an opportunity to question those beliefs, especially if they are raised in a home in which doubting and questioning are punishable sins. Because of religious teachings about women being submissive to men, wives usually follow their husband's lead. Either they are not aware of their own needs and beliefs or they set them aside to follow those of the addict. They become as judgmental, dogmatic, rigid, intolerant and perfectionistic as their addicted spouse or parents.

"As a result, they have their own struggles with issues of control, guilt, shame, inadequacy and fear. Religious co-dependents are extremely out of touch with their emotions; they have been conditioned not to think for themselves. They live very narrow, restrictive lives, avoiding people who do not meet their strict standards.

"The families who resign themselves to living with religious addicts are walking pressure-cookers ready to explode. Resentment, fear, rage and anxiety seethe beneath the surface because putting up with the status quo set by the addict entails not rocking the boat. They may attend the same church, swallowing feelings of hypocrisy and anger. Some try to adopt an approach that says do what you want but leave me out of it--co-existing in stoic martyrdom. . . .

"In resigning themselves to the addict's behavior, they become victims, feeling helpless, powerless, confused and frustrated. They may alter between arguing with the religious addict or tuning out by avoiding or ignoring the addict's behavior. The passive-aggressiveness that comes with being a victim may manifest itself in the form of extra-marital affairs, hiding or hoarding money so the addict can't tithe it away or belittling the religious addict to family and friends.

"The families who rebel often have the hardest time. Spouses frequently find themselves pitted against a powerfully united church front. The dissenting spouse is portrayed as sinful and ungodly. Worse, when children are involved, they are often caught in a good parent/evil parent situation, creating great guilt and confusion."

The downwardd spiral of mental illness continues with, as Booth notes, "[d]ysfunction beget[ting] dysfunction.. The religious co-dependent spouse often ends up adopting unhealthy rules of caretaking which include:

--"Peace at any price.

--"Maintain the conspiracy of silence.

--"Never quit.

--"Never discuss feelings.

--"Try to appear normal."

The personal cost to all involved is horrific:

". . . [F]or the religiously addicted family, any failure, imperfection or scandal is seen as a disgrace to God, the church, the ministry or the preacher. The taboos against expression of feelings and the urgent need to look normal make the religiously enmeshed family a breeding ground for the secret addictions of anorexia, bulimia, sexual addictions, compulsive spending, gambling, workaholism. With these come the need for silence, never giving up, never discussing feelings and above all, peace at any price."

(Chapter 4, "Religion Addiction: A Family Disease," pp. 111-14, 120)
_____


--Research Findings on How Religious Belief Contributes to Mental Illness--

In his chapter on “Christianity and Mental Health: The Research Findings,” Watters cites an expansive project conducted by Daniel C. Batson and W. Larry Ventis, “The Religious Experience” (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1982).

Its researchers made a detailed examination of 57 studies correlating “being religious” with characteristics of mental health, racial prejudice and concern for other people. Their conclusion, notes Watters, was that “the means [to an end] orientation to religion had “a rather pervasive negative relationship” to mental health REGARDLESS OF HOW MENTAL HEALTH IS CONCEIVED. “In other words," Watters writes, “people who are religious for short-term social rewards are not very mentally healthy when measured by [the following] characteristics: freedom from worry and guilt, personal competence and control, self-acceptance or self-actualization and open-mindedness and flexibility.”

By contrast, when reviewing “the end orientation to religion,” Watters reports that the two researchers found “it was not a personal competence but a blind reliance on the omniscience and omnipotence of the deity” that gave long-term religious people an increased sense of “personal competence and control” when compared to non-religious people. In other words, notes Watters, “[a]s the authors point[ed] out, the greater [finding of] 'personal competence and control' were based on reliance on God, not on oneself”--meaning, essentially, that it wasn't really personal at all.

The definition for this attitude, Watters states, is religion-manufactured “smugness”:

“[The] combination of apparent freedom from worry or guilt [as detected in the end orientation portion of the examination], combined with an apparent sense of personal competence that is really a reliance on God, coupled with a [lingering] lack of open-mindedness and flexibility is actually a definition of smugness, a quality especially characteristic of the 'born again' Christian.”

Watters quotes Baston and Ventis' conclusion that “[t]he intrinsic end orientation [towards religion] leads to freedom from existential concerns and a sense of competence based on ones connectedness to the Almighty, but at the same time an inflexible bondage to beliefs. In contrast, the quest orientation [toward science and open-mindedness] leads to neither.”

Watters explains the reason for the difference between the two approaches:

“The social desirability factor most certainly operates here . . . Christians are not supposed to feel guilty if the guilt has been washed away by the blood of Jesus, so there is a marked tendency for Christians to deny guilt even when it is clearly operating in their lives and helping to shape their behavior. Many Christians lead restrictive, austere, pleasure-free lives, as a way of minimizing the opportunities for guilt to arise. The more religious the individual, the more guilt is denied, a finding that any sensitive psychotherapist will confirm. Hence Christians, when answering a questionnaire, are likely to show the same degree of denial that they demonstrate in the clinical situation. By contrast, people with a quest orientation to life have no such need to deny any guilt they may feel; it is more acceptable for them to be open and honest.”

The research confirmation, Watters announces, of Christians being guilt-laden underscores the fact that “[t]he price religious people have to pay for the existential nostrums offered by Christianity is to have a straitjacket placed on their human potential.”

“Many Christians,” he continues, "especially those engaged in scientific pursuits, try to deny that this is the case; they even talk about science as being a gift from God to enable humans to conquer the earth and subdue it as the Bible instructs. Some Christians claim to be scientific about some areas of life, but even for them a truly scientific approach to the totality of human existence is impossible; it would be too painful emotionally for them to turn the telescopes and microscopes on the human need for a sustaining deity, and the strategies used by religious institutions to keep that need alive in human beings.”

Watters concludes that the nature of these findings do not bode well for the overall mental health of religious believers:

“The gist of all this is that being religious is quite definitely not associated with greater mental heath when compared to a scientific, questing approach to life. The latter approach's association with more 'worry and guilt' is probably traceable, in large part, to early Christian socialization and a lesser need to deny emergency emotions. But even if this is the case, surely this is a small price to pay for the great 'open-mindedness and flexibility' that characterizes the quest orientation.“

Watters highlights some of the project's other, particularly disturbing findings:

*The More Religious, the More Prejudiced

The Batson-Ventis examination found that, overall, devout Christians demonstrated a noticeable degree of racial prejudice. “Why,” asks Watters, “when Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, are Christians more intolerant of those who do not have the same skin color? . . . The question may be asked another way: Why are those who have grown beyond the need for the comfort of the Christian religion, or who were minimally exposed to it, more racially tolerant than those who are still believers? Is there something about the doctrine of the Christian church that tends to make people seek and find scapegoats?

“The answer to this question," Watters asserts, “is undoubtedly a resounding yes. An individual burdened with as much guilt as a Christian is encouraged to bear would, if he or she does not become completely psychotic, have to externalize some of the self-hatred which characterizes the true Christian. Scapegoats for that hatred have never been hard to find..”

(Chapter 9, "Christianity and Mental Health: The Research Findings," pp. 156-59, original emphasis)
_____


*No Noticeable Difference in Concern for Others Among Religious Believers and Non-Believers

Watters notes that when studies have been conducted that are designed to filter for “socially desirable” answers (such as one finds in self-reporting questionnaires), “religious people were no more or less helpful than non-religious ones.”

Moreover, from the several studies reviewed by Batson and Ventis, Watters reports that “it appears . . . that Christians can associate themselves with projects that give them a sense of being good Christians, when the helping is not on an interpersonal level and when they are not required to tailor their help to the real needs of a human situation. Otherwise," he observes, “Christians are no more helpful than non-religious people; indeed, if [one of the conducted studies] is measuring a real dimension, Christians are more insensitive since they tailor all their efforts to their need to ingratiate themselves with the deity. . . .

“[As an indicator of this,] [i]n their book, 'The Long Dying of Baby Andrew,' Robert and Peggy Stinson described their experiences with the medical staff with whom they had contact during the tragic circumstances surrounding the birth and eventual death of their premature infant. It was their experience that non-Catholic doctors, especially non-Christian doctors, were more responsive to patients' concerns and feelings than were the strongly Catholic physicians, who insisted on following their own rigid religious program.”

Watters further reports on the telling results of a study patterned after the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan:

“Theology students were tested to see what determined whether or not they would stop on their way to class to help someone in obvious stress. It turned out that a religious orientation did not seem to determine their behavior. Rather, it was more a question of how rushed students were to get to their class. However, among those who did stop, there was a distinct difference in one aspect of helping behavior between those with [religion as] an end orientation and those with the [scientific] quest orientation. The person taking the role of a sick derelict lying in the doorway of a building was instructed to insist that he could manage on his own and did not need the student to do anything . Those with a quest orientation respected his wishes more than those with an end orientation. The latter appeared to have an internal need to help that overrode their ability to be sensitive to what the other person really needed.”

(ibid., pp. 159-60)
_____


--Final Assessment: Religious Belief Constitutes a Negative Force in Personal Mental Health--

As Watters knits it together:

“It is safe to conclude that committed Christians, when compared to those with a more scientific approach to life, do not fare very well when it comes to mental health, racial prejudice and concern for others.

"On self-report, Christians appear less best with worry and guilty than non-religious people; however, the psychological mechanism of denial and the need to give socially desirable answers may account for the difference.

"They appear to manifest as much personal competence and control as those with a scientific questing orientation; but this, too, is spurious, for it is not a real sense of personal competence but rather a reliance on an omnipotent deity.

"Committed Christians shows more racial prejudice than those with a humanist orientation, while in interpersonal situations they are no more helpful than non-believers. Indeed, Christians may be less so, since that are insensitive to the real needs of the person in distress as they persist in acting according to their Christian belief system.

"Summing up their research, Batson and Ventis conclude: 'This evidence suggests that religion is a negative force in human life, one we would be better off without.'”

(ibid., p. 160)

Watters then adds his own blistering assessment of mental illness-producing religion, followed by his prescription for cure:

“Religions--Christianity most of all--are the enemy of human morality. . . . [M]any of Christianity's doctrinal beliefs work against the development of the full moral potential of human beings. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women can develop into moral beings by manipulating their guilt, treating them like small children, and urging them to be afraid of their natural impulses.

“Those who set themselves up as the deity's interpreters form institutions that develop their own strategies, which are designed to expand and consolidate power over the believer. In the case of Christianity, these god-talking shepherds have been able to convince the sheep that that are innately evil and that 'all good things come from God.' The first step for the pilgrim on the road toward humanism is to understand this, 'the great projection.' The next step is to repudiate the destructive myth of innate evil.

“'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man,' says Psalm 108, verse 8. . . . [T]his belief, ingrained as it is in the religious consciousness of Western society, has had a devastating impact on inter-personal relationships and human health. The medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and high-tech medicine are collectively blamed for the high cost of health care, some of which is well-deserved. However, no accusing fingers are ever pointed at the institution that promotes suffering as a valuable strategy, and whose doctrines have been shown to compromise human health in a variety of ways. . . .

“There is an evolutionary process at work here, At one time, a 'man's home was his castle,' and the state had no right to intervene if a man chose to beat his children in obedience to the biblical injunction about sparing the rod and spoiling the child; or if he abused or raped his wife, since she was his property. Now the state takes a radically different view of all such forms of abuse, to the extent that health care professionals can be charged if they fail to report suspected instances of spouse or child abuse. Admittedly, in comparison with physical and sexual abuse, the matter of mental and emotional abuse is proving more difficult for the justice system to deal with; however, there are signs that these forms of maltreatment are gradually acquiring judicial legitimacy. . . .

“Whatever we do, we must ensure that education, not legislation, is the strategy used to effect change. There must be no attempt to use the state to outlaw religion, even if Christianity has no compunction about using the state to extinguish other faith systems. . . .

“Only if Homo religiosus evolves into Homo sapiens can our species hope to survive. Surely it is time we . . . completed what others started at the time of the Renaissance.”

(Chapter 12, “The Future: Homo Religiousus or Homo Sapiens?,” pp. 191-92)
_____


Booth offers his own recommendations to mental health care professionals for dealing with the debilitations to their patients brought on by abusive religious belief systems.

He urges that those being assisted be encouraged to address "spirituality as being different from religion," with focus placed on the "mental, emotional and physical wellness that promotes healthy spirituality."

He suggests access to "treatment centers [that] combine lectures, medical education, family therapy and recreational therapy as well and individual and group therapy sessions."

He recommends that lecture topics "address all obsessive-compulsive behaviors, INCLUDING RELIGION."

(Appendix 11, "Treatment: A Guide for Professionals," p. 252, emphasis added)

*****


"Including religion."

Indeed.

Which leads to the last, inclusive point: Mormonism is like Christianity.

They both create and foster mental illness.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 04:19PM by steve benson.

Additionally, 'treatment' for substance abuse in the US, considered the 'disease' of addiction, is ironically 'treated' with a heavy duty dose of fundamentalist religion over 90% of the time.

Appoximately 93% of US substance abuse treatment rehabs use a 12 step program (the AA faith, divided now into over 300 sects, including the 'diseases' of video game and shopping addiction)Even though it has a failure rate of over 95% according to their OWN NUMBERS.

The behaviors are always called 'diseases' by the recovery industry, even though there is actually little support for the idea in the medical, scientific, or academic community because it does not fit the criteria of a disease, with such things as determinability in an autopsy, blood test, etc. The only real support for the faulty 'disease' model of addiction is by those directly profiting from it, generally by bilking health insurance carriers.

The acceptance of the 'disease' of 'alcoholism' actually had to pass the AMA with a hand vote, after two unsuccessful votes and a lot of lobbying by Marty Mann, who is credited with founding the recovery industry.

As is the case with other relgions, such as Mormonism, the lay clergy is particularly bad in dealing with people with actual mental illnesses such as being bi-polar. Anyone with any substance abuse issue is routinely DUMPED into the AA faith, where such things as the authoritative counseling to stop prescribed medication, including high blood pressure meds, birth control pills, and insulin by 'gurus' with no medical training whatsoever. The authoritative counseling to stop prescribed medication is always denied by members of the AA faith, yet it happens so much that the AA corporation printed a pamphlet requesting the membership to stop this practice, as it was actually killing people.

As far as religion, this industry is based on the AA concept that alcoholism is a 'spiritual disease'. No organization such as the AMA, WHO etc recognize a 'spiritual disease' Like LDS Inc. marketers come out of the woodwork to build this industry and profit from, regardless of the amount of harm they cause in the process.

The real difference between the addiction of religion in the LDS world and the relgious addiction that becomes demanded by the AA faith, is that partcipation into the LDS faith is generally voluntary. The vast majority of the time in the AA faith (according to corporate AA at AA.org)people are coerced to participate and convert to the faith under very real threats of incarceration, employment termination, and the witholding of organs by transplant teams.

Neither the AA faith or the LDS faith are credible organizations.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 04:46PM by deco.

So the great Steve Benson asserts that: "Religious beliefs represent a classic form of debilitating and destructive mental illness". That's some claim you make Steve, what I think your doing is replacing religion with your own form of extremist, fundamentalist religion. Do you realize how sad, pathetic and dangerous your claims sound? Irrespective of the pros and cons of religion you and others on this board have become nothing but rabid, dangerous cultists that practice your own forms of control.
You trot out the same tired old shoddy arguments and pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo, many of which are totally discredited, you allow your agendas to blind you to any good that comes from religion. You seem to think that what you call free thinking humanism is so enlightened while neglecting all the "wonderful" things it encompasses: eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, self centered materialism, a disrespect for the sanctity of life.
The great atheists Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin along with a few other local, home grown varieties are shining examples of your brand of dangerous thinking. Their works, perpetrated on a grand scale resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. The other local atheist and assorted humanists cry out for their vies to be tolerated all the while practicing vile bigotry. Please stop using this little ploy of yours to scream and cry like a child when your own absurd ideas are challenged, claiming persecution, its getting a little tiring.
What would you suggest for this mental illness?
Perhaps Christians, Jews, Moslems, Sikhs, Budhists and others religious people could star wearing something on their clothing to identify them as religious - maybe a cross for a Christian, a star of David for a Jew and a crescent for a Moslem? What about a little book burning? Would that appease your Gods?
Perhaps you should heard religious folk into some camps and keep this "disease" from infecting others, then again are they even worth keeping alive?
Steve and people like you, get real or grow up, in a nutshell your argument can be condensed into something like this, which if you applied across the board would be seen for the absurdity that it is: I went to a dentist the other day, it was a terrible experience so I will never trust or go to a dentist again; I was sexually abused by a gay man so all gay men must be evil and abusers; my marriage failed so all marriages are doomed to failure; getting the point Steve?
You people make me sick you arrogantly pontificate about the dangers of religion all the while practicing your own brand of dangerous ideology. You speak of tolerance for your views and practice intolerance for others.
You have my utter contempt, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I not only appreciate Steves comments but think he is dead on right.

So much of society is based on the faulty ideas written on goatskin by people in the bronze age, and people in political power are actually required to suspend critical thinking in favor of this madness.

Perhaps one should again point out that science flies man to the moon and religion flies people into buildings.

"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation--but I will post anonymously when I don't have the guts to put my name to my beliefs."

(Paul, posting under cover in Romans 1:16)
_____


By the way, nice attempt at diversion to Mao, Stalin, et al.

Not one cogent response on your part to the specified mental disorders manifested in both Mormonism and Christianity.

Please try agan when you have read a book (not counting the Book of Mormon or the Bible).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:08PM by steve benson.

Here we go again, what's a troll? Anyone who doesn't agree with your world view? Get real Steve, I thought you where smarter than that, it's the first thing you fall back on when someone makes a fair and valid point - he or she must be a troll, maybe I am someone who is struck by the utter poverty of your world view. As to providing a one cogent response that's another favorite of yours isn't it? Steve you trot out a researcher who, by your own admission is fighting against religion, Steve I am sorry to burst into your naive bubble, but I think this person is doing research with an agenda, yes agenda, A G E N D A, look it up in the dictionary. So he already had a conclusion and went searching for anything to back it up. That's the scientific research you base all your argument on, I would have thought you were wiser than that.

What are you afraid of? Paul didn't post as St. Troll. Why are you seeking cover from accountability in the defense of the faith?

By the way, Admin policy is to pick a nick and stick with it. "are you serious?" is not your board handle. It's one of convenience of the moment that you will probably change, depending on the circumstances of the moment.

As indications of that, please demonstrate for us where, during the history of your RfM posting, you have employed the "are you serious" handle as your regular identifier.

And you say, "Here we go again"? You mean you've been caught trolling before? Under what handle was it that time?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:49PM by steve benson.

You don't like being challenged, do you Steve, you and others like you on this board are all so fragile, just like your world view. When someone gives you some of your own medicine back you quickly look for the cover of smoke, quick lets question whether he' or she is a troll, lets divert the argument to his screen name. That is so utterly lame, Steve, again you disappoint. Grow a spine and get real., Respond to my posts - what would you do with this supposed "mental illness"? Or do you acknowledge that religion can be a positive influence in someone's life? Do you recognize any faults in your own world view? If so what might they be?
As to my identity, what does it matter? If I had posted before would it alter the poverty and absurdity of your initial post?

. . . of a scientific nature.

And what was your board handle before you changed it to "are you serious"? You said you have been through this before, so please tell us the name under which you posted, well, before.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:37PM by steve benson.

Why do always make yourselves to be so superior? As if no other intelligent, self thinking person has ever grappled with questions like these and accepted a different conclusion. For every scientific argument you put forward there are equally as many that show the opposite. If you need some scientific proof go and research it yourself, the same internet you use to find evidence against someone's beliefs also contains evidence to support their beliefs, that is if your bias and prejudice will allow you to.
In the mean time stop throwing out red herrings, my screen name is of no consequence, it's a diversion on your part, a very poor one at that. Answer the questions Steve, in your little world view what would you like done with this " mental illness"?
Will you, out of human decency acknowledge the poverty and folly of your statement?

You are the one who has at this point in the debate elevated your view (scientifically, you say), above the findings noted in the OP.

Therefore, it is now your turn to show how your view is superior to theirs--based, of course, on the science that one would think you have at your disposal.

Oh, wait. You don't have the science and have ordered me to search the internet for it (and for you).

Heh. Just as I suspected. :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 06:12PM by steve benson.

You want me to show how my view is "superior" to your view. Steve, you've missed the entire point of my posts, I am simply pointing out your own arrogant way of looking at the world. You assume superiority because you trot out scientific studies that were concluded before they were even researched - do you really think Watters, with his own agenda, was going to come to any other conclusion, irrespective of any scientific evidence to the contrary? Steve, here's a little exercise for you, just to show us how free thinking you are and how enlightened you can be, go back to the internet and see if you can find any scientific evidence of how faith can have positive effects on peoples lives, and then return and report.
You want me to show you proof do you? No amount of proof in the world will alter your world view, do you know why Steve, because your mind has been become just as closed, your eyes just as blinded, your views just as extreme as any fundamentalist Christian, Moslem or Mormon.
It's not complete anger I feel for the your OP, it's tinged with sorrow and wonder at how another human being can become so bigotted, narrow, and mean spirited whether they be atheist or religious.

You accuse Steve of being angry and sensitive but you appear to be the angry, fragile one here.

Seriously, relax, take a deep breath. It's okay to disagree, even with Steve. He handles it quite well, especially if you have any facts or evidence to bring forth. It's not that big of a deal.

And baby Jesus isn't crying just because Steve pointed out the religions are really good at creating or increasing mental illness in their participants.

. . . assuming, of course, that baby Jesus lived to die and supposedly resurrect himself in the first place.

That's another one of those weird Mormon/Christian connections. :)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 06:12PM by steve benson.

I was unaware that posts had their own economy.

Are Steve's posts part of the 99?

Are his posts trying to occupy something right now?

Religion causes mental illness? Uh, sorry...

While I've seen people in churches who showed indications of various disorders, I would not say it was their religious activities that caused it. Meaning take the religion away they would still have a disorder.

Also, there are millions of people who are religious who have no mental problems.

You can't say there is a definite causation relationship when there are many religious people who are mentally healthy.

Just because a person wants to explore and exercise his/her religious beliefs does not mean that person is mentally ill. If anything, an active spiritual life is associated with overall health. But everything within reasonable limits!!! That's where Mormonism goes astray - to infinity and beyond!!! Reign it in where it does not cause stress and imbalance and it's okay.

. . . enumerated by Watters and Booth.

Dive into either one of them deep enough; follow the dictates of their adherents devoted to their respective, officially-published canonized dictates; and you'll see.

That is, if you can see, assuming you haven't yet been blinded and/or manipulated into closing your eyes in behalf of either one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:14PM by steve benson.

And where, exactly, would that be?

Would it be where someone stops smearing Middle Eastern vegetable oil on someone's head to cure disease? Or stops the weekly bouts of symbolic cannibalism? Or how about the eternal game of "buttony-button who's got the button" known as Priesthood line-of-authority?

Or when someone ignores LDS Inc's repressive teachings on sexuality, or the evils of tea, or........

If you rein it in where it does not cause stress or imbalance, you aren't Mormon anymore.

I don't get the blistering HATRED that is levied against Christianity. A person may pass judgment on any belief, but a need to "preach it from the rooftops" and insisting that people who don't reach the same conclusion must be demented, delusional, or not possessing the same level of intelligence is selfish beyond words.

Believe MY way, or you're an idiot.

Thanks, Steve.

Rail on about the wrongdoing of Christianity for the past 2000 years. Itemize the excesses, the exploitation, the wholesale slaughter.

But keep in mind, ATHEISTS have been damned destructive to the human race, as well. Communists LOVE to denigrate belief in any type of religion, and they've done a dandy job of their own in terms of excesses, exploitation, and wholesale slaughter.

To give some equal time, the numerous African peoples have killed, maimed, and enslaved their own in the names of their tribal beliefs.

I don't think ANYONE gets a pass at being "better" or "more advanced."

Believe what you want. Explain your beliefs to those who ask. But think about your compulsion to beat others over the head with your hatred and your anger. I seem to recall Psych 101 calling that "reaction formation."


~VOW

You are engaging in a flawed model of comparison. To harbor no belief in God is not to therefore to want to slaughter Christians.

When you can't make an argument in defense of the Christian/Mormon tactics of de-indivdualization and institutional control of thought and behavior, invoke the Communists.

Yeah, that's the ticket

Reid Bankhead used to do that in BYU Book of Mormon 421 and 422 classes. (Oh, and so did my grandfather). :)

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:21PM by steve benson.

And when you can't face the reality you attack the responders intelligence: according to you and your ilk I have not read a book in my life apart from the Bible or the Book of Mormon, I am blinded, manipulated, controlled, utterly stupid. Again I say get real, you expect me to swallow, unthinkingly and uncritically, like some of the other contributors on this board, such a ridiculous and fallacious argument such as your initial post? You must be deluded, it deserves to be called out for what it is. If you were a man you would apologise immediately, rather to continue to defend the indefensible.

Just trying to get a handle on who you really are.

Please cite board history as to how you have used "are you serious" as your established handle.

Is that too much to ask, given that it is board policy to pick a nick and stick?

To use your words, "if you were a man, you would do so immediately" (assuming you are xy and not xx).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:47PM by steve benson.

What are your sacred cows? You do enough bellowing of your own when your sacred beliefs are disturbed. I would like you, as I assume, a rational human being to re-read your initial post and recognize how foolish it is to regurgitate, uncritically, the research and writings of someone, irrespective of whether he hides it behind the cloak of scientific studies, an agenda or as some would say an axe to grind.
Again I ask you, to do the decent thing and offer an apology for foisting such tripe and drivel. All religion is as "mental illness" with that assertion you would owe a lot of people a great apology: the Jewish people, Sikhs, Hindus, Quakers and a great many good Christians. Think of it Steve, Mother Teresa must of been out of her head to go to the slums of India to help so many sick, poor and down and out people.
Watters and Steve say all religious people have a mental illness, lets all believe them without thinking and without questioning - sounds like your ready to set up your own American religion The Church Of Steve and Watters of Latter Day Atheist and Humanists.

Yellow and bellow, fellow. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:53PM by steve benson.

Sacred Christian/Mormon cows tend to bellow the loudest when they're gored here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:29PM by steve benson.

I didn't notice the "you're broken and need fixing" messages because I already believed that anyway. What I "saw" was the "you are unconditionally loved" message -- which was very nice, very comforting and very empowering. So empowering, in fact, that I was able to realize I didn't need an imaginary friend to validate me.

I've seen the "mental illness" part of religions and don't argue with you, but as with anything -- mileage varies. I'm sure there were some communists who were happy in it too. :)

Thanks. I think I had seen some of this before, but often I just skim some of your big, long, compiled posts. :)

I was ready to read the whole thing today.

It answers a lot of things for me. Thank you.

I have just mentioned the hatred and vitriol you spew when you sit above the religious masses and "vow" (heh) that anyone who hasn't reached your loftiness of evolution is a lower life form.

You preach, Steve.

Like I said, Psych 101 called it "reaction formation."


~VOW

. . . Clearly, if you agreed with my "preaching," you wouldn't be complaining.

On a related point, many posters come here and "preach" against Mormonism, yet I don't recall you telling them to stand down.

Why is that?

Because you agree with their "preaching."



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 05:58PM by steve benson.

Probably because I am not, and never have been Mormon.

I typically jump in to the fray to correct misconceptions people may have about Catholicism.

I've explained WHY I'm in this particular neck of the Internet woods, and you gave me a thrashing for being too presumptious.

I do get a little irritated at your wholesale diagnosis--delivered with much vitriol--that anyone who believes in God MUST be a lower life form that is obviously mentally ill.

That much hatred and derision is causing your own skeletons in the closet to show.


~VOW

Naw, mental illness can be treated these days! Nothing lesser about it. :D

"Perhaps."

Rattled some bones in that closet of yours, perhaps. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2011 06:15PM by steve benson.