Deifying The Disabled – How Religion Slips Mental Illness Under The Radar
16 December 2007 by KA
“Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics go and live in them. Psychologists charge rent.” – Unknown.
Right on the heels of my prior post, more bedlam erupted in the form of a lone shooter in Colorado. Another senseless tragedy.
Stardust pointed out rightly, here, that there was an immense silence from on high – no intervention (outside the perceived nonsense that survival of this, or any incident, is indicative of such), no parting of the heavens, no blinding light, no angels stepping in, in short, no miracles whatsoever. Just another sloppy sentence in the book of humanity’s history.
I’m not a big fan of the idea that religion impels folks to commit unspeakable acts, or enact tragedies. I’m of the mind that these incidents would’ve occurred regardless of epistemology.
My main peeve, is that obviously deficient world-view that religion improves people, when in fact, all one has to do is scan the news feeds (or even historical events) to put the lie to that sentence.
Augustine is quoted as saying, “Never judge a philosophy by its abuse.” Which, as far as I’m concerned, is an unmitigated load of crap. How else are we supposed to judge it then? One may as well argue that every system has its good points, regardless.
My other major issue, is that a system based on the supernatural tends to overlook obvious symptoms of mental illness. If a hereafterian meets with someone who claims to have visions (read: hallucinations), has glossolalia (read: blathers gibberish) or hears voices (read: schizophrenia), and overall makes claims to have some sort of alternate reality that’s agreeable to the listener, the possibility that the exponent of these ‘worldviews’ is unhinged is (usually) glossed over.
Again, history is rife with these examples. Indeed, one has only to scan any religious texts to find evidence where lunatics were not only given a free hand, they were actually applauded for misconduct (I’d link to a few examples, say like this little ditty, or perchance this one, but knowing this readership, well over a hundred such instances will get trotted out anyways).
Time to trot out a bit of objectivity:
I have stipulated elsewhere, that I used to hear ‘voices’. It’s actually fairly common in most folks. Despite its commonality though, there’s a stigma attached. It tends to isolate people. Left to our own devices, we then have the habit of rationalizing why we are the sole recipient of these auditory hallucinations. There’s even a movement for those folks (I’m voice-free now – so I’m on the outside looking in).
And, in fact, hallucinations of many varieties are common among the rational and irrational alike.
So there doesn’t seem to be any really clear-cut definition as to what signifies mental illness – I’ve always maintained that everyone is something of a ‘lunatic’, there are simply degrees of acceptability.
So when does it become unacceptable? How about here? (Note the religious language – ‘haunted by demons’ is so much more fraught with romantic meaning than being a squalid crazy.) How about this little event? Or this one?
In my humble (amateur) opinion, I think that the issue rolls around the ability to anchor oneself to reality. It is one thing to daydream, to have fantasies (large and small) that harm no one, it is another thing to live in accordance with those fantasies, and it is entirely something else again to force them on others.
Repeating myself: it is harm inferred and harm incurred that is the yardstick we use. In the case of Murray, we see that, even though he was a few shades more irrational than the crowd he sought refuge with, his symptoms match some of those we’d find in any ascetic fanatic living in the desert.
So, nutshelling it:
There are numerous examples that illustrate that as a species, we see, hear, touch, taste, and even smell something illusory – and on a small scale, this is somewhat acceptable (it kind of has to be).
On the broader scale; religion tends to sanctify the borderline lunacy, and throw roses at the chemical imbalances, proclaiming a deus ex machina – that is, until the marginal mental illness blossoms into something of a nepenthes rajah writ large and prone to cannibalism.
And the sheep wander about with that nonplussed look on their faces, because no one saw it coming. After all, they prattled enough to the unanswering sky, didn’t they? Their shepherd certainly loses enough lambs, does he not?
This is the Apostate, signing off.
16 December 2007, on 4:46 am
For the sane among us, who would never themselves go on a killing spree, but who nevertheless support and applaud St. Murray’s actions… is there a Matthew Murray fan club, or something?
16 December 2007, on 10:47 am
At least- I hope, today, nutjobs like John of Patmos, Mohammed, Jeanne d’Arc, or St. Theresa- she of the celestial finger banging, would be put on involuntary 72 hour hold- and medicated, rather than worshiped. That, and hucksters like old Joe Smith would be in federal prison for fraud and other various RICO infractions. Of course, you might wind up with the next Van Gogh or Dali doped to the gills and unable to lift a brush, Hemingway or John Kennedy Toole on suicide watch- sans belts and shoelaces, and Syd Barrett and Peter Green rendered mute by tardive dyskinesia. Ah, well, good with the bad and all…
16 December 2007, on 10:49 am
A Muslim teen in Toronto was recently murdered by her father, apparently because she refused to wear the hijab. Insanity runs in circles, religious circles.
OT – CBC News Sunday (on today at 10 am EST on CBC television – if you have satellite then later on as well) will include an interview with Richard Dawkins in the first 1/2 hour of the show. You may want to tune in. I caught part of the heated debate earlier and will tune in at 10.
Richard, as always, is so precise and Evan needs a good slap upside his head.
16 December 2007, on 10:53 am
After watching CBC News you can go to http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/12/121607_2.html#comments
to give your comments.
16 December 2007, on 2:03 pm
Very nice. I spent a significant portion of my life listening to voices. They have abated significantly since I stopped using drugs, of course. But,they pre-dated any of that for me,and they continue in a muted way. I never thought that the voice(s) came from god, although when I was being hounded by some soulstealers I briefly entertained the idea that they were demons. Then I remembered that gods and demons are two sides of the same coin.
I was out of touch with this world when you originally posted The Id Gone Wild. so thank you for linking to it. You articulated some ideas I’ve been trying to get my sometimes clogged up brain around. I’ll have to spend some time at biblioblography.
16 December 2007, on 2:27 pm
Thanks KA for your excellent, ‘probing’…”Zinger” expose.
What’s that, KA? Did you just say something to me?
Or was that just one of my many demons yapping at me?
“Get thee behind me Satan!…What?…
Coitenly NOT, you motherfucker…
No…I WON’T bend over!…
and I didn’t say ‘Bite me’, either!”
16 December 2007, on 7:18 pm
ChuckA, get thee behind me Satan- but make sure to give me a reacharound!
It is somehow appropriate that a fundamentally deluded ideology would value hardcore psychosis as some sort of benchmark.
16 December 2007, on 7:30 pm
untempro:
I hope you’re joking. & if you are…not funny. In the slightest bit.
Julian Jaynes came up w/the original proposition, so I can’t take credit.
RDG, ChuckA:
Retro me, Santa Klaus!
16 December 2007, on 9:27 pm
^ Let’s not forget that there are people in our world who firmly believe that the best communication occurs at the business end of a gun. Few could argue that issues do not suddenly crystallize when one finds oneself on the receiving end of such a message. Thanks to Mr. Murray’s efforts some badly needed light has been shined on a very problematic area in our society. As for my bad taste in commentary: it is what it is.
———-
Now, back on topic:
The following voice in your head is brought to you by… Madison Avenue.
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/12/14/segments/90482
I heard this earlier today on NPR. A&E (the cable network) is promoting it’s shitty new “real ghostbusters” style show by using billboards armed with hypersonic uni-directional speakers that literally transmit a commercial message inside a person’s head/mind/brain by “beaming” sound waves that resonate inside the skull and make you, literally, hear voices. All those people who say they hear voices… well not anymore, now they’re answering the SPAM in their brains.
I should get that trademarked, BRAINSPAM (C)(R) TM.
16 December 2007, on 10:20 pm
^ That show sounds terrible, and the technology being used to advertise it is scary and intrusive. “Those stubborn consumers out there may mute their TeeVees during the ads, they may tIVO through the commercials, but damn it, we’ve found a way to sell product that they can’t get away from.” Sickening.
I’m surprised Adbusters hasn’t jumped on this one yet–maybe next months issue.
17 December 2007, on 12:10 am
Yeah RDZ (RE #7; tangentially):
Of course, according to Fuckabee’s, purportedly morphed, version of Ramknee’s psychotic beliefs; the ‘brothers’…Jeebus and Satanus…probably did a whole lot of playing with each other…you know…boys will be boys?…whilst fucking over all of the Triune, Schizoid Gawd’s other creations, to boot.
With Job thrown into the mix, for an old Testicle gambling laugh. Yeah…That Trinity Gawd and His scapegoat, dualist, partner are always good for a lot of cosmic, earthly, laughs!
“Aaaah…the smell of brimstone in the morning!”
Oh…and KA?…RE: “Retro me, Santa Klaus!”
Somehow that reminds me of that old voyeuristic Santa tune’s lyrics:
“He sees you when you’re sleeping; he knows when you’re awake…
He knows when you’ve been jacking off; so he’ll reach around, for retro sake!”
OK…I made that last part up!
Yeah…I know…pretty lame!
But please,…don’t ‘rub’ it in TOO much?
17 December 2007, on 4:14 am
One time, when Jeebus was little, he came home early from hoplite practice cause he forgot his breastplate. He was understandably dismayed to find his real Dad, Gob, and Gob’s supposedly ex-best pal, Satan, tagteaming the always hot-to-trot, Mary. Now, you ain’t seen nothing til you’ve seen your Ma doing a little DP with two superhumans and little Jeebus’ heart was filled with warring tides of rage and lust. He stood there like an Athenian male in a production of Lysistrata, trying to use his heat vision to scald their exuded fluids before he remembered he was Jeebus and not Superman- or even Big Bank Hank, his guts clenching so hard that the castor beans from the soup he’d ate earlier were superdigested- in a manner similar to the process coal goes undergoes becoming diamond, down to aerosolized ricin and expelled as deadly flatulence. The ensuing toxic cloud drifted out over the neighborhood killing dozens- including the besotted cuckold, Joseph(not of Aramithea), who was where early afternoon normally found him, passed out under an oxcart. Jeebus assumed the role of Burt Campbell and became invisible. Thus, unseen, he walked up to the rutting entities and grabbed a fistful of each of their testicles, instantly turning each of their individual sperm into aggressive, Africanized bees. They all looked back on the episode and laughed and laughed…
18 December 2007, on 1:51 am
untempro:
You really like violating Grossman’s law, dontcha?
No straight answer, is it? Tasteless joke, or are you seriously applauding some sick fuck? I can forgive the former, but the latter is too much.
That was really quite…naive. That was a link to a story that makes an outrageous claim, that links to some other items that marginally build a flimsy case.
Try harder.
18 December 2007, on 2:12 pm
^ I don’t think I’m breaking grossman’s law. there are lots of people who sincerely believe that shooting first and asking questions later is the way to go. I don’t agree with that, but when people like Murray, Cho, the columbine kids, current and former members of government (Bush, Chaney, Rove, etc) and others like them take it upon themselves to put this theory to the test (as indirect as their intentions may be), to literally shoot first and ask questions later – those of us who are left standing get to evaluate the results – and the results demonstrate the inadequacy of the theory – primarily that once you start shooting you don’t get to ask (m)any questions afterwards. or, the results may be re-interpreted to say that those left standing get to ask the questions, and the first question should be: how many more times do we need to test this theory before we all agree that it is flawed, that it doesn’t work? how many more times do we need to disprove it before its supporters give it up. yeah, that was a bit off topic from your article, i’m sorry I didn’t clarify.
If anything, as my original comment seems to have you perplexed, it demonstrates (my awareness of) the complexity of this issue.
__________
As for the BRAINSPAM thing – that was a joke (i’m sorry it wasn’t obvious) about the story/link I posted in #9, not about M. Murray.
18 December 2007, on 6:01 pm
As for the BRAINSPAM thing – that was a joke (i’m sorry it wasn’t obvious
No, it wasn’t obvious, and to paraphrase KA “if it was a joke, it wasn’t funny.” (And you already admitted your error that it was “bad taste in commentary.”
18 December 2007, on 9:51 pm
i think we’re not on the same page here. there are two separate issues: Matthew Murray and hearing voices. Lets set Matthew Murray aside for a moment. I read your very nice article, KA, and in response to
I added a link to a news story (in comment #9) that says that some voices which people hear are not illusory because there are companies which (armed with some new technology) use the “hearing voices” phenomena to actually make people hear voices in their heads – voices that say commercial messages. That is what I termed brainspam. Of course, once explained a joke is never funny, but at least someone (#10) got it. Thanks.
19 December 2007, on 12:15 am
utempro:
If there were indeed, “lots of people”, then the newspapers would be chock full of these incidents. As is, while there are far too many for my taste, it could be much much worse.
I was distinctly referring to the comment about Murray. Stardust caught it too.
As for the brainspam thing, it’s been done. Futurama & Minority Report are 2 examples.
I get the distinct impression you’re testing the waters.
Comment #1? Or this ‘theory’ of yours? You managed to say quite a bit, enough so that someone reading it can be easily lost. Are you saying “Do away w/guns?” That’s what I’m gleaning.
Please be a little clearer.
19 December 2007, on 2:44 am
of course #1 wasn’t a joke. it’s a comment, a bit wry maybe, but not a joke. yeah, its in bad taste, i didn’t sugarcoat it in political correctness, but… anyway, I will clarify.
I’m not preaching a gun related agenda (this is not about pro or anti gun control). This is about the image of the society that would rather sweep people like Murray under the rug of history instead of answering his call for help. We’ve seen the efforts by various entities (now and in the past) to write off Murray (Cho, the Columbine kids, etc.) as mere loonies and nutjobs without any legitimate reasons or even coherent points of view. But Murray (and Cho) documented their reasons online and in the media and as a result those who would prefer to silence them have to work even harder to make the spin that they’re peddling stick. It is unfortunate that Murray was forced to act violently to be heard, but sometimes that is the only course of action available that will produce the desired results. That is why I view Murray as a necessary “bad” agent.* Yes it’s unfortunate that he killed some people and died himself, but he got other people talking. He initiated a badly needed conversation about religion and religiosity, Christianity and Christendom, etc., and maybe, just maybe, from his violent efforts there may come some good. Perhaps one, two, or more people will be jarred out of their unenlightened stupor through Murray’s tragic demise. Perhaps some will apply critical thinking to their situation and reject their irrelevant and ridiculous beliefs. Perhaps some will shake off the shackles of religion and embrace a healthy mental lifestyle. Of course, I am being overly optimistic in my hopes because I know the conversation will not last long. I all too painfully recall how quickly Cho was branded a lunatic and thus anything he had to say was thrown out as rubbish. The all too hurried call for closure silences all. (Of course, closure is as illusory as the gods, but that is another topic.) Well, unlike most people, I listened, I interpreted, I understood. Cho wasn’t a raving psychopath, he made legitimate arguments about the image of our consumerist society. Of course, (irony!) due to our cultural preoccupation with social, physical, personal, psychological (mental), etc, etc., perfection(!) he felt he wasn’t given a fair opportunity to express himself due to his lack of social skills, etc. Throw in some mild mental illness and easy access to weapons… and you have yourself a Virginia Tech. But of course it is much more convenient to misrepresent and vilify Murray and Cho as psychotic killers who are incapable of reason. Frankly, at their wits’ end Murray and Cho had more reason than any religious person. In their desperation they were more rational than any gluttonous consumer. Now I am not a fan of guns, never touched one and don’t ever intend to. But even I feel that it is too easy to blame these tragedies on lax gun control legislation. And if I can’t blame it on the guns, then there’s really no one else left but ourselves. I know its not too popular to “blame America” for anything in some circles (I’m not saying this is one of them), but if we can’t take legitimate, constructive criticism from ourselves, if we can’t take a good long look at ourselves in the mirror and really attempt to solve our problems or at least begin talking about them, then I’m afraid that the only cultural and social criticism we’ll ever hear about will come only from the likes of Murray and Cho and only in the form of violence and death. For clarity’s sake, this is not directed at anyone in particular (i’m probably preaching to the choir here anyway, sorry about that). (In comment #14 I began to apply my view to political and foreign policy issues, but I did not include these arguments here only as an attempt to keep things short(er) and on topic.) Thanks.
* concerning comment #1. Yeah, I view Murray (and Cho) as martyrs of a certain kind, they died for causes which I find worthy of pursuing (in my case the pursuit is academic / philosophical), but I do not romanticize these men in my discussion, I think I treat them with due realism. Thus, I stand by comment #1 as originally expressed, bad taste and all: it is what it is.
19 December 2007, on 11:29 pm
Um…I hate to sound thick, but what is Grossman’s law? I cannot find it on Wikipedia, and without Wikipedia, I am lost; so grievously, grievously lost…
20 December 2007, on 3:02 am
untempro said: “Perhaps one, two, or more people will be jarred out of their unenlightened stupor through Murray’s tragic demise. Perhaps some will apply critical thinking to their situation and reject their irrelevant and ridiculous beliefs…”
Doubtful. Events such as this tend to pull the faithful even closer to their god.
“Yes it’s unfortunate that he killed some people and died himself, but he got other people talking.”
There are ways to get people talking that don’t involve random, senseless murder.
“I all too painfully recall how quickly Cho was branded a lunatic and thus anything he had to say was thrown out as rubbish.”
Why was this painful for you? He was a lunatic. A lunatic that murdered. Because of his “delivery,” his message should be thrown out wholesale, regardless of the content.
“Frankly, at their wits’ end Murray and Cho had more reason than any religious person.”
Agreed, but not all religious folks go on random killing sprees. Those who do should be condemned as well. That’s what we do here.
These young men are not martyrs–They did not die for a noble cause. I will agree that we need to learn something from these events. I will agree that they are very sad and telling artifacts of something very wrong with our society–What that something is I leave to the social scientists to ruminate over–but don’t make these young men into something more than they were–which is very troubled individuals who did not have at their disposal constructive outlets for their rage.
20 December 2007, on 3:08 am
I think Grossman’s Law states that “for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, easy to understand and wrong”.
(What usually happens is that the wrong solution ends up creating a further problem, which distracts attention from the original, still-unresolved problem. Roof leaking => install drainage trough in floor; drain backs up and smells => install plug-in air freshener; air freshener doesn’t work during power cut => buy joss sticks; joss sticks set fire to things => install fire extinguisher and even after all this, the roof is still leaking!)
20 December 2007, on 8:08 pm
Thanks Fritzy,
1. I did say that I was being overly optimistic in my hopes
2. There are people who are either too blissfully ignorant or too idealistically arrogant that they do not realize or accept the necessity to begin a conversation. They are so far gone or so certain of their position that unless they are shocked out of it (with bleeding corpses or other atrocities if necessary) they will never allow themselves to engage and participate in the kind of constructive discussion that will lead them out of their intellectual prison.
3. You say Cho’s message is irrelevant because he was a lunatic. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ll assume (for the sake of my argument here) that you feel the same way about Murray. Here’s a relevant article which was posted here on GifS about a week ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6979731.stm
I’d like to understand which of Murray’s (or Cho’s) characteristics makes their messages irrelevant. Is it just that they were murderers or that they were mentally ill (even insane), or both, or something more on top of these two, or something else entirely, which is it? If it’s only that they are killers, then why should we ever allow anyone to read or study Hitler, or Harry Truman – they both gave orders to kill a lot of innocent people. If mental instability is the issue, then we should strike all records of King George III from history books because he had porphyria. We should also stop reading Nietzsche because he was certainly bonkers.
4. No, not all religious people go on killing sprees, but the enablers of religion must be pressed to account for their apathy, they must be brought face to face with the worst of their religion and they must be made to justify it or if they can not or refuse, they must discontinue their practices and beliefs. If they refuse, they must be treated in accordance with medical and criminal statues regarding irrational, illogical, immoral, unreasonable, unethical, (etc.) behavior. In the main article above KA says:
So I don’t think that I’m out of line in my argument.
5. I agree, martyrs is a strong word, I hesitated using it, but I could not find a better suited term before posting my comment. However, the causes they pursued existed prior to them, prior to their mental instabilities, and prior to their violent actions and tragic demises. The causes are legitimate and noble. The method of message delivery was a desperate last resort of troubled individuals, but that doesn’t change the content of the message nor does it give reason to re-evaluate the validity of the causes.
27 January 2008, on 4:01 am
[...] As I have mentioned elsewhere, the human mind can be tricked into displacing itself, and also, our species tends to experience hallucinations on a fairly frequent basis. So, it also seems that we can indeed be conned into thinking we’re a completely opposite identity too? A supernatural one at that? [...]