APA Classifies Belief in God As Mental Illness

[Fake Messiah]

American Psychological Association Classifies Belief in “God” As Mental Illness



According to the AmericanPsychological Association (APA), a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.

The controversial ruling comes after a 5-year study by the APA showed devoutly religious people often suffered from anxiety, emotional distress, hallucinations, and paranoia. The study stated that those who perceived God as punitive was directly related to their poorer health, while those who viewed God as benevolent did not suffer as many mental problems. The religious views of both groups often resulted in them being disconnected from reality.

Dr. Lillian Andrews, professor of psychology, stated, “Every year thousands of people die after refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds. Even when being told ‘you will die without this treatment’ patients reject the idea and believe that their God will still save them. Those lives could be saved simply by classifying those people as mentally unfit for decision making.”

“Jehovah Witnesses for instance,” Dr. Andrews continued, “will not accept blood under any circumstance. They would rather die than to receive life-saving donor blood. Many religious people believe they have “healing power” in their hands. Many believe they can communicatewith God using a personal language, which is unknown to anyone but the communicatorand God (known as speaking in tongues). Many often tell of seeing spirits. All of these are signs of a mental break and a loss of touch with reality. Religious belief and the angry God phenomenon has caused chaos, destruction, death, and wars for centuries. The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue. This is the first of many steps to a positive direction.”

With the new classification, the APA will lobby to introduce legislation which would allow doctors the right to force life-saving treatment on those who refuse it for spiritual reasons on the grounds that they are mentally incapable of making decisions about their health.

The American Psychological Association says more information about the study and the new classification will be made available to the public in their upcoming journal (which is expected to be release in early September).

http://www.celebtricity.com/american-psy...l-illness/

[MTL]

American Psychological Association Classifies Belief in “God” As Mental Illness

With the new classification, the APA will lobby to introduce legislation which would allow doctors the right to force life-saving treatment on those who refuse it for spiritual reasons on the grounds that they are mentally incapable of making decisions about their health.

Won't that be directly unconstitutional?

[ignoramus]

I'm more worried about the "indoctrinated" affecting other people's health! Don't really care about their own...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

American Psychological Association Classifies Belief in “God” As Mental Illness

With the new classification, the APA will lobby to introduce legislation which would allow doctors the right to force life-saving treatment on those who refuse it for spiritual reasons on the grounds that they are mentally incapable of making decisions about their health.

Won't that be directly unconstitutional?

There is what is called the "strict scrutiny test", in which the Courts may determine whether the government can infringe on an otherwise-protected right, and the Lemon test, by which they measure the necessity versus the effect, such as in cases where a religious practice like polygamy is part of the religion yet the government wishes to ban it. Sorry for the copypasta, but these are concepts that everyone should understand, but that it is really important for atheists to understand:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

The Court's decision in the case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon) which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
   
   1. Factors.
      
      1. Character and purpose of institution benefited.
         
      2. Nature of aid the state provides.
         
      3. Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
         
2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
   
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)
   

[Chad32]

Yeah, religion can make you pretty crazy. The more fundie people are, the more likely they're going to be to kill people over this stuff.

[Jenny A]

Much too good to be true and therefore satire. The religious have gone insane: The separation of church and state — and Scalia from his mind

(Yet would that it were so!  Imagine, so many Supreme Court justices and Republican politicians, from Antonin Scalia to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, disqualified in one fell swoop on mental health grounds from holding public office!)

[Pyrrho]

Much too good to be true and therefore satire. The religious have gone insane: The separation of church and state — and Scalia from his mind

(Yet would that it were so!  Imagine, so many Supreme Court justices and Republican politicians, from Antonin Scalia to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, disqualified in one fell swoop on mental health grounds from holding public office!)

It is interesting that people did not seem to notice that this thread is in the "Humor" section of this site.

Here is more to drive the point home:

http://m.snopes.com/apa-belief-mental-illness/

[Chad32]

That's the funniest part. The fact that you can say something like this, and many people will find this believable.

[Minimalist]

Yep.  Batshit crazy, every last one of them!

[MTL]

Won't that be directly unconstitutional?

There is what is called the "strict scrutiny test", in which the Courts may determine whether the government can infringe on an otherwise-protected right, and the Lemon test, by which they measure the necessity versus the effect, such as in cases where a religious practice like polygamy is part of the religion yet the government wishes to ban it. Sorry for the copypasta, but these are concepts that everyone should understand, but that it is really important for atheists to understand:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

The Court's decision in the case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon) which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

1. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
   
   1. Factors.
      
      1. Character and purpose of institution benefited.
         
      2. Nature of aid the state provides.
         
      3. Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
         
2. The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
   
3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)
   

You're very well-informed.  I wasn't aware of this, and yet it makes obvious sense that it exists.

I'm glad you posted this.  Thank You.