Tony Perkins in "Psycho"

I learned something new yesterday about the shameless little man who runs the Family Research Council: Tony Perkins does not love anyone who is suffering from mental illness.

It's possible that Perkins does not even know anyone who is suffering from mental illness or, at least, that he thinks he doesn't know any such person. Because if he did know such a person, and if he cared about them even just a little bit, just enough to begin thinking about what their world is like, then he couldn't have allowed this to be sent out in his name: "Should Private Businesses Be Forced to Pay for Sexual Disorders?"

The perpetually alarmed Perkins is alarmed this time over the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, which says that if you've promised to provide health care for your employees, then guess what? You have to provide health care for your employees. And you don't get to break your promise just because your brain hasn't yet figured out that it's an inseparable part of your body.

Now I happen to think that the American model of employer-based health care is, itself, insane. It arises from the convoluted, wasteful and inefficient Rube Goldberg device we've constructed in an attempt to pretend that a free market in health care is theoretically sound. But given the existence of that uniquely American patchwork employer-based system ("you tend the sick with the health care system you have, not with ...") the Wellstone Act is necessary. It reasserts reality in the face of the fantasy that brains and bodies are somehow neatly and easily divisible.

I would understand if Perkins opposed all such mandates, and not just those involving treatment for mental illness, based on some free-market principle. I would disagree -- on the facts as well as the ideology -- but I would understand. But that's not what Perkins does here. What he does, instead, is attempt to portray the concept of mental illness itself as illegitimate. He mocks the idea that mental illness refers to anything real.

He tries to show that mental illness is either trivial or merely perverse by cobbling together a weird little list of diagnoses from the DSM-IV:

The bill uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the basis for identifying conditions that must be covered. Among the more troubling diagnoses incorporated into DSM-IV are: Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (jet lag type); Caffeine intoxication; Sibling relational problem; Substance-induced sexual dysfunction; Gender identity disorder; Necrophilia; Transvestic fetishism; and Pedophilia.

The two parts of Perkins' little list are efforts to make mental illness seem either trivial or repugnant.

Let's take the supposedly trivial first. Things like jet lag and caffeine intoxication are included as diagnoses in the DSM-IV because they can mirror the symptoms of more substantial problems and thus need to be either ruled out or ruled in by care providers making a diagnosis. Mental health professionals have to know about such things for the same reason that cardiologists need to be able to recognize the symptoms of heartburn. Clinicians need to be able, when appropriate, to tell a prospective patient, "You're not depressed, you're jet-lagged. Go home and get some sleep" or "It's not a panic attack, just lay off the double espresso."

It's possible Perkins doesn't understand that, but he doesn't come across as someone who is either that stupid or that honest. So rather than give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's simply a moron, I'm assuming he's deliberately misrepresenting the DSM to deceive his readers. He is, in other words, lying to his supporters to alarm them into sending him more money.

That's pretty much his job. And he's good at his job.

The rest of Perkins list is harder to make sense of. The FRC, like other anti-gay groups of the religious right, is still complaining that homosexuality is no longer listed as a mental disorder in the DSM. Yet here, by mocking the DSM and by snidely listing things like gender identity disorder and transvestic fetishism alongside jet lag, he seems to be suggesting ... what? That these things are not substantially different from jet lag?

The context of this whole alarming Alert! is to oppose the treatment of mental illness. Perkins then goes out of his way to say that the treatment of necrophilia and pedophila are particularly "troubling." Is there any way to read that other than as Perkins suggesting that these disorders should not be treated? Because that seems like a very strange thing to be arguing for anyone who's not a member of NAMBLA. I strongly disagree with Perkins on this point. I'm not a kid anymore and I'm not dead yet, but I would still like to make sure that any potential pedophile or necrophiliac is treated as swiftly and thoroughly as possible.

Part of Perkins' problem here -- or at least part of the problem he's pandering to -- is the popular evangelical notion that there's really no such thing as mental illness, only sin. (The secular parallel to this in conservative ideology is that there's no such thing as mental illness, only irresponsible personal choices.) In many evangelical circles, the word "therapeutic" is used only as a sneering pejorative. This arises from several of the more troublesome aspects of the American evangelical subculture: from its instinctive anti-intellectual/anti-science bias; from its neo-Neo-platonic belief in a body/mind, flesh/soul duality; from its illiteralist misreading of scripture ("they're not mentally ill, they're demon possessed").

What that all adds up to, in many branches of American evangelicalism, is an attitude toward mental illness that is indistinguishable from that of the Christian Scientists.

One could try to counter this weird idea that mental illness equals sin by methodically addressing each of those root assumptions and rationally explaining the flaws of each, trying, through education and reason, to liberate Perkins' followers from the intellectual veal pens he's trapped them in. That approach might even be effective on some rare occasions. Most of the time, however, this idea will persist until the person subscribing to it has some direct personal experience that breaks through the illusory construct. They need to meet someone who is directly affected by mental illness. They need to love someone who is directly affected by mental illness.

Once that happens, it becomes much harder to continue blaming the victim.

Comments

[Tom]

"They need to love someone who is directly affected by mental illness."

Unfortunately, to a religious conservative, love means hitting somebody with a bible until they shut up. Not to mention the fact that, in order to change, people must admit there is something wrong with themselves or their belief system. Again, not something religious conservatives are known for.

[Keith]

it's precisely this attitude that mental illness or social circumstances are either trivial or a personal choice that led me recently to realize that the only true evil in this world is the lack of human empathy. Perkins and all the other folk who don't care about the poor, the afflicted or the infirm only get it when it all of a sudden happens to them.

I f I believed in magic, I'd curse him with stage II diabetes and/or depression. But I don't so I'll just shake my head and mutter.

[His Grace]

I am a paranoid schizophrenic. Mental illness is one of the hardest diseases to deal with (heck even in a country like Canada with--gasp--socialized medicine) because it is hard for someone who hasn't been affected by it to relate to. People like Perkins disgust me because all their rhetoric does is ensure that fewer mental patients recover their lives by trivializing their struggles. I don't claim to be a perfect Christian, nobody is. But I didn't get sick because I sinned and I am pretty sure that I have sinned less than the current president had at my age, even going by Perkins' standards.

[Tonio]

intellectual veal pens

Metaphor of the week!

Fred, I've been arguing that the physical universe and the "mental universe" are separate realms. I'm not talking about a body/mind duality. I'm talking about the principle that the physical universe exists independent of human belief, that empiricism is the only source of knowledge about the physical universe. Does that sound neo-Platonist to you?

[Jesurgislac]

It's deeply odd when you consider that people like the FRC still want to believe that homosexuality or being transgendered are treatable mental illnesses from which a sufferer can get better.

There was a popular sigline for a while "If homosexuality is a disease, why don't we all call in sick today? 'Sorry, can't work today, still queer.'"

Removing "homosexuality" as a diagnosis is nothing but good: the difficulty many trans people have with the situation around "gender identity disorder" is that, virtually by definition, if health insurance is to cover stuff like prescription of hormones and surgery (and this applies to the NHS) the health care system has to regard "gender identity disorder" as an illness for which the cure is... prescription of hormones and surgery. (Many psychiatrists also used to enforce behavior mod and require their trans patients to behave according to the proper stereotype for men or for women - a trans woman told me once that just showing up to her psychiatric appointment in jeans had set her back at least three months, because obviously "real women" don't wear jeans.)

"Homosexuality" is unlikely ever to go back on the list of mental disorders, short of the Religious Right taking over the medical establishment completely and driving out all doctors with any sense of professional responsibility. But mocking the idea that health insurance should cover "gender identity disorder" is a roadblock on the way for trans people to be able to live in their real, rather than their birth gender. So it's a fairly safe strategy: it undercuts their claim to believe that homosexuality is an illness, but they won't get that back anyway, and it makes it more difficult and more painful - and more expensive - for trans people to change.

It's a rather painful issue for me: a friend who wanted to transition, and who was carefully manoevering through various institutional/bureaucratic roadblocks, died before she could get to the end of the road. She was almost my age, and it was such an appalling waste, in so many ways.

[Kayte]

What that all adds up to, in many branches of American evangelicalism, is an attitude toward mental illness that is indistinguishable from that of the Christian Scientists.

Creepier still: In many ways, it's indistinguishable from $cientology.

[Tonio]

Is it hypocritical for fundamentalism to claim that it's part of human nature to sin but not part of someone's nature to be gay?

they can mirror the symptoms of more substantial problems and thus need to be either ruled out or ruled in by care providers making a diagnosis

Dumb question - would that be obvious to most people outside the mental health field?

[Richard Hershberger]

Regarding the "secular...conservative ideology" it is worth noting that this is only "conservative" in the narrow sense of the modern political movement that so self-identifies. The concept of mental illness runs deep in English law. Many assume that the criminal defense of not guilty on account of insanity is the product of modern bleeding-heart lefties. It actually goes back to the Middle Ages. As is so often the case, we ought not imagine that modern "conservatives" are actually striving to uphold any genuine tradition.

[rampancy]

@kayte - I was thinking the same thing. In fact, the similarities between The Church of Scientology and the Religious Right have made me feel really creeped out lately.

[Tonio]

Many assume that the criminal defense of not guilty on account of insanity is the product of modern bleeding-heart lefties.

I've encountered many conservatives who truly believe that such a verdict automatically puts the person back out on the street. Some of them believe that judges and juries regularly accept the temporary insanity defense.

Thank you for this post, Fred.

[hapax]

neo-Neo-platonic belief in a body/mind, flesh/soul duality

HEY! Christian Neo-Platonist here, and don't believe that at all!

The Biblical (Hebrew Scriptures, Gospels, and non-Pauline or Johannine traditions) position is a body/soul dichotomy -- that is, a distinction between physical body and the animating principle which gives it life.

The Christian neo-Platonist position is a Trinitarian antrhropology of body/soul/spirit, which splits the "animating principle" into two -- the enlivening soul, which all living beings possess, and the spirit, which allows us to participate in the Divine life.

In neither case is the brain distinguished from the rest of the body. *Some* Christian neo-Platonists imply that rationality is in some sense equivalent to the spirit, but once again, this is a view of rationality that views it as a direct infusion of Divine grace, not as a purely human, mental construct.

All of these traditions would view mental illness the same as any other physical illness -- a consequence of living in a fallen world, which obscures and obstructs the intended full participation of the wholly integrated human being in the Divine plan. As such, it is to be viewed with compassion, and treated if possible -- the Gadarene swineherd just as the man born blind from birth.

Don't blame this bizarre mind/body duality on the Neo-Platonists. That's a product of (ptui ptui) Descartes and the whole Enlightenment.

[hapax]

the man born blind from birth.

ugggh, Redundant much?

[Jason]

Hey, I never connected that FRC's Tony Perkins has the same name as the real Tony Perkins.

Also, it's interesting that, as of last time I bothered to look over the benefits chart, my employer provides mental health benefits that are more generous than the "regular" health benefits. Zero cost to the employee; not even a copay. I suspect that somebody (wisely) thought that when you're employing people in a high-stress environment (law), it's cheaper pay for your employees to deal with that than it is to have them quit or bug out.

[Errol Flynn]

If you look at the full quote, you can see a skillful and dirty rhetorical trick:

Of even more concern, though, is the fact that rather than limit the coverage mandate to severe and debilitating illness, the bill uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the basis for identifying conditions that must be covered.

The DSM-IV is the standard, authoritative, mainstream manual of American psychiatry - exactly the sort of source the bill SHOULD use - but you wouldn't know that from this sentence, which sets up a false dichotomy between "serious illnesses" and the DSM-IV.

But better yet, the sentence also implies a dichotomy between physical and mental illnesses. No one would accept health coverage that only paid for "severe and debilitating" physical diseases. From a preventative-medicine standpoint, that's a nightmare, and from a practical standpoint, who wants a plan that covers liver cancer but won't treat strep throat? Yet mental illnesses are apparently different; they should only be treated when they're "severe and debilitating."

It's a nice little two-fer of verbal manipulation.

[MikhailBorg]

That's a product of (ptui ptui) Descartes and the whole Enlightenment.

While we humans can and do mess up everything, when I check the Wikipedia entry on the Enlightenment, I see a whole lot of fairly good ideas.

"It was an age of optimism, tempered by the realistic recognition of the sad state of the human condition and the need for major reforms.The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of attitudes. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals."

"Enlightenment thinkers believed that systematic thinking might be applied to all areas of human activity".

"Its leaders believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages. The movement helped create the intellectual framework for the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions".

The general idea seems to be, "we have brains, maybe we should use them for something." Again, humans have often proven bad at that, but I'm not sure we should stop trying.

[Geds]

By the way, Fred?

Tony Perkins does not love anyone who is suffering from mental illness.

Fixed that for you...

[kodiak]

er, maybe I mis-read but I felt that neo-neo-platonic is different than plain old neo-platonic thought... and that the whole point of Fred specifying it that way was to prevent Ne-Platoists from getting all up in arms.

Something that he wasn't able to accomplish apparently... hmmm

[Praline]

Like fuck he doesn't know anyone mentally ill. Depression alone affects one in four people at some point, and one in twenty at any given moment. Unless he's only ever met ninteen people plus himself, he knows somebody mentally ill. But considering his attitude, I'm not surprised if the sick people in his life are all mutting, 'Whatever you do, don't tell Tony.'

Most likely, he reckons that the people he knows are the exception. Hardliners often class their sick person/abortion/drug using child/whatever that way. Love means special treatment: bending the line between 'them' and 'us' to keep your loved ones on the right side of it, whatever they do.

Of course, there's always wider-ranging love of your fellow man. But ... oh hell, I'm so mad at him I can't even think of a funny way to say that obviously he doesn't care a curse about his fellow man. This kind of jerk seems to feel it's loving your family and friends all the more if you make sure and hate everyone Different from them in equal proportions.

Frankly, having seen mental illness, it's not unlike demonic possession: the person you know gets taken over by a malign force. If the church wanted to classify it as demonic possession and then actually support doing whatever it took to cure it - after all, you don't want your flock possessed by demons - that might not be entirely bad. If you could manage to place the blame on the demon, not the sufferer.

Is there any way to read that other than as Perkins suggesting that these disorders should not be treated? Because that seems like a very strange thing to be arguing...

But the trouble is, I don't think he's being inconsistent. He's classifying gender identity stuff as a mental illness, but that doesn't mean he should want it treated. He doesn't want anybody treated. He wants them blamed. Apparently, he's under the impression that if you blame people enough, they either revert magically to what you want them to be, or just, you know, disappear. Or at least, disappear into some portion of your brain where you don't have to deal with them. (Of course, that means other people have to deal with them, but hey, those guys are liberals, or else the family and friends of sinning people and thus tainted by association so to hell with them. Lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts.)

This man makes me so mad it's hard to think straight. But don't curse him with depression, Keith. Nobody, nobody, nobody deserves that.

[Monkay]

"mental universe"
Belief, like life itself, is an emergent phenomenon of the physical universe.

[Elmo]

Just in case anyone else is as confused as I was,
Anthony Perkins -- a.k.a. Tony Perkins died in 1992 from AIDS related pneumonia.
This other Tony Perkins is the sort of guy that Kinky Friedman had in mind when he penned the first line of They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore
A redneck nerd in a boiling shirt was drinkin' Lone Star Beer
Talkin' religion and politics for all the world to hear.

[straight]

No one would accept health coverage that only paid for "severe and debilitating" physical diseases.

Quoted because it deserves to be the headline for this entire (very important, thank you, Fred!) post.

[straight]

To follow up on my other comment.

Maybe the biggest problem with the way mental illness is perceived in our society is that laypeople tend to draw a bright line between "Crazy" (belongs in a mental hospital) and "Not Crazy" (everybody else).

No one would except such a stupid dichotomy for physical health. Imagine if we said, "You're either Sick - which means you are in a hospital bed, or you're Healthy. If you're not sick enough to be hospitalized, you get no medical treatment whatsoever. Just buck up and tough it out."

[damnedyankee]

That's a product of (ptui ptui) Descartes and the whole Enlightenment.

So are the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. To quote the unofficial motto of the City of Philadelphia: You got a problem with that?

[burgundy]

Straight - and the problem with the crazy/not-crazy dichotomy is that not only does it result in people denying the need for other people to get help, it results in people denying their own need to get help (as with, for example, a friend of mine who balked at the idea that she might benefit from therapy or medication, because she wasn't crazy. This was very nice for me to hear, because I was in therapy and taking meds at the time.)

[Lauren]

No one would accept health coverage that only paid for "severe and debilitating" physical diseases.

Actually, catastrophic coverage health plans are fairly popular for people who think they are rich enough to afford minor health expenses, know they aren't rich enough to afford treatment for major illness, and are healthy enough not to need frequent doctor visits. As an added benefit, catastrophic plans get you the same insurance-negotiated discount as a full-coverage plan.

But yeah, not treating mental illness is dumb.

[Chris]

I don't personally know anybody who I know has been diagnosed with a mental illness. But, it burns me up when I hear so-called Christians brush off mental illness as a mere "sin problem" and that "if they were just right with God, this wouldn't be a problem." Morons who say that ought not to be allowed to call themselves Christian. They're an embarrassment to those of us who have compassion for those of you who either have a mental illness, or have a loved one who has a mental illness. That cannot be an easy road to follow and you all have my utmost compassion. Little trolls like Tony Perkins need to go away and stop pretending that they're fighting for anything other than their self-interest.

[Tonio]

If the FRC's Tony Perkins were in "Psycho", what would Janet Leigh be? The separation of church and state? Intellectual freedom?

[J]

The context of this whole alarming Alert! is to oppose the treatment of mental illness. Perkins then goes out of his way to say that the treatment of necrophilia and pedophila are particularly "troubling."

It's extra odd because Christians these days seem to LOVE the idea of clinical psychology. If there's any department in your average liberal arts curriculum that they like, whole-cloth, then it's psychology. And they especially like the language of psychopathology, especially that particularly misbegotten patchwork of Freud and AA that is Christian Counseling.

I was laboring in the book mines [public library] the other day and saw the latest issue of Christianity Today, with it's cover story about men's sexual addiction. My initial guess before even opening the article was about 90% verbatim what it actually said. Oh there was one guy who was actually accused of sexually harassing several employees (of his ministry; utterly natch), but most of the "addiction" seemed to be guys who liked the occasional discrete peek at porn.

Here's the checklist of things mentioned in the article that were there in spades:

1.) Men crying
2.) Men patting each other on the back
3.) Men covering their faces with their hands
4.) Men saying that they had betrayed their wives by looking at porn
5.) Multiple descriptions of Colorado Springs
6.) Quotes by Christian counselors
7.) Suspiciously enormous statistics about the size of the "problem", provided by the Barna Group
8.) Men described as having "struggled" with porn "addiction" for years
9.) Pictures of "after" men with their wives standing behind them smiling, husband with a "help me, my wife is an asexual harpy-freak" smile and wife with a "I busted HIS balls" smile.

So anyway, it's weird that Tony Perkins is so opposed to clinical psychology, because there's this whole other Nurse Rachet wing of his movement that would like nothing more than to make all kinds of variant human behavior pathological and thus, medical. Just as soon as there's an atheism-treatment ward of your local psychiatric hospital, they'll be happy.

[straight]

From Gene Wolfe's tips for writers:

Understand your characters. No one is a villain to him/herself. No one is clinically sane if you know them well enough.

Which should not be seen as belittling severe mental illness. On the contrary, it recognizes that those with severe mental illness are on a continuum with the rest of us. It's like saying "no one is in perfect physical health."

[Geds]

5.) Multiple descriptions of Colorado Springs

This makes me laugh.

[J]

That's a product of (ptui ptui) Descartes and the whole Enlightenment.

The "whole Enlightenment" was good. Endlessly good. I have no major qualm with any ideas from the Enlightenment. So what if some French aristocrats and fat-fuck Catholic priests GOT THEIRS. And no, I have no problem with Napoleon either: He gave us the modern city of Paris.

I'll take the Enlightenment over other historical periods every day of the week and eleventy-one times on Sunday.

[Praline]

J: just to qualify your point, some people do get sick enough to need hospital care; not every psychiatric ward comes via Ken Kesey. There is a difference between the non-mainstream and the mentally ill, and classing the former as the latter leads to social oppression. But classing the latter as the former leads to sick people not getting treatment, and that's extremely serious.

It seems to me like the Christian Right are only really interested in treating diseases that respond to indoctrination and preachin. As real diseases don't, they had to reclassify some non-pathological behaviours as illnesses. Imaginary cures only work on imaginary diseases.

[Keith]

Don't blame this bizarre mind/body duality on the Neo-Platonists. That's a product of (ptui ptui) Descartes and the whole Enlightenment.

Wrong. The mind/body dualism is Platonic in origin. Read The Republic again if you want the finer points, though it's all mumbo jumbo anyway.

Descarte said "I think therefore I am*," and went on to elaborate at length how thoughts lead to actions in the physical world which have consequences. Our consciousness is a byproduct of our brains trying to make sense of and navigate through a complicated but very tangible world. All this blather about souls and spirits is just demonology. Mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and is, in most cases, correctable with medicine. Which is why antidepressants and antipsychotics work.

____
* There's recently been some debate as to the validity of that translation as verbs and nouns often get swapped when they cross the channel from France to England. Some scholars now think what Descarte actually said was "I am, therefore I think," which is a sentiment that Existentialists, particularly Sarte, would agree with. Existence precedes thought. You can exist but it doesn't mean you have thoughts. For concrete examples see: trees, rocks, the GOP, etc.

[J]

Multiple descriptions of Colorado Springs

This makes me laugh.

Thanks. Whenever you hear about some scary new Christian trend (i.e. divinely sanctioned wife-whipping or some other shit), check to see if the article mentions any city OTHER than Colorado Springs. If not, you can relax: It's NOT a "trend" at all.

It's like the flipside of cool social movements mentioned in Utne Reader. You'll look in there (in UR) and see some cool new mention of bicycle-sharing clubs or something and excitedly page down to see if there's any mention of your hometown, but no, apparently it's limited to just San Francisco or Brooklyn or someplace far from "the heartland". And you'll sadly realize that whatever's being described isn't a mass event but just a little experiment in a cool urban enclave you don't live near enough to participate.

Same deal with Colorado Springs, only in reverse: Whenever you hear about some scary new Christian trend (i.e. divinely sanctioned wife-whipping or some other shit), check to see if the article mentions any city OTHER than Colorado Springs. If not, you can relax: It's NOT a "trend" at all but just some isolated freaks who got a little too much sun and high-altitude air in the Springs.

[J]

Woops; didn't edit my post the way I wanted to.

[Tonio]

5.) Multiple descriptions of Colorado Springs

I didn't know that the town was thick with Real True Christianity until the Air Force Academy scandal.

atheism-treatment ward of your local psychiatric hospital

When the Jesus Pets subject came up in another thread, I thought we had discovered a new Internet rule - anything that can be parodied has been parodied. But I could not find a parody about such a ward.

[Keith]

If the church wanted to classify it as demonic possession and then actually support doing whatever it took to cure it - after all, you don't want your flock possessed by demons - that might not be entirely bad.

You mean other than the physical torture, which might include: scalding, beating, branding, water boarding, smothering, crushing or being locked up in stress positions? Because I'd rather stick with Prozac and all it's side effects, thanks very much.

[J]

J: just to qualify your point, some people do get sick enough to need hospital care; not every psychiatric ward comes via Ken Kesey.

Yeah, um, you didn't really read my whole entry too carefully did you?

Stop.
Rewind.
Re-Read.
Realize lack of need for "qualifying" point.

[J]

I didn't know that the town was thick with Real True Christianity until the Air Force Academy scandal.

It's also headquarters for Focus on the Family. Or is it the Family Research Council? Whichever one has like 10,000 employees.

[Vermic]

Perkins then goes out of his way to say that the treatment of necrophilia and pedophila are particularly "troubling." Is there any way to read that other than as Perkins suggesting that these disorders should not be treated?

I think to Perkins, "treatment" is equivalent to "acceptance", so yeah, he's saying they shouldn't be treated. His vision of therapy is some new-age hippie therapist reassuring necrophiliacs and pedophiles that they're loved and special little snowflakes (instead of what therapists actually do which is, you know, try to solve the problem), and he'll be damned if he lets hard-earned dollars go toward that.

[J]

...reassuring necrophiliacs and pedophiles that they're loved and special little snowflakes

But everyone IS a special little snowflake. Well, everyone except for me. I'm the only one who's not unique at all.

[Geds]

check to see if the article mentions any city OTHER than Colorado Springs

As someone who was born and raised in Wheaton, IL, the change of focus for crazed Christianity to Colorado Springs makes me happy. Wheaton can still be a bit odd to those who would rather not feel like they're about to be proselytized to every twenty minutes or so, but it really isn't so bad these days. And I'm given to understand that they passed out equal numbers of Democrat and Republican ballots on Super Tuesday, which is cool (a couple of years ago asking for the D ballot got surprised looks).

Heck, I understand that one of the absolute top teaching palentologists in the country/world right now is on faculty at Wheaton College. There may be hope for my hometown yet...

[J]

Is Wheaton College one of those places that makes faculty sign an oath of Christian loyalty or something? I had a friend with a math PhD who applied for 2 [math] teaching jobs at Christian colleges. Both of them said, "You're hired! Now if you'll just sign this little document.." and then pushed forward a piece of paper with 40 or 50 assertions this friend of mine would never in a million years agree to.

[straight]

Praline, thanks. That's an important point. Let me clarify that I didn't mean any of my "mental illness is a continuum that includes most or all of us" to suggest that we should be trying to medicalize behavior that's merely non-mainstream.

[Bugmaster]

The Biblical (Hebrew Scriptures, Gospels, and non-Pauline or Johannine traditions) position is a body/soul dichotomy -- that is, a distinction between physical body and the animating principle which gives it life. The Christian neo-Platonist position is a Trinitarian antrhropology of body/soul/spirit, which splits the "animating principle" into two...

You know, from my atheistic perspective, a tri-alism is not any better than a dualism. In fact, it's worse. 66% worse.

Regarding the Enlightenment, I think that the most important outcome of it was the renewed emphasis on reason, and a decreased level of respect for mysticism of all kinds. But I can see why theists might dislike this.

[straight]

J: Yes, Wheaton College has a "Statement of Faith" - they recently fired a lit professor for converting to Roman Catholicism. But there's no way someone could get a job offer there without discussing the whole deal in detail with the faculty and administration. You're friend must've been applying somewhere else.

[Praline]

If the church wanted to classify it as demonic possession and then actually support doing whatever it took to cure it - after all, you don't want your flock possessed by demons - that might not be entirely bad.

You mean other than the physical torture, which might include: scalding, beating, branding, water boarding, smothering, crushing or being locked up in stress positions? Because I'd rather stick with Prozac and all it's side effects, thanks very much.

No, I pretty much meant seeing 'demonic possession' as a metaphor, and recommending that the sufferer go to a doctor while everybody in the congregation prays for their speedy delivery from the hell-sent sickness they're suffering from, and makes an extra effort to support them and their family. Prozac rather than beatings always sounds fine to me.

[Tonio]

What does the TogetherChristian ad on this page mean by "certified Christian"? Is that anything like earning a engineering or social work license? On another Web site, the same company uses a different ad showing a blonde woman wearing a tight spaghetti-strap blouse.

[Praline]

And J, I did read your whole point. I know you're not endorsing no mental healthcare. I just worry about people who know nothing about mental illness treating the whole business as the invention of some kind of 'industry' when all anybody really needs is a little chamomile tea. Such people discourage sufferers from getting the help they need - but I had no intention of implying you were one of them. I was more just trying to address a concern that's affected me and people I know. The balance of emphasis can make a difference in people's attitudes, and I was just putting my penn'orth on the scale.