Sethbag wrote:Granted, Harold, but how can you tell? Is the government really capable of being in the business of differentiating which religious beliefs are literally bat**** crazy from those that are only metaphorically bat**** crazy?
How should they do it?
Good points Seth. Hell even religions can't differentiate among themselves what is crazy and what is not. And the fascinating thing is God is supposed to be behind all this glorious outpouring of light and knowledge.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Sethbag wrote: The religious folk in this country stand behind the First Amendment guaranteeing them the right to believe whatever nonsense they like.
Yea, Democrat dare religen peeples shore ar stoopid!
Peace, Ceeboo
Thou sayest.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote: The religious folk in this country stand behind the First Amendment guaranteeing them the right to believe whatever nonsense they like.
Yea, Democrat dare religen peeples shore ar stoopid!
Peace, Ceeboo
Philo Sofee wrote:I honestly don't think they are stupid, but I do think they are more self deceived than anything....
And I think that they are more self deceived because of stronger emotional needs for security in this insecure existence and for future righting of wrongs in this seemingly unjust existence.
First the term Circuit Court is confusing. The trial courts in the Florida state system are called Circuit Court. It is to this court that the brief is directed.
There are also Circuit Courts in the federal system. They are the intermediate appeals courts. It was one of these that entered the stay of execution.
The point of the Brief is really, really narrow. At some point the trial judge said the defendant's beliefs are
"relatively normal Christian belief [s]" that embody a "traditional religious worldview" that is not "significantly different from beliefs other Christians may hold."
His first phrase is wrong I'd say. It's clear he didn't take any religious studies courses in college. The 2nd phrase is arguably correct, defendant's beliefs would fit in a "traditional religious worldview" depending on exactly what he meant by "traditional" and he would have been in better shape if he hadn't used the word. The key word in the 3rd phrase is "significantly." Judges pretty much get to decide what's significant.
The point of the Brief is to say "Oh, no they're not." But it focuses on Christianity, so its really just going after the 1st phrase. It buttresses the insanity argument but doesn't go to the 2 prong test. Does Def. know he is being executed, does he know why?
Stak flips the question, which is OK, if some religious beliefs are delusional are they all delusional? Which does bring us back to the meaning of "traditional" and who gets to decide what's significant.
Some think that all religious beliefs are delusional, others that their own beliefs are just fine but its those other people.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
So delusions are beliefs that are unreasonable to hold that we would would expect a rational person to easily recognize are unreasonable to hold given their cultural context. So suppose you believe that vaccines cause autism. This could be delusional or not based on the origin of that belief. It could be emanating from misguided social learning or it could be the byproduct of a psychotic process. The irrational belief, in of itself, doesn't tell us one way or another. Further investigation is needed. As a rule of thumb, if it's a common belief in your culture, then it probably isn't delusional, but if it isn't, then it probably is. But that's just a rule of thumb.
Delusional religious beliefs are treated the same way. Unfortunately religious delusions like the one in question are not at all uncommon for those suffering from psychotic symptoms. But, normative religious beliefs can be obviously unreasonable too. As an atheist, I tend to think the great bulk of them are. So you have to try and determine, based on why a person thinks what they do, whether we are dealing with delusion or more run of the mill misapprehension. In this case, it strikes me as obvious that this is delusional. The court is likely operating on a legal standard that looks at whether a belief can be reasonable given normative religious belief. If that's the case, this is an example where the system, operating on that rule of thumb, is letting us down.
Insanity is a relative concept. If your conduct and expressions are in the range of normative behavior found in the society in which you live, you will not be deemed insane either by psychological professionals or the justice system.
Abhorrent behavior and ideation--outside the normative range--that is significantly outside that normative range will often provoke the label 'insanity'.
When is that behavior so far afield of the norm that it should excuse the actor from societal consequences for that abhorrent ideation and behavior?
That's when I return to the standard of the impact of that the behavior on others. (Expressions of ideation are simply evidence of abnormalcy of thought, and in my view alone should not provoke societal restraint.) Only when the abnormal conduct is a threat to others/society, that's when societal restraint and measures, including capital punishment (an act by the society against the actor), is societal restraint justified.
From this, my approach, 'insanity' is not a defense, but a justification for societal restraint. Then comes the question of what form should the societal restraint take? To me, insanity only informs that decision if by insane, you mean curable.
Somebody determined that playing a musical instrument like piano or violin/guitar develops a lobes on the back of the brain. Einstein admitted that many of his best ideas came to him while playing violin.
Soooooooooooo, what if having REAL faith from a young age develops a mental edge to add to that faith and build up a considerable degree of faith which also could be tapped into to solve or resolve life's problems, dilemmas or enigmas. Hmm?
Since LDS were never taught to use REAL faith and only mimicked lame faith the exodus exponentiale out of the Church by today's learned only figures.