Slippery Slopes

I saw a reference to the idea of people with a particular mindset as being deemed mentally ill over at Samizdata the other day. The concept niggled, but I let it pass. Others did see fit to criticise this line:

We also need to convince people that those who enforce and apologise for the endless regulations are not alright either, they are psychologically twisted by compulsions to impose their will on others.

Now, while I agree with the general theme of the post; that of irritation with petty officialdom interfering in our lives and I’d go along with the reasoning that there is a certain personality type that seems to take delight in so doing; to suggest that they are suffering from a mental affliction is heading down a dangerous path indeed.

Then, damn me, Neil Harding goes and does the self same thing:

To make you feel better, religious people are not alone; nationalists, racists, communists, believers in astrology etc. and all sorts of other prejudiced idealists are suffering from the same sort of mental affliction (meme or virus of the mind). It is difficult to rise above a mumbo jumbo that is drilled into all of us while we are children and perpetuated by papers like the Daily Mail etc.

(As an aside, one might be tempted to be a little cruel and include ZANU Labour supporters in that list… :devil:)

Now, as you will have realised, I do not believe in gods, superstitions, astrology, crystals or anything than cannot be rationally challenged through scientific reasoning. But, to suggest that those who do are mentally afflicted makes my skin crawl. We’ve been here before, haven’t we? First Soviet Russia and more recently, Communist China.

These are regimes where people who dare to voice dissent against the official doctrine are deemed to be “mentally ill” or “afflicted” and therefore in need of “treatment”. If it wasn’t summary execution or the gulag, Stalin’s thugs would march dissidents off to the asylum.

Ours is a supposedly civilised country. In a civilised country, people who annoy us with their petty officialdom, or offend our sensibilities with their religious beliefs and superstions are not “ill” or “afflicted” they simply have different opinions and beliefs. Treating them as mentally ill – and therefore in need of treatment – is the way of the totalitarian dictatorship.

How long is it from here, to there, with enforced incarceration and treatment “for their own good” or for the good of society; the collective? Have we learned nothing from history?

6 Comments

  1. I have added my twopenneth to the discussion. I view people who hold religious beliefs to be irrational and delusional but not insane.

  2. I’d say we’re already ‘there’, longrider. With Irving’s show-trial and jailing for his heresy, we’ve entered the era of the new inquisition. 😐

  3. On the subject of sanity of one’s opponents, I remember this interesting view, first heard by me on “Yes Minister”, where Bernard referred to it as an irregular conjugation:

    I am independently minded,
    You are eccentric,
    He is totally round the twist.

    Best regards

  4. Longrider: The funny thing is; as you might know; I avidly support ALL free speech.

    The cartoons should be published, Irving should be free, even the Muslim demonstrators with the ‘behead’ placards are ok by me, (would we criminalise someone who had ‘hang those who commit treason’ on a placard)?

    Only inciting direct acts of violence should be curbed.

    In the same way, delusional behaviour like religion, racism, nationalism, etc should be
    described as such. It is irrational, insane and in my opinion can easily be described as a mental affliction. That doesn’t mean we should try to stop their beliefs (that is fascism) , but we should tell it like it is, and discourage their beliefs as much as possible.

  5. Indeed, you are right. I deplore what happened with Irving. The Soviet purges were only a generation ago. So, too, the cultural revolution in China. When I hear people deciding that certain thoughts are “insane” – as opposed to genuine mental illness that can be clinically diagnosed, I am appalled and frightened by the implications.

    If you follow the link, I’ve been engaging Neil in a discussion. What worries me is that he does not appear to understand the implications of what he is saying. 🙁

  6. There’s a line between describing someone’s beliefs as irrational and stating that they are suffering from a mental affliction. Having an irrational or foolish belief is not the same as mental illness. The problem with the latter is that it leads to the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes. And, your list could be easily extended to include all sorts of beliefs – including yours.

Comments are closed.