Religion Now a "Mental Illness?"

Well, it had to happen: religious belief is now declared a mental illness. Which conveniently renders 9/10ths of the world's population as potential invalids who can be legally dispensed with according to any doctor's whims:
According to the American Psychological 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.
What absolute, unscientific nonsense. But here's the kicker:
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.
That of course is the wedge, the precedent. From there we'll see religious belief of any kind used as an excuse to declare a patient unfit. Never mind that study after study proves that religious belief actually contributes to emotional and mental health- the APA is not in the business of science, it's in the business of control. Sound familiar?

We last heard from the APA when it tried to declassify pedophilia as a paraphilia or mental disorder. After a storm of outrage, it slyly declared that pedophiles who aren't comfortable with their orientation are suffering from some kind of neurosis.
In the end, however, only a small change was made: “Pedophilia” was changed to “pedophilic disorder,” to conform to other disorders in chapter on paraphilias, the APA said. The “diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in DSM-IV-TR,” it added. 
To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people “feel personal distress” about their atypical sexual interest or have a desire or behavior that harms another person or involves “unwilling” persons or “persons unable to give legal consent.”
Unbelievable. But it should be expected.  

This is all going to continue because the wolves have put on sheep's clothing and conditioned easily manipulated Americans to look for mustache-twirling cartoon characters like Donald Trump instead of the anonymous armies of think-tank and NGO-fed drones who mindlessly work day-in and day-out to create an endless index of insidious menaces like these.

 For our own good, you understand.

Of course it helps the APA's cause that the devoutly religious are disproportionately poor and/or nonwhite, as the above graphic to the article oh-so-subtly informs its readers. 

UPDATE: Is this story a hoax? I got the link from The Daily Grail but a reader links to a Snopes story claiming the story is false. I guess the question becomes then is it false or is it a trial balloon? 


  1. That story is from a satirical website called News Nerd.

  2. Democracy at it's worst, so judge-mental whatever next?


    So, devout atheists will mock and make fun of theists for believing in the idea of god, but atheists are going to tell me and everyone else that corporations can somehow, magickally, issue laws, sanction, and/or prohibit the actions of people who are NOT employees, agents, or officers of that corporation?

    Even though it is a fact that former Chief Justice John Marshall said a corporation is "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law."

    Invisible? Intangible? Existing only in contemplation of the written words of other men? My goodness gracious atheists! Sounds like you need to call the Ghostbusters because there seems to be some ghosts and ghouls haunting your waste a brain. Atheists seem to be extremely disconnected from reality. Maybe they should pray to Walmart for guidance. Oh, wait...They can't because Walmart is invisible, and intangible, and only exists if you believe the written laws which others wrote.

    Devout and desperate atheists should keep in mind the fact that the laws (lex scripta) and customs of a corporation are called statutes. Also, be aware that no person is obliged to be a member of a corporation without their express consent.

    OUCH! Reality bites, atheists. The facts hurt so much! IT BURNS US!

  4. continued...

    Some more of those pesky, reality inducing, slap in the face factoids for the devout atheists there:

    In 1887, Charles T. Boone, LL. B. has his legal tome published which was entitled, "A Manual of the Law Applicable to Corporations Generally..." Therein, he stated factually, "Each one of the states of the Federal Union is in effect a public corporation; so, the United States is a corporation."

    Sir William Blackstone said of corporations: "These artificial persons are called bodies politc, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations:..."

    Chisholm v. Georgia, Supreme Court 1793. Justice Iredell said, "The King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. So, also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement, 1 Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not only each State singly, but even the United States may without impropriety be termed "corporations."

    Footnote from Commentaries on the Law of Public Corporations, Volume 1 by Charles Fisk Beach Pg. 545, In Hill v. Mayor 72 Ga. 314, the court said: "If no man could be fined or imprisoned for violation of city police ordinances except by a jury trial on indictment, away would go all power in our municipal authorities to preserve peace and good order within their corporate limits." In affirming the same doctrine the Supreme Court of Colorado used the follow vigorous language: "The public welfare demands summary and speedy prosecution of offenders against municipal ordinances. To hold that unless there be presentation by indictment, trial by just, and unless all the other constitutional rights and privileges accorded to defendants in criminal cases be extended to each and ever person charged with these petty offenses, and imprisonment could not follow conviction, would be disastrous beyond measure to the welfare of those living within cities and towns, and would largely destroy the usefulness of such corporations." Per Justice Helm, in City of Greeley v. Hamman (1888), 12 Colo. 94.

    Footnote from A Treatise on the Limitations of Police Power in the United States… Pg. 464, "Search warrants were never recognized by the common law as processes which might be availed of by individuals in the course of civill proceedings, or for the maintenance of any mere private rights; but their use was confined to the case of public prosecutions instituted and pursued for the suppression of crime, and the detections and punishment of criminals. Even in those cases, if we may rely on the authority of Lord Coke, their legality was formerly doubted; and Lord Camden said they crept into the law by imperceptible practice. But their legality has long been considered to be established on the ground of public necessity; because without them felons and other malefactors would escape detection." Merrick, J., in Robinson v. Richardson, 13 Gray, 456.

    Wowzers, that is a seriously big dose of reality for even the most seasoned atheist.

    Remember, your opinion is NOT, and NEVER will be a fact.