> > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > > rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > > > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > > > Hey, recovering from a major psychological problem *is* a > big deal, > > > I certainly hope you're not implying belief or faith are major > > > psychological problems. > > I wouldn't call it "implying". I'm *asserting* it. Big difference. > > > you're not a psychologist, are you? > > Nope, but I play one on the net. (Most of the people arguing here > > aren't psychologists, or priests, or philosophers, either; this is a > > discussion among amateurs). > > > > You're making a fairly heavy-handed assertion that i'd bet most > > psychologists would refute. Perhaps you should stick to speculation. > > The contents of the DSM ebb and flow politically all the time. I > believe there already *is* a section of religious disorders, it just > doesn't go as far as I think it should. Funny, I happen to have a copy of the DSM-IV-TR right here and it goes out of it's way to say that pretty much any condition that looks like a mental disorder, but that can be viewed in the context of it's culture as normal, is ok and not a mental illness. This is specifically addressed in the context of the Disassociative Disorders. I.e.. Voudou or Santeria practitioners are not mentally ill. In fact the whole of the DSM series has been less 'ebb and flow' and more 'tightly defining' of mental illness. I threw away my copy of the DSM-III-R when I bought the new version or I'd give you some quotes. The big difference that I can recall is the change in DID (Multiple Personalities) which has been tightened up considerably in the aftermath of the whole satanic cult nonsense of the 90's. David