It’s what it was like then. Accept it. Because it’s fact. The whole House of Lords at the time of Elizabeth I was made up of church people. And that’s just one example!

I’m not disputing any inflence the Church has had in the 19th Century or any other for that matter. But, the notion that it is the Church and the Church alone who started all of the mistreatment of people with disabilities is dogmatic and flat out wrong.

You seem to think that the only people capable of ugly behavior and attitudes on their own, without the influence of any one else, are those of the Church.

Sorry, but that is poppycock.

All people, religious, religious fanatics, agnostic, atheist, doctors, psychiatrists, scientists, dock workers are capable of a great many nast behaviors and attitudes. Hoisting the blame at the Church and the Church alone as bearing the fault of starting all of the prejudice against disabled people does nothing more than demonstrate that for some reason, unspecified, you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the Church, and seem bent on demonizing it.

No, that’s not what I mean by “medical scepticism”. What I mean is people (and not doctors I should point out) who reject the medical explanation for a disorder or disease – preferring to believe that the problem was “created by God” and should either accepted (which is the 20th/21st century attitude) or hidden from view as a mistake (the pre 19th century attitude). The latter is the intolerance I was talking about. Hope that explains that one.

I have to admit that from my position, I don’t see too much difference between the blind fanaticism of religious fanatics and the blind fanaticism of people insisting that psychology and/or science have proven certain facts beyond a shadow of a doubt, and treating people accordingly. It’s treated as a dogma which cannot be challenged. It’s not even a worship of science, because the things they’re promoting are not even well-done science, or even proper science at all, in many cases.

In other words, they’re just ripping the black/white, right/wrong dichotomies out of religious fanaticism and grafting them onto other ideas.

Personally, if I were to say what I don’t like about a lot of organized religion, it would be the authoritarian condescension of ‘leaders’ towards ‘followers,’ the black-and-white thinking and the people saying that certain things (and not things like, say, murder, which most people would agree is wrong whether or not they have any religious or spiritual beliefs) are wrong “because I say so.” However, I can’t claim that we didn’t encounter all these attitudes from people “trying to help” in a therapeutic sense.

The basis of medical scepticism is creationism. It always has been.

I’m not sure what precisely you mean by “medical scepticism,” but I’m inclined to be questioning of many medical conclusions and always get a second opinion because doctors have been wrong about us a lot of the time. I’m certainly not a creationist, and I don’t see how distrusting doctors because doctors have been wrong about you and people you cared about in the past has anything to do with creationism. To have blind faith (and I’ve seen a lot of people harmed because they or someone who had power over them put blind faith in medical authorities) in doctors isn’t necessarily better than blind faith in a religious leader.

Religion is OK in doses for those who feel the need for it, but now they keep the intolerance in check.

Who decides what “dose” of religion is enough for me? I’m curious, though. What if I don’t feel a need for it, but feel the influence of certain things in my life anyway– should I not be allowed to have it if I technically feel that I wouldn’t necessarily need it, but it’s there anyway? That doesn’t sound like a very ideal world to me, since I am rather tired of thought police and “for your own good” being inside our head in any form. We went through years of self-loathing and even self-injurious actions because we couldn’t “purge” ourselves of certain beliefs that others had deemed to be delusions. I am not particularly interested in any utopian philosophy which suggests that it would be better in either an abstract or a concrete sense for us to return to living that way. (To put it mildly.)

It’s no delusion. You are severely underestimating the influence the church had over society up until the 19th century – and even beyond in places. If you choose not to believe that, then it’s not my problem.

And I NEVER said the church was the sole perpetrator. I said it’s where the problem started.

You are obviously fixated on “it’s all the Church’s fault” excuse. I can’t do much to change that. As much as you don’t like to admit it, the blame is all around. Check out Amanda’s other blog “Autism Demonized”. In it she has a post discussing the “changeling myth”. The myth is still alive and well and coming out of scientific pschologist’s depictions of autism, albeit in different words, but the meaning is still the same.

While I don’t agree with some of what Falwell and Robertson say, I would hardly characterize them as “idiots”.

For the record, I am well aware of the many abuses that the Church has progagated in its history. The Church, like any human organization, is fully capable of being infiltrated by evil leadership. While it doesn’t excuse it’s atrocities it bears mentioning.

The blame for mistreatment of people with disabilities goes all the way around, in the Church, the scientific community (again, consider Amanda’s mistreatment by those “professionals in the institutions she was interred in), and lots of ordinary people.

But, if you can’t see that and can’t get beyond the Church as the sole perpatrator, then I leave you to that delusion.

It’s the reason why constitutions like that of Australia made a deliberate attempt to seperate church and state – to stop that from happening.

The current extremism (which you agreed exists) was exactly what the world was like back in the old days. One difference – there was nothing else around that anyone was allowed to see without being ostracised at best.

All the resistance within the medical community that you speak of would have a religious slant on it. You might not like that or accept it – but it’s true. The basis of medical scepticism is creationism. It always has been. And creationism is a root part of any religion you care to name. As you say, it took a long time for some medical people to accept Kanner’s work over Bleuler’s. But we’ve come a long way since then. Why? Because a lot of the things that the church promoted as bad turned out to be not as bad as all that. Still not good – but not getting the sort of punishment it used to as the world freed itself from the inherent intolerance of complete religious belief. Religion is OK in doses for those who feel the need for it, but now they keep the intolerance in check. Or at least they try to in the face of the idiots of this world such as Falwell, Robertson and their kind.

Bottom line – the church has had a lot more influence over the past decades and centuries than you think. You may try and push a number of issues over to other people – but it all boils back to the same problem. Religious belief. Which to me means the church. You may not agree, but history proves me to be correct. Not my own disbelief.

You said:

“Now I wasn’t saying the church was a direct influence on medicine. No. The influence was indirect – but just as potent. The lack of tolerance for those who were different.”

Be careful. It sounds like you are attributing lack of tolerance to those who are different to the Church only. Intolerance is a sin that any human being can engage in. Scientist are certainly not immune to it. It sounds to me like quite a few were horribly intolerant to Amanda according to her recollections regarding her treatment in the various institutions she was in.

Are there church members who practice intolerance to those who are different? Certainly. As you mentioned: “You see intolerance even today in the form of extremist religious groups, and some political parties”.

But framing it so that it all comes from the Church, (everyone in it, or even a majority) is ludicrous.

You said:

“I’m sure even Eugene Bleuler met resistance from the attitude that came from the church.”

Again, you are focusing blame in one place. Resistance has also, and primarily, come from within the medical community itself. Wasn’t Kanner’s conclusions overlooked until the ’60s?

I don’t see the Church’s bogey man presence here. You may not trust or like the Church, but you ought to at least be fair-minded when it comes to how you characterize it and try to ascribe to it negative authority and responsiblity in areas that Church doesn’t necessarily intersect with.

During the dark ages everything was influenced by religious leaders. As science developed from about the 16th century, the leaders felt threatened because they were the accepted leaders of the time. For example, the House of Lords in England was made up of religious leaders. They made decisions that mostly were based on religious belief. Now anything that the Bible couldn’t explain was usually hidden in monasteries, and later thrown into lunatic asylums. This was still happening in the early 20th century.

Now I wasn’t saying the church was a direct influence on medicine. No. The influence was indirect – but just as potent. The lack of tolerance for those who were different. The church has been forced to improve that as science started to prove a lot of their beliefs wrong and society started to realise what the church really stood for. You see intolerance even today in the form of extremist religious groups, and some political parties.

Now where this is relevant is that this influence is what held back the progress of discovery of what Autism is, seperating it from first dementia and then schizophrenia. That’s what I meant by “primitive medicine”. That’s also why it took until 1943 for Leo Kanner to get his work done. I’m sure even Eugene Bleuler met resistance from the attitude that came from the church. In his own way, Bleuler would have been seen by the church as another Charles Darwin – trying to make scientific sense of “God’s work” or rather “God’s mistakes” (hence the habit of hiding these people away). Had it not been for this, Autism would have been discovered a lot sooner than 1943.

I hope I have explained the situation so that you understand, Clay.

You said:

“…but then psychiatric medicine was more primitive in his day when the church had a lot more influence than they do now (unless you live in certain parts of the US – but I won’t start on that)…”

What exactly are you trying to say here? It’s obvious that you have a negative attitude towards “the church”. That’s ok. It’s your opinion. Which “church” you are referring to isn’t clear. But, one could infer you are refering to Christian churches and more specifically from the “South”.

Are you saying that Christian churches had some sort of direct influence and authority over what medicines, treatments, diagnosises could be made in the psychiatric community?

If so, this is the first I have ever heard of it. I mean prior to the “Age of Enlightenment” you might have a point, but centuries after that?

If this is your contention, then you might want to provide some sort of historical evidence to support that rant.

Otherwise, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Everything else you have commented on seems reasonable to me.