Religious Trauma Syndrome

[Damien the Leper]

I thought I would share this article written by Dr. Marlene Winell. I found it to be fascinatingly insightful.

Religious Trauma Syndrome

Portions I specifically found interesting:

Symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome:

Cognitive: Confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability & self-worth, black & white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making

Emotional: Depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning

Social: Loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks

Cultural: Unfamiliarity with secular world; “fish out of water” feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps (e.g. evolution, modern art, music)

Causes of Religious Trauma Syndrome:

Authoritarianism coupled with toxic theology which is received and reinforced at church, school, and home. This results in:

• Suppression of normal child development – cognitive, social, emotional, moral stages are arrested

• Damage to normal thinking and feeling abilities -information is limited and controlled; dysfunctional beliefs taught; independent thinking condemned; feelings condemned

• External locus of control – knowledge is revealed, not discovered; hierarchy of authority enforced; self not a reliable or good source

• Physical and sexual abuse – patriarchal power; unhealthy sexual views; punishment used as for discipline

Cycle of Abuse

You must conform to a mental test of “believing” in an external, unseen source for salvation, and maintain this state of belief until death. You cannot ever stop sinning altogether, so you must continue to confess and be forgiven, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven.

Mistaken Identity

Religious Trauma Syndrome mimics the symptoms of many other disorders –

• post-traumatic stress disorder
  
• clinical depression
  
• anxiety disorders
  
• bipolar disorder
  
• obsessive compulsive disorder
  
• borderline personality disorder
  
• eating disorders
  
• social disorders
  
• marital and sexual dysfunctions
  
• suicide
  
• drug and alcohol abuse
  
• extreme antisocial behavior, including homicide
  

I would be interested to see research and case studies in which people received treatment for RTS.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm extremely wary of fundamentalism myself, but it seems pretty silly to classify these traumas as being solely "religious" in nature, unless we're using the word "religion" so loosely that this very list qualifies as etiological theology. I know third-generation atheists with every one of these issues, and religious people who are untroubled by them. It seems to me, then, that the terminology is therefore not useful, except as a stick with which to exclusively beat a very specific religious people (note, for instance, that it is Original Sin and not the Law of Dharma that is being described as part of a systemic "mind-rape" meme).

[Calm]

The doctrine of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation cause the most psychological distress by creating the ultimate double bind. You are guilty and responsible, and face eternal punishment. Yet you have no ability to do anything about it.

Let's the LDS faith off the list.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm extremely wary of fundamentalism myself, but it seems pretty silly to classify these traumas as being solely "religious" in nature, unless we're using the word "religion" so loosely that this very list qualifies as etiological theology. I know third-generation atheists with every one of these issues, and religious people who are untroubled by them. It seems to me, then, that the terminology is therefore not useful, except as a stick with which to exclusively beat a very specific religious people (note, for instance, that it is Original Sin and not the Law of Dharma that is being described as part of a systemic "mind-rape" meme).

I didn't take from the article that Dr. Winell was saying anything was exclusive. It is apparent that a study has been done that leads psychologists and psychiatrists to treat and/or diagnose such a syndrome. It is also apparent that there are trends occurring that has caught the attention of professionals.

Just for clarity, I'm not arming myself with a stick to beat any religion.

[Damien the Leper]

Let's the LDS faith off the list.

What about the portion I quoted concerning the cycle of abuse?

[The Nehor]

Just what the world needs. Another made-up disease like chronic fatigue syndrome and diabetes.

[Damien the Leper]

Just what the world needs. Another made-up disease like chronic fatigue syndrome and diabetes.

Are you suggesting treatment without officially giving the trauma a name? There is no doubt that people suffer from the symptoms described nor is there any doubt that the trends observed exist. What would you recommend?

[TAO]

Are you suggesting treatment without officially giving the trauma a name? There is no doubt that people suffer from the symptoms described nor is there any doubt that the trends observed exist. What would you recommend?

I think he's suggesting that it isn't something that needs to be given a name, persay, to stop people from reacting too strongly.

In any case, this isn't too much different from other life issues, there are other similar things which have similar effects; they are just identifying certain religious beliefs as possibly contributing here. To be honest actually, I'd hope this would be the sort of thing they'd classify in the larger category and such because of that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter too much.

[The Nehor]

Are you suggesting treatment without officially giving the trauma a name? There is no doubt that people suffer from the symptoms described nor is there any doubt that the trends observed exist. What would you recommend?

I am suggesting that one person making up a name for a disease that (coincidentally?) she is taking money to treat makes me a bit suspicious about the whole thing. Many of the things she describes can and do happen which is why we have therapists but amalgamating them into one big trauma doesn't make sense to me unless of course you are trying to drum up business.

[Damien the Leper]

I am suggesting that one person making up a name for a disease that (coincidentally?) she is taking money to treat makes me a bit suspicious about the whole thing. Many of the things she describes can and do happen which is why we have therapists but amalgamating them into one big trauma doesn't make sense to me unless of course you are trying to drum up business.

Makes sense.

[selek1]

What about the portion I quoted concerning the cycle of abuse?

There are three issues here:

1) Winell's paper (as presented here) is nothing more than a regurgitation of the same anti-religious bigotry that has been fashionable for the last couple of hundred years.

The points you highlighted can be summed up as follows (often by citing the original statement by Marx):

• Symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome: "Believers are unthinking a/o weak-willed followers."
  
• Causes of Religious Trauma Syndrome: "Religion is the opiate of the masses, the means by which a few control the many."
  
• Cycle of Abuse: "Religion is inherently destructive to independent thought." This bit of dogma ignores the fact that for most of recorded history, the giants and pioneers of natural science, medicine, and philosophy were- by and large- religious men.
  
• Mistaken Identity: "All social and psychological ills can ultimately be traced back to religion- whether in the individual or the environment". This is little more than a dishonest game of "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". It is extraordinarily shoddy science that conflates correlation with causation- and is a huge red flag that someone is trying (as others have pointed out) to "drum up business." Or as another wag once said, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Winell has her idée fixe- religion is the problem- and she will not be swayed from that fixation). She has, in fact, developed a rather lucrative cottage industry shilling that notion- and therefore has a vested personal and financial interest in advancing that narrative.
  

2)The creatively named "cycle of abuse" is so broadly "defined" as to incorporate any ideology from Catholicism to Communism, yet has been deliberately tailored to stigmatize religion.

It is, irreducably, a dual act of question begging and well poisoning, rather than honest dialogue or assessment.

3) Despite the innuendo, you have offered no evidence that the "cycle of abuse", as such, applies to the Mormon faith.

Finally, your attempt to rhetorically separate yourself from these noxious arguments is disingenuous, at best.

You threw Winell's biased commentary in our face without qualification, consideration, or restraint- as though her bigoted assertions were indisputable fact to which we needed to reconcile ourselves.

This is no different in practice than throwing out racial slurs to an African American crowd and then protesting, "I don't believe it, but some people say......"

You repeated hateful and hurtful propaganda points here- and therefore own the consequences of that act.

Edited June 17, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

Selek,

I appreciate your 3 point response. However fascinated I am Winell's piece does not imply what you so presumptuously accuse me of. Despite your obvious hostility, I'm not taking the bait to engage in uncivilized, insulting and antagonistic arguments.

As you stated, the symptoms and other portions of RTS are not exclusive to religion. Your wolf in wheels clothing accusation is exhausted, Selek.

[Bikeemikey]

Selek,

I appreciate your 3 point response. However fascinated I am Winell's piece does not imply what you so presumptuously accuse me of. Despite your obvious hostility, I'm not taking the bait to engage in uncivilized, insulting and antagonistic arguments.

As you stated, the symptoms and other portions of RTS are not exclusive to religion. Your wolf in wheels clothing accusation is exhausted, Selek.

Seems to me that almost every time I read one of Selek1's posts I can personally testify of the veracity of Religious Trauma Syndrome.

[Buzzard]

I spent a while poking thru not just her site, but several of the linked articles. The more I did it, the more my eyes rolled. It's just a regurgitation of atheist mockery of belief, leftist derision of capitalism (though I bet she cashes the checks from her speaking fees and book sales), and the need of attaching a psychological label to every sin or dysfunction of humanity. I'd say let her have her 15 minutes of fame, but my guess is on less than 30 seconds.

[selek1]

Despite your obvious hostility, I'm not taking the bait to engage in uncivilized, insulting and antagonistic arguments.

If you do not wish to engage in them, then perhaps you should not be so eager to traffic in them.

"Insulting" and "antagonistic" precisely describe both your OP and the article referenced therein.

As to your denial, I will point out (again) that you cheerfully vomitted up a biased, insulting article that you found "fascinatingly insightful".

No where did you ask a question pertinent to the LDS faith.

No where did you raise an issue for discussion.

You didn't bother to raise a question of any kind until Post #5.

When you were told that the description of religion used in the OP did not apply to the LDS faith, you immediately leapt to the accusation that the Mormon faith abuses its practicioners.

Except for the inescapable admission that Winell has a financial incentive to peddle this brand of snake oil, you have failed to substantively address a single criticim of her work.

Why then, is it unreasonable of us to believe that you threw this mockery in our face simply to get a reaction?

Why should we believe that your behavior is any different than that of race-baiter who announces in all seriousness that "Some studies suggested that blacks are less intelligent than whites" and then tries to avoid responsibility for the resulting outrage?

Edited June 18, 2012 by selek1

[volgadon]

As to your denial, I will point out (again) that you cheerfully vomitted up a biased, insulting article that you found "fascinatingly insightful".

I disagree that there is a separate syndrome called religious trauma, but in all fairness, Valentinus was being sincere in sharing something that resonated with him, based on some bad personal experiences.

[selek1]

I disagree that there is a separate syndrome called religious trauma, but in all fairness, Valentinus was being sincere in sharing something that resonated with him, based on some bad personal experiences.

Ah yes, the

Defense.

Even accepting the validity of such a defense, the criticisms still stand.

No where did Valentinus raise a question or broach a topic for discussion.

He was merely venting his angst against convenient (and ostensibly supine) targets.

Edited June 18, 2012 by selek1

[katherine the great]

Just what the world needs. Another made-up disease like chronic fatigue syndrome and diabetes.

Diabetes is a made up disease?

[The Nehor]

Diabetes is a made up disease?

That was a joke.

[katherine the great]

That was a joke.

I guess I'm a little slow today...

[Garden Girl]

Me too, KtG...

GG

[Damien the Leper]

Ah yes, the

Defense.

Even accepting the validity of such a defense, the criticisms still stand.

No where did Valentinus raise a question or broach a topic for discussion.

He was merely venting his angst against convenient (and ostensibly supine) targets.

I don't want my hospitalization and treatment to be the subject of this thread. However, RTS was first introduced to me while I was in a behavioral health facility. Did I vent in group sessions my frustrations with religion? Yes. Did I accusatorily blame religion for my health 'issues'? No.

The article was introduced to me by our group facilitator who is a psychiatrist.

As for not asking questions in the OP, I didn't know what to ask. I should have asked something because your response, Selek, is exactly what I was anticipating and trying to prepare myself for because you have a knack for presumptuously accusing people of certain things. However eloquent and well typed your responses may be...your condescending and rude attitude resonate quite soundly.

Now, as for questions I have concerning RTS:

1) If trends are studied within both religious groups and people who have left religious groups because of some sort of trauma, how should a psychologist provide therapeutic treatment or how should a psychiatrist diagnose/treat trauma experienced?

2) What are substantive reasons for treatment of trauma stemming from a religious based experience?

3) Of the exhausted and comparative list of disorders provided, is there real reason to claim that RTS is the equivalent to any?

4) Concerning the portion discussing Cycle of Abuse, is the author merely projecting a supposed 'abuse' by simply renaming a 'normal' faith type situation as such?

5) Is there substantive evidence to be suppplied that could be applied to specific cases within the LDS faith where trauma, other than sexual trauma, is experienced and should be treated by behavioral health professionals?

[sunstoned]

If you do not wish to engage in them, then perhaps you should not be so eager to traffic in them.

"Insulting" and "antagonistic" precisely describe both your OP and the article referenced therein.

As to your denial, I will point out (again) that you cheerfully vomitted up a biased, insulting article that you found "fascinatingly insightful".

No where did you ask a question pertinent to the LDS faith.

No where did you raise an issue for discussion.

You didn't bother to raise a question of any kind until Post #5.

When you were told that the description of religion used in the OP did not apply to the LDS faith, you immediately leapt to the accusation that the Mormon faith abuses its practicioners.

Except for the inescapable admission that Winell has a financial incentive to peddle this brand of snake oil, you have failed to substantively address a single criticim of her work.

Why then, is it unreasonable of us to believe that you threw this mockery in our face simply to get a reaction?

Why should we believe that your behavior is any different than that of race-baiter who announces in all seriousness that "Some studies suggested that blacks are less intelligent than whites" and then tries to avoid responsibility for the resulting outrage?

This is a bit over the top. Why are you making this discussion personal? You have essentially called the the poster a "race-baiter". It is hard to have an elevated discussion when this type of mean spirited attacks are going on.

Edited June 18, 2012 by sunstoned

[selek1]

As for not asking questions in the OP, I didn't know what to ask.

If you have nothing to say, then why say anything?

... your response, Selek, is exactly what I was anticipating and trying to prepare myself for because you have a knack for presumptuously accusing people of certain things.

In other words, you knew full well how an unqualified and uncritical attack on religion would be taken- just as I alleged.

However eloquent and well typed your responses may be...your condescending and rude attitude resonate quite soundly.

The problem with this riposte is that you're still not taking any responsibiliy for your own conduct.

You threw out unprovoked, uninvited, and broad-brush allegations and accusations that could only be taken as an unqualified attack on the LDS faith, and are now complainign because we responded with skepticism.

I'll note (just for the record) that you still haven't acknowledged any of the criticisms of Winell's rant (save one).

1) If trends are studied within both religious groups and people who have left religious groups because of some sort of trauma, how should a psychologist provide therapeutic treatment or how should a psychiatrist diagnose/treat trauma experienced?

This bes a lot of questions- most of which are predicated upon the type and factual nature of the alleged "trauma" :

Is the "trauma" real or imagined?

Was the "trauma" the result of criminal action or intent?

Was the "trauma" caused by a single bad actor or is it actually the natural and logical product of an abusive organization?

Is the "trauma" a result of systematic policies of control and abuse?

Everything I've read from Winell so far suggests that she defaults to the position that all abuse is real, and that in every instance the organization itself (and religion as a whole) are responsible.

Winell's methodology bears a striking (and unsettling) resemblance to the discredited "recovered memories" fiasco and the child abuse scandals of the late 1980's and early 1990's.

2) What are substantive reasons for treatment of trauma stemming from a religious based experience?

In accordance with logic and medical ethics, such reasons must be identical to those required to treat any other sort of genuine physical or psychological trauma.

Of course, there is a difference between treating trauma and imposing one's own philosophical views on an otherwise defenseless patient.

A psychologist or counselor who helps a victim decide to escape an abusive (either by finding the strength to alter the interpersonal dynamic or by simply ending the relationship) is most likely acting ethically.

A psychologist or counselor who teaches a victim that marriage as a whole is an act of abuse or repression is not.

3) Of the exhausted and comparative list of disorders provided, is there real reason to claim that RTS is the equivalent to any?

You are conflating symptoms with disorder in this case. Winell's list of alleged symptoms may be suffered- in part or whole- by religious or non-religious people in general.

Her "diagnosis" , in that regard, is an answer in desperate want of a question.

4) Concerning the portion discussing Cycle of Abuse, is the author merely projecting a supposed 'abuse' by simply renaming a 'normal' faith type situation as such?

No, the author is instead offering a cynical (and dismissive) caricature of a life religious faith.

It is an example of well-poisoning at its finest. Any affinity to any of the stated conditions becomes proof that the "sufferer" is afflicted and therefore deluding him or herself.

5) Is there substantive evidence to be suppplied that could be applied to specific cases within the LDS faith where trauma, other than sexual trauma, is experienced and should be treated by behavioral health professionals?

None that I'm aware of.

More specifically, I cannot rule out the possibility that such abuse is possible in isolated circumstances.

The problem is that such abuse is not endemic to either to the LDS faith in particular nor to religion as a whole, but is instead specific to the actors and victims in that situation.

[selek1]

This is a bit over the top. Why are you making this discussion personal? You have essentially called the the poster a "race-baiter". It is hard to have an elevated discussion when this type of mean spirited attacks are going on.

Because up to this point, the poster's actions have justified the comparison.

You lament that my comparisons have made "elevated discussion" impossible, but have said nothing about the inherent incivility of a conversation that begins (in essence) "religious belief is the province of fools and is intrinsically abusive".

For all the complaining about how "mean-spirited" I am, not one word has been offered in defense of broad-brushed and bigoted attacks against religion as a whole.

You and Valentinus are determined to crucify me for my alleged incivility- but have offered nothing to justify your own incivility.

One other thing of particular note: I have consistently attacked the tenor and implications of Valentinus' arguments.

As demonstrated in several of my posts above, I am more than willing to have a reasoned, reasonable conversation on the topic- but such conversations require civility on both sides, not just that of those being accused.

Edited June 18, 2012 by selek1