How about new subsets: people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual teachings but are mentally ill? Or, people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual beliefs, but are unable to live by "conventional" morals or ethics?
"Conventional"--according to my study--is always conventional in relationship to a specific culture or subculture. In this usage, any group of people is a culture or subculture. So all of us belong to multiple cultures (family, chosen family, workplaces, social groups, churches, countries, hobby groups, fandom, etc.). Each of those groups has a "conventional" set of ethics and morals. There is of course, overlap. Each culture (and individuals in that culture) also struggles to define who is "in" and who is "out." The ethics and morals and qualifiers for membership can be conscious or unconscious, and they change over time as people say, "Hey! I belong here but I don't believe or follow x, and here's why!"
*One* factor in our mental health is an ability, or inability, to follow the norms of groups that claim us, or that we claim. Sometimes norms shouldn't be followed, they should be changed. But who defines or instigates that change is also subject to the judgment of the groups involved or impacted. Sometimes it is necessary to break with a group and find or form a new one.
There are no simple answers, IMHO, only increasingly complex examinations and discussions.
I personally have a difficult time knowing if there is a line between someone being "evil" and someone who is "mentally ill." While my master's degree is an academic (as opposed to clinical) degree in psychology, one thing I have learned is there are so many things that impact how we see ourselves and our cultures that I tend to say that "evil" is a radical inability to cope--often combined with biologically based mental illness--that is acted out, sometimes on an extremely large scale.
That doesn't mean we condone or excuse it, or even, forgive it. Sometimes horrible evil acts happen with little or no warning. Sometimes the people who do those acts claim membership in a group where some, or all of the members, don't share the same values of the perpetrator.
As to membership in a group of teachings referred to as "Christian" there are no clear guidelines today as to who is "in" and who is "out." There probably never were--as the alchemist pointed out, the followers of Jesus splintered into different subgroups shortly after his death. It's been argued about by those who call themselves Christian, and those who don't, for over 2000 years.
So how do we judge the actions of those who claim to be in any specific group: the same way we judge anyone. How do they live their lives? How does what they do impact others? Do their values and morals support the greatest good for the greatest number? Do they acknowledge and try to deal with their own imperfections, neediness,and hurtful actions? Are they willing to allow those values and actions to be examined by others in their culture?
Even those guidelines are subject to interpretation and values from subgroups. And people who commit evil actions will slip through the cracks.
But we have to *try* to keep it from happening, not by adopting simple answers to complex questions but by continuing to be willing to confront the complexity of human existence and deal with it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-07-24 06:40 pm (UTC)How about new subsets: people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual teachings but are mentally ill? Or, people who claim to follow a specific set of spiritual beliefs, but are unable to live by "conventional" morals or ethics?
"Conventional"--according to my study--is always conventional in relationship to a specific culture or subculture. In this usage, any group of people is a culture or subculture. So all of us belong to multiple cultures (family, chosen family, workplaces, social groups, churches, countries, hobby groups, fandom, etc.). Each of those groups has a "conventional" set of ethics and morals. There is of course, overlap. Each culture (and individuals in that culture) also struggles to define who is "in" and who is "out." The ethics and morals and qualifiers for membership can be conscious or unconscious, and they change over time as people say, "Hey! I belong here but I don't believe or follow x, and here's why!"
*One* factor in our mental health is an ability, or inability, to follow the norms of groups that claim us, or that we claim. Sometimes norms shouldn't be followed, they should be changed. But who defines or instigates that change is also subject to the judgment of the groups involved or impacted. Sometimes it is necessary to break with a group and find or form a new one.
There are no simple answers, IMHO, only increasingly complex examinations and discussions.
I personally have a difficult time knowing if there is a line between someone being "evil" and someone who is "mentally ill." While my master's degree is an academic (as opposed to clinical) degree in psychology, one thing I have learned is there are so many things that impact how we see ourselves and our cultures that I tend to say that "evil" is a radical inability to cope--often combined with biologically based mental illness--that is acted out, sometimes on an extremely large scale.
That doesn't mean we condone or excuse it, or even, forgive it. Sometimes horrible evil acts happen with little or no warning. Sometimes the people who do those acts claim membership in a group where some, or all of the members, don't share the same values of the perpetrator.
As to membership in a group of teachings referred to as "Christian" there are no clear guidelines today as to who is "in" and who is "out." There probably never were--as the alchemist pointed out, the followers of Jesus splintered into different subgroups shortly after his death. It's been argued about by those who call themselves Christian, and those who don't, for over 2000 years.
So how do we judge the actions of those who claim to be in any specific group: the same way we judge anyone. How do they live their lives? How does what they do impact others? Do their values and morals support the greatest good for the greatest number? Do they acknowledge and try to deal with their own imperfections, neediness,and hurtful actions? Are they willing to allow those values and actions to be examined by others in their culture?
Even those guidelines are subject to interpretation and values from subgroups. And people who commit evil actions will slip through the cracks.
But we have to *try* to keep it from happening, not by adopting simple answers to complex questions but by continuing to be willing to confront the complexity of human existence and deal with it.
*lola climbs down off her soapbox*