Indoctrination. Submission. Capitulation.
That is what the UK government is going for.
However, they dressed it in religious regalia to increase acceptance and prevent recognition that this study is a potential threat to your human freedom and a challenge to your free thoughts
I caught this story yesterday, and it compliments the previous post so nicely I just knew it had to be dragged into the light.
“Spiritual but not religious are more likely to have mental illness and health issues”
“A scholarly study out of Britain has concluded that people who say they’re spiritual but not religious (SBNRs) are significantly more inclined to mental-health problems, addictions and abnormal eating habits”
A scholarly study? Well that’s authoritative! Therefore you must defer! (appeal to authority)
“SBNR people tend to reject institutions of all kinds, especially religious. They practise private spirituality, often blending beliefs and practices from different traditions”Rejection is not necessarily limited to just religious institutions but extends to institutions of all kinds
What other institutions might these people reject?
Governmental? Corporate institutions?
That doesn’t seem to be a bad thing. There are a great many problems within the governmental and corporate structure that should be rejected. So, why is this so bad???
“SBNR people tend to emphasize individual freedom”
As opposed to what? Conformity? Uniformity? Coercion? Suppression? Oppression?
That too, does not seem to be a bad emphasis.
“SBNR tend to emphasize the sacredness of nature”
What is the problem with that? Since humans are part of nature..and have a nature. A human nature.
Where is the inherent problem in emphasizing or recognizing the sacredness of nature and all that it entails, including the place for humans in that nature?
“The study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, based on a government-sponsored survey of more than 7,000 Britons. Michael King, a professor at University College London was the head researcher on the project.”
The study was sponsored by the British government. How were the questions skewed? Were questions asked to support a preordained solution?
“Past academic studies in the United States have come to similar conclusions, said Tanya Luhrmann, a psychological anthropologist and the Watkins University professor at Stanford University. Most academic research about religion and well-being, said Luhrmann, has found that religion is good for you.
According to Luhrmann, organized religion provides three outlets that benefit churchgoers’ well being: social support, attachment to a loving God and the organized practice of prayer.”
Notice how the word “academic’ keeps being tossed around.
What organized religion actually provides is organized mind control.
“Social support” from a larger group of mind controlled individuals who support and bolster the shared ‘beliefs’ Attachment to a “loving God”?
“Organizes practice of prayer” = Organized reinforcement of ritualized belief.
“When you become spiritual but not religious, you are losing the first two points and most spiritual but not religious people aren’t participating in the third,” Luhrmann said. “It is not just a generic belief in God that works; it is specific practices that work.”
“Specific practices” like magic and spelling as mind control
Of course the whole ‘academic study’ is entirely subjective.
Lacking clear definitions for the supposed parameters
Define “religious” ?
Define “dependent on drugs”? Is that prescription drugs?
Define “abnormal eating attitudes”? Is it abnormal to want to eat organic, clean food as opposed to factory farmed , shit filled food? How about GM foods? Does not wanting to eat that constitute an "abnormal eating attitude" Or is it abnormal to accept that eating toxic filthy shit filled food is the norm?
How about all the contradictory information available?
Intelligence is a predictor of religious scepticism, a professor has argued
Or how about a book ( one that is in my “to read” book pile) that purports human are healthier when connected to nature. Your Brain on Nature
7 minute audio clip interviewing authors
Better brain function, less stress and longer life from being connected to nature....
Do you suppose the UK government has an agenda?
-A reason for wanting to disconnect humans from nature and their human nature?
-A reason for wanting people to not question institutions?
-Would the UK government not want the masses to realize that their have individual freedoms are being impeded by the institution of government? Or the institutions of multinational corporations?
Considering the fact that the UK government commissioned this "scholarly" and "academic" study, it would appear that conclusion could be safely drawn.
Perhaps SBNR individuals can be labelled as mentally ill and be required to take medications for the "mental illness" of free thought, respect for individual freedom and respect for nature?
Stranger things have happened.