*An "Atheist Church"?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/dont-stop-believin-do-atheists-really-need-church

The product of taking de Botton's advice seriously? My reaction here

Or is this the beginning of a contemporary version of Comte's 'Religion of Humanity' and the attempt to institutionalize the deification of humanity? Comte too created "temples" and sought such institutionalization but his movement eventually faded away. Will this be successful?  



http://sundayassembly.com/


In my opinion, 'Burning Man' (below) might be a better example and more effective form of contemporary "secular" ritual/gathering, without the pretension of an "atheist church" gathering...

Neil deGrasse Tyson on labels

Velleman's 'Foundations for Moral Relativism'

Shame v. Guilt

In a community responses to wrongdoings - taking the example of the recent events at the University of Minnesota

apparently the psychiatric department at the Univ. of Minnesota fucked up with Dan Markingson - a human subject in a clinical trial for a psychiatric drug

Even scholars are subject to "vicarious cognitive dissonance"...

Religious racism still alive in the U.S.

Religious racism still alive utilizing the story from Noah to justify racist positions. The religious justifications of the colonial era are still around, sadly enough...

*Social epistemology of reputation

Manzo responds to Origgi's 'Social Epistemology of Reputation'

While I would agree that 'reputation' does serve as a cognitive shortcut and a heuristic in the descriptive sense, I would partially disagree with Manzo's first point that reputation is an individual property as opposed to relational property. I only disagree in part because I think teh development of an individual's social property such as reputation is a product of relational components as well as individual actions and behaviors that are indicative of one's personality and stuff.

Nonetheless I think this is an important discussion in the area of Social Epistemology as it points to the "culture of power" that underlie political landscapes and by looking at the dynamic of reputation we can take the lens a bit closer into how and why a culture of power develops that perpetuate the same systematic errors despite any meaningful revolution e.g. Egypt.

Interesting insights from primates

Researchers are suggesting that hints about our capacity for langauge can be seen here from the Gelada primates of Ethiopia.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/12/lip-smacking-primate-hints-at-speech-evolution/


And we're not the only primates who like pets either...

*On the Secularization thesis

Many scholars today are talking about the "post-secular" society. That the secularization thesis has failed and that religion is here to stay for good. We can look to communist Russia, Poland, China, and even North Korea today and point to the continued existence of religion. For North Korea, there are still many who practice religion (Christianity or Buddhism) underground and beneath the veil of the Juche ideology. For the previously noted countries, conscious attempts were made at forcefully stamping out religion under the name of fascism, communism, socialism, or derivations thereof, making it illegal and punishing those that did. But as history shows, religion has remained a viable force in providing a source of meaning. The Russian Orthodox Church is now a prominent endorsement for political candidates.

As a result, many have begun stating that secularization has failed and we are now in a time of post-secularization where religion and society must find common grounds of plausible existence. And while I find this discussion important and necessary, my argument here is a wonder whether the premise may be a bit premature - the declaration that secularization has failed. While, many areas of science have suggested that religion, or god (God) for that matter, is not going away. Past trends of socio-cultural change indicate that hundreds and hundreds of years are necessary for definitive shifts and changes to social structures and even cognitive, moral, and ontological shifts in attitudes. Take the examples of slavery and killing for sport (i.e. the Colosseum).

Slavery has been in existence at least since the 16th and 17th century, and even arguably since the 15th century (and most likely even before then - ancient civilizations certainly had slaves and servants). It wasn't until the 20th century that slavery was stamped out. Even now, in the 21st century, human trafficking and sex slavery is still rampant in parts of the world. Slavery has not vanished entirely - and with the onset of debt of persons, it could be argued that slavery has not disappeared at all. This means that after 500-600 years, slavery has not disappeared as a practice despite its repulsiveness. The United States went through a Civil War on the grounds of the "right" to own other persons. Motherfuckers felt that passionate about it. Now, I am no historian or expert on slavery or the civil rights movement and I may be entirely wrong in my accounts. Nonetheless, my point is still valid regarding the time that it has taken.

The entertainment and sport of killing people in ancient Rome also took just as long. The Colosseum was completed in 80 AD with the rise of Titus. At the Colosseum, entertainment was found in the form of "blood sports" - battles between persons, animals versus other animals, and so on. It was not until Honorius in 404, 405 AD that gladiator events were forbidden. Although animal fights continued for another hundred or so years. By this timescale, it took at least 300 hundred years for the blood sport to be vanquished. Although, even today we can find events of people killing themselves for sport. Underground bare knuckle fights, russian roulette, are just two examples. Dog fights, cock fights, and others are still in existence today.

In both examples at least 3-400 years have passed for such things to be at a loss in the mainstream consciousness. The secularization thesis has not been around for that long. The theory perhaps spawned most notably in the 19th century with Karl Marx and the likes of Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. If we take this as the beginning of the advocation of secularization, then not even 200 years have passed. If we mark it with Galileo in the 16th century, then we have a similar passage of time comparable to the abolishment of slavery. We are just beginning to hit the 4-500 year mark of time passing. But religion is still here. With slavery, it should be noted that there was a constant push for its abolishment. The push for the abolishment of religion did not last as long, or as persistent, as the push for the abolishment of slavery.

While I consider myself to be a "secular" (that is non-Christian or non-Abrahamic religion) thinker, I am not necessarily opposed to religion as a source of meaning for others. It is not my place to chastise and bash the source of meaning for others. The strong push for militant atheism may have jived with me ten years ago. A hard advocate of science and a passionate undergrad enraged by the follies of the contemporary system, I would have joined the voices who are calling for the militant eradication of religion. Marx, Hume, and Nietzsche were my heroes. I would have taken a stance similar to Sam Harris. Calling for the champion of science to correct moral and cultural practices. However, I find this stance extremely juvenile now. It is no different from the Christian crusades calling for a higher moral order - "civilizing the savages". I do not believe that science should be the ideology for a contemporary imperialism. I find this degrading. I am still an advocate of science, learning, and the progression of knowledge and technology. But when an abstracted view of science becomes the banner for moral and cultural reform, this is no different from White folk stampeding around the world saying that they have the "Truth" and that everybody else should conform to it. This is oppression and a form of marginalizing others.

Having said this, I am of the opinion that while discussions of the "post-secular" society is fruitful and necessary I do not think that it is time to officially declare that secularization has died. In my view, this is premature ejaculation. The fruit was picked before it had time to ripen and after taking a bite, it's still bitter. My contention is that time needs to take its course. The development and progression of science and technology will continue and other sources of meaning will arise, religious or otherwise. The time is not yet ripe. The world is still progressing and humanity's relationship to each other and the world is still in the works. Never before has the world been so connected. And we are still in its infancy. 
  

KCL Job Vacancy in Anthropology of Religion

Lecturer or Senior Lecturer or Reader in the Anthropology of Religion - A8/AAT/341/13-JM

Theology and Religious Studies, King's College London

The Department of Theology & Religious Studies seeks an appointment in the Anthropology of Religion, at Lecturer, Senior Lecturer or Reader level, to join King’s College London with effect from September/October 2013 (with a preferred start date of 1 September 2013). The successful candidate will teach in thefield of the anthropology of religion, and will have a strong research background in the classical approaches to theory and method in the social anthropological study of religion, as well as in more recent and cutting-edge theoretical and methodological innovations. Regional and thematic focus is open.

The Department of Theology & Religious Studies at King’s is a large, thriving and highly multi-disciplinary Department, specialising in the study of bothmainstream and new religions from a variety of perspectives. Areas of particular strength are the study of conviviality and conflict involving religions in contemporary societies, including issues of religious diversity and secularism, and the study of religion in the arts, literature and film.

The successful candidate will teach undergraduate courses (modules) for the new BA degree in Religion, Politics and Society, and for the MA programme Religion in Contemporary Society. S/he will be expected to attract PhD students and will participate in the intellectual life of the Department and School. Teaching experience and evidence of a strong research and publications record are required, as is the commitment to the academic and institutional development of the social scientific study of religions in the Department.

All candidates should have completed a PhD degree, and be in a position to make a strong submission to the Research Excellence Framework (REF). They should be prepared to teach both specialist undergraduate and MA modules in their area of expertise.

The closing date for receipt of applications is 15 May 2013

Equality of opportunity is College policy.

The appointment will be made, dependent on relevant qualifications, within the Grade 6 to Grade 8 scale, currently £31,331 to £54,826, per annum plus £2,323 per annum London Allowance.
 Contract duration: Indefinite

For an informal discussion of the post please contact Dr. Marat Shterin on 0207 848 2637, or via email atmarat.shterin@kcl.ac.uk.

Further details and application packs are available on the College’s website atwww.kcl.ac.uk/jobs. All correspondence should clearly state the job title and reference number A8/AAT/341/13-JM. If you have any other queries please contact Recruitment Co-ordinator atrecruitmentteam3@kcl.ac.uk

Art and Religion V: The Garden of Earthly Delights

http://www.computus.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/the-garden-of-earthly-delights.jpg

*copy-paste link for closer view and magnifying function

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/mans-natural-state-kindness-and-empathy

China aims to banish superstition

"Wang Zuoan, head of the State Administration of Religious Affairs, said there had been an explosion of religious belief in China along with the nation's economic boom, which he attributed to a desire for reassurance in an increasingly complex world.

While religion could be a force for good in officially atheist China, it was important to ensure people were not mislead, he told the Study Times, a newspaper published by the Central Party School which trains rising officials.

"For a ruling party which follows Marxism, we need to help people establish a correct world view and to scientifically deal with birth, ageing, sickness and death, as well as fortune and misfortune, via popularizing scientific knowledge," he said, in rare public comments on the government's religious policy.

"But we must realize that this is a long process and we need to be patient and work hard to achieve it," Wang added in the latest issue of the Study Times, which reached subscribers on Sunday.
"Religion has been around for a very long time, and if we rush to try to push for results and want to immediately 'liberate' people from the influence of religion, then it will have the opposite effect and push people in the opposite direction."

About half of China's religious followers are Christians or Muslims, with the other half Buddhists or Daoists, he said, admitting the real total number of believers was probably much higher than the official estimate of 100 million"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/21/us-china-religion-idUSBRE93K02D20130421

From the Uncle of the Boston bombing suspects

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/uncle_ruslan_tsarni_the_uncle_of_bombing_suspects_dzhokhar_and_tamerlan.html

light and affect

Experimental Philosophy

"Based on a paper titled "Folk Moral Relativism" by Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Wright & Joshua Knobe."

here:
http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/hsarkissian/Sarkissian%20et%20al%20-%20Folk%20Moral%20Relativism%20%28final%29.pdf

*The Boston Marathon

First and foremost, my sympathies and condolences with Boston. No city, or country, for that matter should have to go through such atrocities. It was an experience, being in the UK tracking in real time as events unfolded over twitter and facebook. I am glad to see friends living in Boston post that they were ok. There have been reports of 3 dead and over 100 wounded.

I only wish Twitter would allow me to go back and look at the progression of discourse that developed around the incident.

From my recollection, and granted that I may get some of this wrong, there was no mention of bombs initially but just that there were explosions. There were menions of limbs flying over people's heads and other horrible things. At first the reports were 2 killed and 22 injured and the number of injuries progressed. The incident is detailed here: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/15/1868281/explosions-at-the-boston-marathon/

But soon, we have mentions of the word 'bomb' and another explosion at JFK library.

There were also mentions of a suspect (a saudi national) being guarded by police at a hospital.

NY and London marathons state that they will be undergoing further security cautions and other measures. Major cities go on high alert.

Slowly the term comes up: 'Terrorist Act'

I recall a tweet that stated that the Saudi national being held denies any involvement with the explosions.

Authorities question saudi national: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57579736/authorities-question-saudi-national-in-boston-attack/
 
Tweet from Nightline (2:07 am 16 Apr13): 'Boston police say they do not have a suspect in custory'

Police also report that they would like to see videos and other material sent in to the police for investigation for any clues to the perpetrators.

Out of "respect" they do not hold the press conference on immigration reform. The NBA cancels the Boston Celtics game, the Bruins game is also cancelled.

They say it is unknown whether the act was domestic or international

What I tend to be cautious about is what happens in the white house while this is all happening. That is, what other activity are they doing? Any catastrophe or event is a potential smokescreen, diversion, for other things to happen. And what did I find? Obama signs Stock Act Reversal after he made his address to the pyblic about the Boston marathon.

 "The bill doesn't just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database."

It clouds the measures of transparency and disclosure, waiving the investigation of political corruption.

*many of my notes are without reference, something that I will have to track better the next smokescreen - incidental or deliberate or otherwise - comes around 

Today, we see the following:
NY Times: Obama calls Marathon Bombing an act of Terrorism

 
Let's not forget: US-bomb-kills-30-Afghan-wedding

And from an earlier post on another forum: 

After watching "America's most dangerous man," a documentary on Daniel Ellsberg. A book came to mind on the nature of American foreign policy. The book is a collection of interviews conducted with Noam Chomsky, called '9-11,' (Seven Stories Press, New York, 2001) and in one of his interviews he calls America: a leading terrorist state. When asked to elaborate on this remark he gave several examples, which I would like to share.

"Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed; it may never recover. The international terrorist attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country isolated by a vengeful and cruel superpower could scarcely sustain [...] They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. alone vetoed it." pg. 24-25

"the U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law"-pg 44

In 1985, Beirut, Reagan administration set off a terrorist bombing, "a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. It killed 80 and wounded 250, mostly women and children, according to a report in the Washington Post 3 years later. The terrorist bombing was aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn't like and whom they missed" -pg. 44 -_-

"Supporting Turkey's crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms"-pg. 44-45

The destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan by the Clinton administration in August 20, 1998.

Al-Shifa produced "90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products,"
"produced 50 percent of Sudan's medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of chloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria,"

the British refused requests to "resupply chloroquine in emergency relief"

the Al-Shifa facility was "the only one producing TB drugs-for more than 100,000 patients, at about 1 British pound a month."

Al-Shifa "was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in the vast, mostly pastoralist, country. Its specialty was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan's principle causes of infant mortality"
-quotes from pg. 48-49

Terrorism: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." 
  
Oh Justice, thou art a hypocritical bitch.

interesting...

Christ of the Abyss at San Fruttuoso, Italy

http://myscienceacademy.org/2013/04/14/the-33-most-beautiful-abandoned-places-in-the-world/

*The Next American Revolution (?) and Religion

Recently, two books have come out speaking about the "Next American Revolution":

Grace Lee Boggs, The Next American Revolution: Sustainable Activism for the Twenty First Century which has received accolades from the likes of Cornel West, Michael Hardt, Amy Goodman, and others.



The second is by Gar Alperovitz, What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution which has been praised by Daniel Ellsberg.




Given their promotions and their status, their suggestions of what the "Next American Revolution" would be is worth noting. From briefly gathering some information, both are not suggesting a revolution as it has traditionally been known. The uprooting of U.S. government will not happen through protests and charging the capital. It won't happen as Michael Hardt has noted, to buy guns and artillery, go into the mountains and make revolution.

Instead, they are promoting grassroots movements of sustainability. That when the system fails and the people find solutions on their own. The most prominent examples are local grow operations in abandoned lots and fields. To grow your own food and share with the community. Another example is worker owned energy companies - solar panels. This is not the conventional modality of looking at revolution in terms of the working class and the upper class. But a revolution focused on self-sustainability and grassroots organization.

While I like the idea of localized and self-sustaining communities, I think the bigger picture might be problematic when such communities are confronted in power with plutocrats and corporate manipulations of economy.

Nevertheless, let us posit that localized self-sustaining communities are the beginning point that needs to be the beginning point for any radical shift in the way an economic system functions and overlooks a national and even global population. If this is the case, what then is the role of religion? Grace Lee Boggs mentions the "rehabilitation of the soul" or something like that (she talks about it in a talk with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley on their radio show).

From what I gather, Boggs' position is that self-transformation goes hand in hand with structural transformation. That we can no longer blame the system for our misfortunes but how we view ourselves as entitled U.S. Americans. No longer can we look toward technology to solve our problems but must now look inward and transform who and what we are, who and what we consider ourselves to be, in order to make meaningful change and thereby as a consequence, structural change. Without begging the question of whether this is indeed the case or should be the case, the question is what religion does for this position.

In the past, not so much today, religion has had a history of identifying with the marginalized and the poor. For Christianity, we have the 'sermon on the mount' and the widespread of liberation theology in Catholicism. With Pope Francis we are seeing a glimpse of such a return but nobody is really holding their breath because of...a disenchantment of power and what is now commonly seen as a symbolic institution more than anything. This isn't to say that such institutions no longer have power, but that their power is no longer so apparent in the world of politics other than particular issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

At any rate, apart from such sensitive issues of what is "morality" religion has been a source of assistance and a voice for the marginalized (although it is a selective margin of some over others). However, in places like Detroit, Cleveland, and so on that continue to see an increase in unemployment, poverty, and violence, the marginalized in economic status are becoming a majority. So how does religion facilitate the self-sustainment not only in "soul" but also community (communal soul, I guess)?

In a way, we can say that the persuasive and moral power of churches in mobilizing persons, while in one sense manipulative, can be a utility for promoting local grow-ops and local means of sustainability. The church becomes a mobilizer for a redefinition of the 'welfare state'. Churches can motivate those to create bigger, and make their own, grow-operations. Create other means of sustainability, recreation, and modes of education. The collision with the advancement of local grow-ops is the eventual crash with how one manages the job market. Can religious organizations be the mediator between locally advancing sustainability in communities and finding long term economic stability for families and so on. Is religion able to extend their abilities and power in networks to create a continuum between local forms of sustainable methods for a "new revolution" and the next transitional step of individual sustainability. The rehabilitation of the soul, while it sounds so tastefully romantic, is questionable in its pragmatics. The next revolution, for a different form of economy, will have to test the powers of religious organizations and what their views are in the wake of such needed change. What line of discrimination does religion take?   

trailer: 'marx reloaded'

Calvin and Hobbes on Ritual

Maya Cave

A discussion on Psychology

Keith Laws and Rupert Read discuss the question of whether psychology is a science:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016bhzx

The conversation is, in a way, a poor man's echo of the following conversation between Badiou and Foucault on the same subject:
(If you hit the caption button, there are subtitles in English)

Bottom-up Morality

Frans de Waal just put out a new book: The Bonobo and the Atheist, which he talks about here at NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/03/21/174830095/frans-de-waals-bottom-up-morality-were-not-good-because-of-god

God's Law

Should religious courts be allowed their own jurisdiction? "God's law" may not be so straight forward...

http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/Applying-Gods-Law-Religious-Courts-and-Mediation-in-the-US.aspx

Why do we hate certain words?

on word aversion

Apparently a lot of people don't like the word "moist"...

On the 'Good Death'

Socrates and the Good Death

Fear and Death

Joel Robbins on the Anthropology of Christianity

http://blog.wennergren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Joel-Robbins-Interview.mp3

left-wing Protestants

*Art and Religion IV: 'Beholder's response'

The Austrian psychoanalyst Ernst Kris studied the idea of the beholder's response very rigorously. Kris concluded that great works are great "because they are ambiguous." In other words, they allow for alternative readings. Consider Masaccio's Holy Trinity, 1425-28, at the Santa Maria Novella in Florence [...]

As Kandel explains, when "you and I look at that Masaccio painting, we would have somewhat different responses to it which means that the beholder’s share varies for each of us because we see somewhat different things in the painting."

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-beholders-response-how-the-brain-responds-to-ambiguity-in-art

Undoubtedly one's background will inform how one sees, interprets, and conjures a story about a work of art. This kind of story-making, meaning-making, will vary from art form or art form (which is also to say, medium to medium). How one looks at a painting will differ from a sculpture, a ceramic piece, an installation, performance art, music, and etc. Each of which has its own style of talking about "merit." What's "good", what's "bad", and where a piece or style fits within the discussion of a genre's history. One of the merits that Kandel mentions is the 'ambiguity' and the allowance of mutliple or various interpretations of the piece, in this case a Masaccio painting. This is, of course, in addition to the great skill and technique that was glorified and now typifies an era of painting.

If the merit of a good painting is, in part, its ability to be ambiguous and impactful to an audience, the curiosity here is whether 'ambiguity' is what translates over into a parallel observation with the study of religion. The most easiest example with a great painting is a great book. And one of which that most will recognize as a "great book" is the bible. Socially speaking Christianity branched off into other social institutions, as did many other religions, most of which is indeed grounded on a particular interpretation of the bible in relation/reaction to the social atmosphere of religious sentiment and dominant ideas at the time. This room for interpretation also entails its (Christianity's) ambiguity. Is a post-hoc rationalization for Christianity's persistence, its ambiguity?

Any artist grinding away in the art world will say of course not. It can't possibly just be ambiguity, if that was the case then any art that showed ambiguity would have survived as great. The realm of power, money, and social influence has to play a role. The curator, the gallery, the museum, marketing, and the consumers of art, as well as the influential voices of "taste" play a role. The history of Christianity can also point to such influences of power and social engineering that allowed its persistence.

And yet, there are things about the works of Michaelangelo, van Gough, Picasso, Rembrandt, Rodin, and many greats that are able to instill a sense of awe and wonder without thinking about those historical social influences that allowed its survival. There is still merit. And, it wouldn't just be because of the fact that it is in a museum either. One does not nececssarily have to go to a symphony hall to appreciate Beethoven's ninth. Similalry one does not need to go to the Rijk museum to appreciate Rembrandt, or to the Cistine chapel to admire the ceiling, although it is an awesome experience to witness in person. No longer is it the case that physical presence is a requirement for its appreciation. The merits of a great painting, or any other work of art, is not limited to its space or socio-historical influences of power and market.

(though, we can raise a hypothetical: would the cistine chapel still be as great if any other artist painted it?)

Could a "world religion" also be considered on similar merits that transcend analogous social forces?
What is it that counts as 'merit' in a world religion and captivates the 'beholder's response' for so many people? These questions themselves would be difficult to apply to religion as any one religion is not unidimensional. There are many things happening and actively engaging persons in religious traditions. Is the ritual the most appropriate analogy to a work of art? Ritual as performance art?  Doctrine as literature? The questions can then be asked with regard to each one of them: what is the merit of a ritual that captivates? What is it about doctrine that pull heart strings, drops wisdom, and gives meaning to everyday behaviors?     
  

Photo: By Jenn Ackerman

Pygmies in Indonesia?

Dreadlock pygmies?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/30/rangers-sight-pygmies-way-kambas-national-park.html

A British Cultural Value?

In the wake of the recent death of Margaret Thatcher: "Don't speak ill of the dead?"
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

and here: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/08/britain_debates_is_it_ok_to_celebrate_the_death_of_margaret_thatcher

Reminder

meanwhile in Russia...

Mental Illness in Filicide

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058981

Background

Most child victims of homicide are killed by a parent or step-parent. This large population study provides a contemporary and detailed description of filicide perpetrators. We examined the relationship between filicide and mental illness at the time of the offence, and care received from mental health services in the past.

Method

All filicide and filicide-suicide cases in England and Wales (1997–2006) were drawn from a national index of homicide perpetrators. Data on people in contact with mental health services were obtained via a questionnaire from mental health teams. Additional clinical information was collected from psychiatric reports.

Results

6144 people were convicted of homicide, 297 were filicides, and 45 cases were filicide-suicides. 195 (66%) perpetrators were fathers. Mothers were more likely than fathers to have a history of mental disorder (66% v 27%) and symptoms at the time of the offence (53% v 23%), most often affective disorder. 17% of mothers had schizophrenia or other delusional disorders. Overall 8% had schizophrenia. 37% were mentally ill at the time of the offence. 20% had previously been in contact with mental health services, 12% within a year of the offence.

Conclusion

In the majority of cases, mental illness was not a feature of filicide. However, young mothers and parents with severe mental illness, especially affective and personality disorder who are providing care for children, require careful monitoring by mental health and other support services. Identifying risk factors for filicide requires further research.

Citation: Flynn SM, Shaw JJ, Abel KM (2013) Filicide: Mental Illness in Those Who Kill Their Children. PLoS ONE 8(4): e58981. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058981