Religion and Therapy

[ProfessorDavey]

To tell someone how to be a good Muslim or good Christian, strikes me as not therapeutic.   I trained in client-centred therapy, which means that the client is expected to discover their own needs and desires, and not have someone else's thrust on them.  Ironically, that is something that many clients are suffering from - having been told what to think and do.   You can't redouble on that.   

But this applies to many things - if a client is having an affair, most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic?   This is why gay conversion has been banned, because the therapists were often openly homophobic.

Actually, that brings up an interesting point - if you are telling people how to be a good Christian or Muslim,  would that involve telling them that you can't be gay, or divorced, or adulterous, or trans?    Again, that is about as therapeutic as a sermon from  the pulpit.

Indeed - and I find it bizarre that they, on the one hand, are telling someone how to be a 'good muslim', yet on the other clearly indicate the following (direct quote):

'For example one service user felt that he was being punished for a sin that he had committed. Some service users reported neglecting themselves and becoming more depressed through religious activities such as fasting and prayer by which they hoped to earn forgiveness from God. Beliefs related to possession were raised by therapists and supervisors from Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds. Service users who believed they had been possessed equated this with being a bad person.'

So clearly in some patients their negativity and depression was very clearly linked to feeling they were a bad muslim or were being punished by god. Surely in most cases (perhaps not all) the approach shouldn't be to reinforce that negativity, rubbing their noses in it, so to speak, by focussing on what a 'good muslim' does. Rather the approach should be to allow the individual to accept that perhaps they don't believe and that this doesn't make them a 'bad person', just a different person to a devout believer.

It is interesting to not that most of the therapists voted with their feet - apparently at the start of the project 10 therapists attended the initial training (plus 2 others recruited from elsewhere) - only 2 of those 14 remained in the project throughout. Speaks volumes.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I have bad feelings about it.   I think it will go pear-shaped, for example, with people exploring not being a Muslim or a Christian.  Now what does the therapist say?  Therapy aims to be neutral, normally, except in cases of criminal intent. 

There are also people who are fanatically religious , and this normally is not helpful to them.   Is the therapist going to praise them for their devotion?  Bonkers.

[Rhiannon]

If this scheme were about accepting being  'good enough' rather than 'good' at being religious then ok, it might have some merit. It isn't.

[Rhiannon]

The approval/disapproval thing is interesting. That could get very gamey- tell me I'm a bad girl, Mr Therapist, tell me I'm a good girl. Not healthy. And I've never believed anyone telling me I'm ok - I need to (and do) realise it for myself.

[wigginhall]

The approval/disapproval thing is interesting. That could get very gamey- tell me I'm a bad girl, Mr Therapist, tell me I'm a good girl. Not healthy. And I've never believed anyone telling me I'm ok - I need to (and do) realise it for myself.

Exactly.  And many clients try to play those games, eliciting approval or disapproval.   It's probably an old game as well, so if the T goes along with it, they are colluding. 

[ProfessorDavey]

If this scheme were about accepting being  'good enough' rather than 'good' at being religious then ok, it might have some merit. It isn't.

I think one of the most worrying terms used in the manual is the drive for patients to work toward 'an achievable level of religious practice'. This is so clearly biased and not patient focussed - a patient may be able to 'achieve' a particular level of religious practice, but for some this may not be desirable, nor help with their condition. It represents a view that 'more religion' is good and is the answer. That is either naive, or more worrying, suggests proselytising of vulnerable people.

[Rhiannon]

I think one of the most worrying terms used in the manual is the drive for patients to work toward 'an achievable level of religious practice'. This is so clearly biased and not patient focussed - a patient may be able to 'achieve' a particular level of religious practice, but for some this may not be desirable, nor help with their condition. It represents a view that 'more religion' is good and is the answer. That is either naive, or more worrying, suggests proselytising of vulnerable people.

It has the feel of 'this works for me so it will work for everyone'. It's not a million miles from Alan Burns telling us all we'll find unconfined joy if only we let God into our lives.

I think for someone with MH issues who is religious and who hasn't got doubts about their beliefs the most important thing is that they are able to feel ok about *not* having a religious practice. Not that they need to do more of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

It has the feel of 'this works for me so it will work for everyone'. It's not a million miles from Alan Burns telling us all we'll find unconfined joy if only we let God into our lives.

Not sure I am so charitable. I think this potentially goes further than the naive 'this works for me so it will work for everyone' - it seems to be additionally aimed at an agenda to get individuals to engage in religion more as an aim in itself - i.e. effectively proselytising.

I think for someone with MH issues who is religious and who hasn't got doubts about their beliefs the most important thing is that they are able to feel ok about *not* having a religious practice. Not that they need to do more of it.

I think they need to be supported to feel OK about it either way - so OK to be actively religious if that is most supportive to them and aligns with their genuine beliefs, and OK not to be actively religious if that is most supportive to them and aligns with their genuine beliefs. Where someone is genuine confused and uncertain I would have thought that de-emphasising the religious aspect entirely and focusing on other more positive aspects of behaviour, where perhaps their is less confusion would be most appropriate.

[Rhiannon]

I think if someone has a religious practice then they are likely to have support through their religious leadership so wouldn't need the support of a therapist. But of course religious practice can be a huge issue for someone with OCD - in fact it is often not recommended until the person is well into recovery.

[Udayana]

I certainly agree that any idea of proselytizing or imposing or reinforcing religious ideas or values because either the therapist or the client is of some religion is out of the question - it is as likely as not that religious concepts or ideals are implicated in the cause of the problem. This applies to just as much to atheistic ideas too.

But the (or my) point is that  peoples feeling and behaviour does reflect the conceptual framework or symbolic/belief system they have been brought up in, that they think in. The "solution" is not in more or less religion but in understanding how your assumptions and thinking make you feel as you do and, possibly, vice versa.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think if someone has a religious practice then they are likely to have support through their religious leadership so wouldn't need the support of a therapist.

I really don't think that is true - religious leaders are not trained to be able to support people with mental conditions. And to rely on the 'support' of the untrained is potentially very dangerous. Most people, whether religious or otherwise, have a support network whether friends, family colleagues or people they know through organisation they partake in (religious and others). Those people may be very helpful in supporting people suffering from mental conditions, but they cannot and should not take the place of trained, professional therapists and medics.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the (or my) point is that  peoples feeling and behaviour does reflect the conceptual framework or symbolic/belief system they have been brought up in, that they think in. The "solution" is not in more or less religion but in understanding how your assumptions and thinking make you feel as you do and, possibly, vice versa.

I agree - and that is the point I have been making. So there may be circumstances where the most appropriate approach is to support a person to detach themselves entirely from their previous religion, as perhaps loss of faith and/or a damaging relationship with that religion is very much part of the problem. In other cases religion might be very helpful in supporting an individual to get through their problems.

The point is that this is a person-centred approach and doesn't dictate a 'directionality' - i.e. that more religion is the answer, which this experimental form of therapy appears to advocate.

As I have said previously it is extremely telling that of 14 therapists recruited to the project, just 2 remained to the end. This suggests to me that the approach was not supported by the therapist community and indeed seems to have been considered unethical by some.

[Rhiannon]

I really don't think that is true - religious leaders are not trained to be able to support people with mental conditions. And to rely on the 'support' of the untrained is potentially very dangerous. Most people, whether religious or otherwise, have a support network whether friends, family colleagues or people they know through organisation they partake in (religious and others). Those people may be very helpful in supporting people suffering from mental conditions, but they cannot and should not take the place of trained, professional therapists and medics.

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.

The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.

The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree.

[Robbie]

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.

The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.

That is right Rhiannon.

The last few posts which I have quickly read convince me more than ever that psychotherapy must be neutral. The patient/client has to work through issues which will frequently mean breaking down barriers. That doesn't mean abandoning faith if they have any but religious constraints will and should be challenged in a safe therapeutic environment.

[Jack Knave]

Jack Knave it is obvious that NearlyS made a typographical error.
He meant to say either, "That's it, a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin", or
"That's a metaphor,...".

I'm off to bed in a minute but wanted to read this thread because I am in therapy and have been for a long time. I had session today and religion was mentioned by me, not my therapist.It came up because of pancake day and Iremembered Ash Wednesday followed. I said sometimes I missed church because there was a comfort in going. He said he understood that, the pattern, flow of seasons. And there our talk of religion ended because I have secular therapy which is what I want.
I read all the posts on the thread and agree that saying Saudis are pigs is a generalisation. Saudis are human beings and I have known good people from there. No-one should generalise about a race of people,or a religion.

My point is, what does that argument or bickering about typo mistakes have to do with the thread subject, Religion and Therapy? There;s no need for a war in exchange of views some shown in great posts earlier on.

Sorry for any spelling grammar or syntax (not Sin-tax or Cemtex) mistakes. Goodnight folks.

The exchanges with NS have often occurred and so have become an accepted norm. He starts to nit-pick on some pointless issue which he fails to explain properly and off we go on our anfractuous journey to nowhere.

And welcome to this forum, Robinson, it's good to have new people here.

[Jack Knave]

Good to get (sort of) back on topic.

What concerns me about the approach described in the OP is that religion is specifically introduced and developed as a theme by the therapist, regardless of whether the patient wishes it to be raised or feels it important. This contrasts markedly with your therapy experience, where you clearly indicate that it was you that raised it and you were in control of whether or not that line of discussion would be followed.

The other problem with the approach from the link in the OP, is that it appears directed, with a clear view that 'more religion' is always the answer, regardless of the patient's own attitude toward religion.

So for patients who feel religion is important and feel detached the answer is 'more religion' - perhaps fair enough.

But for patients who see religion as unimportant or are actually rather hostile the line is that their depression is linked to their lack of religious observation, so again 'more religion' is the answer.

This seems remarkably lacking in focus on the patients' individual circumstances and needs. So it seems entirely plausible that someone brought up in a faith but who has lost that faith may struggle with that realisation. Surely 'more religion' cannot always be the answer and more likely than not the answer lies in allowing the patient to recognise that not believing and not adhering to religious practices is OK and for them to rebalance their lives in a different direction.

It is obvious that the therapy mentioned in the OP is being used to get converts to Islam in an insidious and devious manner by targeting the vulnerable and needy.

[Robbie]

Seems unethical to me.
It's good to know so many therapists were unhappy with it and left the trial. More difficult for those receiving therapy as they would be leaving behind relationships of trust they'd built up.
No, better to keep counselling secular but with insight into religious backgrounds and culture. I add, in my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is obvious that the therapy mentioned in the OP is being used to get converts to Islam in an insidious and devious manner by targeting the vulnerable and needy.

That isn't obvious at all.

I suspect this is largely driven by naivety and a failure to recognise that religion isn't necessarily good. While I suspect the project leaders see getting people more involved in islam as a beneficial offshoot (because they think more religion is good) I see no evidence that the primary (but not stated) goal is proselytising. Remember this project is from a reputable University with significant funding from a reputable funding source which would have had to be peer reviewed. We aren't dealing with some shadowy Wahhabi-funded organisation here.

So I see this largely as naivety and wrong-headed (rather evangelical) enthusiasm - wrong and unethical but without overt sinister overtones.

But it is rather reassuring to see that it has been a failure - with therapists voting with their feet - just 2 remaining to the end. And very, very few patients also participating to the end.

There is, however, a wider issue here - which remains undressed. Namely that certain groups in society, while suffering from mental conditions as much as other groups, are less likely to seek  professional help. In this case the focus is on muslims, but there are other groups too.

[SusanDoris]

This is a bit tangential,  but on Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers.

I think the idea of religious belief as a good thing to assist recovery from mental health conditions, should never be introduced by any adviser and should not be reinforced by any religiously involved adviser since s/he couldnot bring a fact into the discussion to back up the idea.

[floo]

A cousin of mine, with mental health issues, made a failed attempt to commit suicide when a Biblical literalist/'born again' relative told him mental illness was caused by demons. He needed to ask god's forgiveness for his sins in order to be cured!!!!!   When I heard that I went ballistic and told the relative exactly what I thought of them. They didn't think they had done anything wrong, they believed their version of faith was the only therapy one needed where mental illness was concerned!

[ippy]

This is a bit tangential,  but on Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers.

I think the idea of religious belief as a good thing to assist recovery from mental health conditions, should never be introduced by any adviser and should not be reinforced by any religiously involved adviser since s/he couldnot bring a fact into the discussion to back up the idea.

"On Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers".

Susan, I'm glad you've noticed the above, it's how that organisation works, if the interview was as you describe and it was a one off, well that's life things don't always turn how you would like them to, the interviewee was surrounded the religious that time.

If you can tolerate these religious programs, from time to time have a good listen and tell me the next time you hear an expert of the kind you describe presenting any non-religious subject, that's not surrounded by religios, tell me and I promise, I'll do my best to not sound surprised.

Where their system scores is where they never miss, anyone with a contrary, non-religious p o v is always surrounded, if anyone complains they supply you with a list of programmes telling where they are always presenting people from the outsides of religious belief and they even do programmes representing the non-religious beliefs, forgetting to mention they're all supervised just like they were in the edition of Beyond Belief you listened to.

It's standard BBC practice, I don't know exactly why they do it but it's one thing you can be certain of, no non-religious viewpoints or guests to go on air without the appropriate chaperones present just like in your "Beyond Belief" program.       

The religious have many programs free of any kind of censor, which is fair enough, the last Humanist that had the same kind of freedom to speak was a woman, Margaret Knight, she was able to present two radio programmes about living without god and that was put out to air in 1958.

Non-religious people are still banned from speaking on BBC radio 4's "Thought For the Day", a three minute slot on the "Today program six days a week.

The BBC's biased? No never, not the BBC?

ippy       

[Gordon]

Have to say, ippy, I think you're being a tad unfair to 'Beyond Belief'. Even a grizzled old atheist like me finds it an interesting programme that has an excellent presenter in Ernie Rae and has covered a wide range of subjects.

While I don't agree with much of what many of the guests say I think it is useful to hear their case in some detail. Sure there are some that spout the more obvious fallacious nonsense (of the type we see here at times) but there are many who are far more thoughtful and nuanced and who provide interesting background to their various faith positions - I reckon I've learned a fair amount from 'Beyond Belief'.

It is available on the BBC Radio Player and the podcasts are free on iTunes (which is how I listen) - I think it would be worth you listening to a few. 

[ippy]

Have to say, ippy, I think you're being a tad unfair to 'Beyond Belief'. Even a grizzled old atheist like me finds it an interesting programme that has an excellent presenter in Ernie Rae and has covered a wide range of subjects.

While I don't agree with much of what many of the guests say I think it is useful to hear their case in some detail. Sure there are some that spout the more obvious fallacious nonsense (of the type we see here at times) but there are many who are far more thoughtful and nuanced and who provide interesting background to their various faith positions - I reckon I've learned a fair amount from 'Beyond Belief'.

It is available on the BBC Radio Player and the podcasts are free on iTunes (which is how I listen) - I think it would be worth you listening to a few.

Gordon, I wasn't complaining about that program, if anything I agree with you, I was only pointing out the system the BBC is rigidly stuck to, each individual case can be taken as, "oh well that's bound to happen from time to time" and if that were the case I wouldn't be writing about it, it's the fact that they never miss tells all; the way the BBC behaves with non-religion, it's a bit like the way white blood cells surround germs.

I don't have any particular feelings about religious broadcasting, if anyone wants to have that kind of stuff I'm fine with it, my radio has a switch for anything Im not that keen to hear and believers pay their licence money the same as I do.

Like I said I don't know exactly why they do it.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Ippy and Gordon

I agree with Gordon that the Beyond Belief programmes are usually worth a listen to, but when I heard at the start of the last one that there were no non-religious views, I had to go away and do something else* for about 10 minutes tut-tutting to myself, but listened to the rest! I do tend to agree much more with Ippy's [posts above and almost decided to send an e-mail to the BBC, but thought it would be a waste of time. On Feedback there are often other  non-believers writing in to complain, but nothing ever happens.

*rinsing out my swim suit, hat and goggles!!