January 29th two school officials held a luncheon prayer at a booster lunch. They were charged for violating a court order against "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events" (Hannigan, "jail time"). On the 17th of September, school officials from Pace High School in Florida were cleared of charges, because the prosecuting attorney failed to prove criminal intent (Hannigan, "Judge rules"). Although the judge remarked that America is not a theocracy, this is a dangerous ruling. With vigilant Christians constantly trying to unnecessarily burden teachers with creationism, we should be on guard against theocracy as much as ever. But why does God belong outside of government? Why should political concerns be secular? After all, shouldn't politicians uphold God's will? Wouldn't we all stand to benefit from God-fearing politics?

While God ought to guide politics, God should be kept out of politics. Our politics are our concern, not God's. But I don't think we are harmed by exposure to God, as many people think. The usual line of argument is that we should keep God out to respect the religions of others—so that we don't force one religion on everyone else. While I agree with this, I think too often this tack is made because people get offended when you defend God. But this isn't about that. God should be kept out of politics not because God desecrates us, but because because religious politics desecrate God.

Authority structures are temporal, plain and simple. Since they're temporal, authority structures have never been under the complete jurisdiction of God. Rather, they've been given to us to govern (by God, ironically). So when a politician claims that she is a servant exclusively of God, insofar as she is acting as a politician, she is making a false claim. She may be acting under God's advice, but her post is not a heavenly one. It is worldly. In fact, I propose a simple litmus test to check whether something is worldly: If a computer can predict it, it's probably worldly. Computers can and do predict public policy, at least according to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (with 90% accuracy), and so public policy is probably worldly. Obviously there are some problems with this approach—if a computer can't predict it, does that mean it isn't worldly? Probably not (though I'm not sure). But computers work based on things that are concretely defined. And, concretely defined things are worldly—this is what it means to be worldly. Public policy, too, works with things that are concretely defined: laws, incentives, petitions, vested interests, etc. So the business of public policy is the business of this world.

When people try to employ God in the business of the world, I think they get the roles mixed up. They try to make God conform to the authority of man, instead of the other way around. This is because they confuse what they want with what God wants. Setting public policy is about what you want done, as a man. When you speak to others, you speak as a man. Perhaps God inspires you, perhaps God guides you, but you do not in any way create or control God. Therefore the overzealous motivation to spread the gospel in public policy is wrongheaded. The best case scenario is that you are rejected as a fanatic. The worst case scenario is that you fetter any actual devotion to God, and instead people become devoted to you. I don't think selflessly spreading what you consider to be the truth is wrong, but I think you should live with the fact that you are actually getting nothing done. If anything good happens, it happens helplessly, because of God. We should watch out for people who pursue any kind of public policy, and we should ask, what authority do they have? Why are they making these decisions? What assumptions am I making about them? And most importantly, are my assumptions wrong?

It's not easy for anyone to check whether their assumptions are wrong. Sometimes the idea that you're wrong can be frightening. But if we can't find a way change our minds about public officials, even when they're wrong, how can we expect them to change their minds for us? Public officials are fallible, and are often wrong. This is why I think faith is so important—because we're so often wrong. We have to have faith that no matter how wrong we get, somehow we can manage to proceed on the spiritual path. If a man uses Christianity to guide his way, and that man is a public official, I see no problem. Perhaps that man has faith, and perhaps that faith will help him in difficult situations. But if that man creates difficult situations by trying to write laws with the authority of God, excluding all other possibilities, I see a problem. I see a man playing God. That is why we can't have a Christian nation: we have to ask, whose Christianity?

Writing laws with the authority of God places all of the responsibility on God. On the one hand, the man expects the law to be enforced—promoting his authority. But on the other hand, the man expects God to take responsibility for the law to be enforced, and/or he expects God to glorify him for making the law, and/or he expects to be protected in God's name from those who oppose the law, etc. This, again, conflates the authority of God and man. If man wrote the law, it is man's device, it carries the authority of man, and whatever happens because of the law happens because of man. If God were to come into the picture, it would be through man. But not because of man. That is, when man says, "This shall be done," it is man saying it perhaps because of God, but certainly not God saying it because of man. In fact, the responsibility for everything we say, do, and put into law, is ours. This is not a secular idea—it has support in the scriptures.

Speaking of the scriptures, the idea that God should be kept out of politics can be inferred from the New Testament. When the centurion approaches Jesus, he says he's not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof. (This occurs in Luke 7 and Matthew 8.) Why? Because he's a man of "authority"—all he wanted was for Him to heal his slave. What the centurion is doing is denying himself and his own authority, and adopting faith in Jesus. And Jesus affirms his faith, saying it's greater even than the faith He found in Israel. The centurion didn't want Jesus to come into his home because he didn't want to reduce Jesus to a celebrity endorsement. He knew that Jesus wasn't going to affirm his worldly authority, but rather affirm his faith, and in fact He does. We can infer from this story that Jesus' role is not to prop up powerful people, but rather support our faith.

Another piece of the New Testament confirms my suspicion about men trying to use God to their advantage. In Matthew 19 and elsewhere, Jesus discusses how difficult it is for men with great worldly possessions to enter heaven, saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples are astonished, and ask who can possibly be saved, to which Jesus responds that with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. This makes me wonder, what exactly are evangelicals trying to do when they preach fire and brimstone? What are they trying to accomplish by propping up Republican politicians? Do they think they're saving people? It seems to me more likely that they're misguided. Perhaps even to the extent that they willfully ignore the meaning of the scripture to benefit themselves. This doesn't harm God, I submit. Desecrating God doesn't harm God at all. Desecrating God harms ourselves. The more God enters into politics, I argue, the further we get from God.

True, Moses was given the ability to evoke God, and give commandments. Jesus was given to do this as well. But are people like Bill O'Reilly really Moses or Jesus? Or, is it more likely that they are what they appear to be—bullies and thugs? I think these people desecrate the name of God by trying to inject God into politics. The irony is, God probably avoids politics. If He wanted to get involved in politics, Jesus probably would have been a king. I think politics are temporal, and it is perverse to use the Word for temporal gain. That would be rendering what is God's to Caesar.

Citations

Hannigan, Joni B. "On Constitution Day, Sept. 17, two school administrators face jail time for lunch prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.

Hannigan, Joni B. "Judge rules in favor of Pace school officials on trial for meal prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.

How to Take Psychotropic Medications

Medications are a great tool for living, and I think, regarding medications, it is important to do two things: a) not reject them entirely, b) not settle into them. By this I mean, you should not insist on ignoring what happens to your brain because of the medications, and you should also not insist that everything is okay because of the medications.

I take Zyprexa, and it helps a great deal. However, when I settle into my medications, I become a complete imbecile. I can barely remember what day of the week it is. I forget to wash my clothes. I go to bed at 9:30 in the evening and wake up at 12 in the afternoon, and then I take an hour nap. It's useless. This is one reason why I insist on being kept at a low dose. On the other hand, when I have in the past rejected my medications, I ended up in the mental hospital.

To deal with schizophrenia, you cannot just take your meds and go about your business. You have to deal both with medications and, occasionally, with symptoms. I think there is a simple reason for this: medications regulate the chemicals in your brain, and that's it. The problem is, delusions aren't chemical imbalances: they're thoughts. If you have the thought, "everyone is out to get me," no medication in the world is going to take that away from you. Consequently, a large number of people continue to have delusions despite the fact that they are on enough medications to kill a horse. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that there is a significant number of people who technically have schizophrenia, but they don't settle into delusions, and so the disease doesn't bother them and they don't have to take any medications at all.

I think the bottom line is, diseases, especially mental ones, cannot be cured or controlled by conventional science. The reason is, conventional science labors under a cocktail of delusions that don't really accord with reality. Here are a few of them:

1. There is an objective reality which everyone has access to.
2. Mental phenomena don't exist until you can observe them.
3. Mental phenomena cease to exist when you can no longer observe them.
4. The mind is separate from the body and cannot communicate with the body.

Note that for number 4, in my experience, most mental health professionals tend to think that the mind is separate from the brain and the mind cannot communicate even with the brain, which is, of course, completely ridiculous. Many mental health professionals probably won't admit to thinking this, but that is the underlying assumption when they have the thought, "You are not well until you take your medications," or, "You can try cognitive therapy and physical therapy and so forth, but ultimately, you must take your medications before you feel better."

I agree, most people with schizophrenia who are not taking their medications are indeed not well. But the medications have very little to do with that. In my experience delusions are not created by chemical imbalances. Delusions are created by the subconscious mind. In other words, I have experienced episodes of schizophrenia that haven't bothered me at all. The reason is because I withheld creating delusions. The chemicals in my head led me to think, "The world is ending now." But I withheld having the thought, "The world is ending now." I didn't actively refuse to think the thought, I just withheld having it. Because I withheld having it, I did not get upset, I did not go wide-eyed and start shouting at people, and I did not end up in a mental hospital. And so I believe that for anyone who has schizophrenia, it is indeed possible to live a normal life without taking medications. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend trying it: most people, including myself, cannot fully control their subconscious. If we have an itch, we tend to think, "I have an itch." If we can have an itch without thinking "I have an itch," then it may be a good idea to stop taking medications.

I take my medications. This is because, and this is a key point, I respect my medications. They truly have real benefit. It is extremely important for people with schizophrenia and their family and friends to understand that modern psychotropic medications are very helpful. But even if they were not very helpful, it would still be beneficial to respect the medications. For any medication, someone out there had a very good reason to believe that it would be of benefit, or they wouldn't be selling it. They may be relying on the placebo effect, but the fact that the placebo effect exists proves my point. Furthermore, modern psychotropic medications are not placebos: large teams of highly educated scientists spent years of hard work developing them. So if someone tries to get you to take medications, this person is almost certainly trying to help you out. And so, it is good to respect the medications. But medications are not everything.

Consider this. When we were children, our friends told us, "You should really try doing a flip off of the diving board," and we tried it, and it felt good. (For most of us anyway.) Or, we were the path-breakers, and we decided on our own to do a flip off of the diving board, and it felt good, so we told all our friends how cool it is. I don't think many of us would have done the flip, thought it was the greatest thing in the world, and not have told our friends. Well, when dealing with schizophrenia, the same principle applies. Scientists get people to take medications, and if it works, the good feelings of the people who took the medications back them up when they say, "This medication works." If, on the other hand, everybody who took the medications sincerely believed that it did not work, and someone gave you the medications and said, "I sincerely believe this medication will not work," it probably wouldn't work. This is because, for the most part, if someone takes a medication and sincerely believes it didn't work, it is because it didn't work. But on the other hand, if they believe it works, it is because it works. Unfortunately, many people who have schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are surrounded and constantly attacked by demons, and so it is very difficult to get them to believe, "I really think this will help you." The person will simply think it is another demon trying a clever way to attack him or her. For example, I have heard someone with schizophrenia say, "I don't know if medications are placebos or mind control or what," and this was a person who regularly took medications. I have heard another person who sincerely believed that the medications he was taking actually caused the mental illness. This person was taking about 240 milligrams of Geodon, which is a high dosage, and obviously it didn't help at all.

Now consider this: when you expand a liquid, it sucks up heat. And when you contract it, it spits the heat out. Isn't that bizarre? Who would have thought of that? But someone did indeed think of it, and later somebody else invented the refrigerator. My point is: reality is weird. But even our weird experiences are caused by something, though it is impossible to determine exactly what. So what makes medications effective? What makes some people with schizophrenia successful at dealing with their symptoms, while others are not so successful? I say it is the same thing that causes us to do a flip off the diving board, and the same thing which causes water to suck up and spit out heat: a spontaneous occurrence, a culmination of realizations of scientific truths and efforts made by our friends and other people. It is a real, rock-hard experience of our world, including both medications and absence of them. Spontaneous occurrences require more than just some mythical objective reality outside of our minds. If Michael Faraday didn't actually try expanding then contracting a liquid, the refrigerator would never have been invented. Similarly, if people with schizophrenia don't actively try to control their symptoms, medications will do no good and may actually hurt.

I think it really is dangerous to get in a situation where you think drugs are the reason for your well-being, no matter what those drugs are. Even if you're just taking antibiotics. First of all, diseases will come along no matter what drugs you're on, second of all, many diseases will not be cured no matter what you do, and third of all, there are a great many factors which contribute to a disease or lack of one (not just chemicals and drugs), and many of these factors are mental. For example, if you exercise and maintain a happy, healthy state of mind, you are less likely to get diseases, antibiotics or no. Why should schizophrenia be any different?

I know that mental health professionals, in general, wish for the best. But one of the more pernicious attitudes of mental health professionals is arrogance. It is pernicious because they don't even realize they're doing it. They try to convince people, "You have a mental illness and there's nothing you can do about it, and the things you think are false while the things I think are true." It breaks my heart when I see someone say, "Yesterday I time-traveled to combat my evil twin but someone scratched my brain. However, THIS IS JUST MY DELUSION." That person doesn't believe it's just their delusion; they are just sycophantically sucking up to their mental health professionals. So now they have two problems: schizophrenia, and sycophancy. I say, if you honestly believe you can time-travel, more power to you. It's your experience, not mine, so why is it my business?

Solving the problem of symptoms is a spontaneous marriage of all the right elements, which often indeed include medications. It is like solving any problem: you get an "aha" moment, and then you are able to solve the problem. If we can learn to put out the appropriate effort, guided by our experience and mindfulness, we can solve our problems—schizophrenia included. This is how problems are solved. You don't solve problems by just taking medications.

An Urgent Call to Action!

We all know the exploits of our leaders in Washington. You can't read half a paragraph in the papers but find something amiss. For heaven's sake, we don't even need to step beyond our private life or community sphere to find problems: everywhere are angry egos and their petty manifestos. No one is without an opinion, or a "solution." Every day brings a new pill—red ones, blue ones, white ones, round or oblong—and everyone plays the doctor. But these answer-pills all seem like placebos. Where do they come from? I say they come from the herbs cultivated by good men and women who make up the backbone of this country. But the herbs go to waste: they are chopped down faster than they can grow. It is because there are too many pills! There is only one thing to do, which is what we do best: nothing.

Our lives are drenched in freedom: our egos are enslaved by freedom. We have the freedom to buy hamburgers and doughnuts—and many of us don't even need to raise the cows or farm the wheat. We have the freedom to spend money—this is actually quite significant, because not only does this freedom require money to spend, but places to spend it at, and there are plenty. We have the freedom to speak our mind to the general public and not fear a harsh response from the government—Chinese people do not have that freedom. We have the freedom to travel, the freedom to petition, and the freedom to start a business. We have the freedom not to be Muslim. We have the freedom not to be communist. We have the freedom not to be Christian. And, for long stretches of time, most of us have the freedom not to be bothered. That is the most important freedom of all, which is why we should use it. These freedoms have been granted to us by George Washington's seed and by everyone's photosynthesis. The medicinal plant has grown, and it's due time to let the medicine do its work. What wrong can come if no wrong is done? What wrong is done if we do nothing at all?

Some people say, "Write your Senator! Write your Representative!" But congress, like any mature institution, is a rock. It is mineral-rich, and healthy to grow plants on, but in what direction can a senator move without running face-first into a lobbyist? Or a union president? Or an activist? Or the wrongly-motivated part of his own constituency? Congress is a particularly interesting outcropping of solid rock—a geological specimen. A work of nature, which we should preserve and protect against harmful influences. Ask an environmentalist how to preserve and protect specimens of nature: I am sure, at the very least, he will not say, "develop it and build a mansion on it." We should not try to make our congressmen do our bidding—we should not make congress the house of our opinions. They are representatives; why not leave it at that? If you think you can change Washington, go be a congressman. And good luck to you. When you burn yourself out trying to dig up a giant rock, there is only one sensible course of action left: sit down and be another rock. This is something we CAN do.

No matter what the bumper-sticker says on the car in front of us, no matter what the man says on television, no matter what the tractors and bulldozers and chainsaws and men and women in red-orange shirts do to our wilderness, no matter who we trade insults with on our way to the next hard-earned paycheck, the tree of liberty—nay, the ecosystem of liberty—remains the triumphant emblem of our times. It's not going anywhere, but we are. We are always going places. When we sit still, or lie down to sleep, in our minds, we are still going places. It is no good. Since we have the ability to sit still at our convenience, why not use it? Then we can grow our own trees. But we do not do this. Even I have the audacity to write for two and a half hours about how we should stop doing stuff. (Though I assure you, these ideas were formed in stillness.)

So I urgently call upon all of you to summon all your courage, look your enemy straight in the eye, take a deep breath and, do nothing. Everything is perfect! Sit still, be still, and be happy!

Tree of Liberty

The above images are protected under Creative Commons licenses. The first and second images, entitled "Wild Animal Park" by Chris Ingrassia, are protected under an Attribution license. The third image, entitled "IMG_4415.JPG" by Tom Woodward, is protected under an Attribution ShareAlike license.

How the Schizophrenic Mind Works

Everything people with schizophrenia do (assuming they are logical people) is absolutely logical. It is consistent with reason, and perfectly sane. A person with schizophrenia who understands the mandates of logic and reason, is skilled in ethics, acute in understanding, perfectly level-headed, with a correct view of the world, will display symptoms of schizophrenia. She will believe people attack them in their sleep. She will stare into space and become unresponsive to stimuli. She will experience anxiety and stress. It is not that she is stubborn. It is not that she is immature. So why do she acts the way she does, if she is perfectly sane?

What would you do in a room with a rapist? You would be very wary of their every move. You would avoid them at all costs, or if you cannot avoid them, you would at least lock your door at night. You would try to reason with them: "If you rape and attack people all your life," you would say, "you won't have many friends. People will call you a rapist. You will go to jail. You will lose your job."

But what is rape? Do you even know? Have you ever been raped? Most people with schizophrenia have never been raped. But they see people nodding their heads. They see people curling their lips into a smile. They see people snapping their fingers and making a pistol of their hand. By the force of logic, this all screams "Rape! Murder! Incest! Conspiracy!"

This seems very illogical. But honestly, what is logic? With no reference point, logic disappears. Suppose you are ten years old, and you have never lost a toy before. You put your toy down on the counter, with the vague feeling that you will remember it when you need it. Next thing you know, you can't find it. Did you behave illogically? Of course not. It is not deductively valid to say that placing toys on the counter leads to losing them—it is a logical fallacy. The best you can do is have a loving parent tell you, "If you don't set aside a place for your toys, you will end up losing them." Now, you have a reference point. You think; "Putting toys in random places —> losing them." At this point it is logically valid to say, "Assuming the counter is a random place, if I put my toy there, I will lose it." This is logic.

Now a person with schizophrenia is a human being. Because she is human, she feels a sense of connection when people smile at her. It creates a special feeling in her mind. So, she knows, "This special feeling is means communication." It is now highly logical for her to say, "If I experience this special feeling, I must be experiencing communication." Similarly, she feels a different kind of connection when people yell at her. This comes with it's own special feeling. And so on for other feelings.

Now television, newspapers, books, etc. give us an image of what the mind of a rapist is like. What they convey has a sense of realism to it. Why? Because it is connected with our personal experiences. Clearly, the person with schizophrenia has the same image. She knows, "When I feel this way, I have had that experience." She knows, "This special feeling generally indicates a communication of lust." Someone nods their head at her. She feels that special feeling. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to assume that she is in danger of being raped. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to behave in a paranoid manner. It is LOGICALLY VALID for her to lock her doors, to plead with the person not to rape her, or hitchhike to California. She knows this person must logically be a rapist. It is clear and obvious. Here's the argument in standard form:

1. Special feeling —> communication of that which leads to rape.
2. Special feeling.
   ----------------------
3. Rape is imminent.

Logic is the most valuable tool we have. Why should we oppose logic?

Now, consider the statement: "If the people on TV claim that rapists are commonly jailed, commonly lose their friends, commonly are socially ostracized, and I know rapists who are not jailed, do not lose their friends, are not socially ostracized, then the people on TV are lying." Perfectly reasonable, right? Of course it is. Therefore, for the person with schizophrenia, it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, "People on TV lie all the time." It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to think, there must be a conspiracy. It is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for her to believe that all of society is against her.

Now, if all of society is against you, and you know that someone is going to rape you, would you defend yourself? Of course you would. A person with schizophrenia knows by the force of logic that she will be raped, that society is against her, and that it is perfectly reasonable for her to defend herself. So she sprays her best friend with mace. Is this wrong of her? Is this unethical? Of course not. It is ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDABLE. 

What does this make the mental hospital? Unjust. It is an enforcement of arbitrary authority. It creates nothing but pure confusion. No one behaves specifically to gain admittance to a mental hospital. They behave logically, reasonably, understandably, and suddenly, they are in a mental hospital. What would you do if someone stalked you, sent you threatening notes, called you on the phone ten times a day? You would call the police. What if you know the police won't come, and the person is in the same room with you, looks at you, and walks toward you, clearly communicating lust? You would spray the person with mace. What would you do if they sent you to a mental hospital? If you get angry at the mental hospital, and they tackle you to the floor and shoot tranquilizers in your ass? You would be bewildered, traumatized, confused. Reality? What reality? Reality makes no sense. There is no justice. There is no comfort.

Medications may help. But they do not cure. So to many people with schizophrenia, they do nothing but confuse. Why am I taking medications? I know that that person was trying to rape me earlier. He may not be trying to rape me now, but what of that? Me taking medications won't make him any less of a rapist. Sure, it may be bizarre that all of a sudden he doesn't have lust. But what does that have to do with me? These medications haven't done a thing. I see things in exactly the same way as before, only now I have side effects. Furthermore, I know society is screwed up, that there are massive conspiracies afoot, and that anyone may be in on it. It's not that they aren't rapists, they're just trying to make me take medications. Screw it, I'm going off my meds.

Sending a person with schizophrenia to the mental hospital will not change anything. Nor will prescribing medications to them. What is the solution? The only solution is to teach them to abandon logic. Abandon comfort. Abandon justice. Accept nothing but pure experience, no matter what the situation. Suppose they will rape you—what of that? People get raped. You just have to deal with it. Suppose you taking medications doesn't make others stop raping people—what of that? The trained psychiatric professional says, you must take your medications. Why not put him in the driver's seat for a while?

Our experiences are fallible. Our communication is arbitrary. Our ideals are empty. There is no truth in thoughts, in words, in objects. The only truth is in the mind. People with schizophrenia, just as everyone else, will do well to learn this. They will stop being paranoid. They will stop spraying people with mace. They will stop being angry. I guarantee the world will be a better place, no matter where they are—mental hospital or elsewhere.