Yes, India, worshipping this silly thing means you are all mad as hatters. Now come to a rational church, and chow down with us on some body and blood of Christ. Hey...what's so funny?
In State v. Daley, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s mental incompetence verdict and order of treatment for the defendant because it appeared to be based solely on the defendant’s passionate religious beliefs.
Daley was charged in March 2010 with retaliation, intimidation, aggravated menacing, menacing, and telecommunications harassment. The trial court referred Daley to the court’s psychiatric clinic for a competency evaluation, and the evaluating psychiatrist opined that Daley was not competent to stand trial because he was not able to assist in his defense.
At the competency hearing, Daley testified that, to the contrary, he was able to continue assisting his attorney in his defense. He also testified that his opinions about the legal system, such as his description of divorce court as the “high court of Satan,” were based on his religious belief that divorce is against the word of God. Nevertheless, the trial court found Daley incompetent to stand trial and ordered him hospitalized for restoration to competency. It based its opinion on the diagnosis of the psychiatrist, who testified that Daley, a “radical Christian,” “expresses such extreme intensity of religious belief in very unorthodox religious beliefs to the point to constitute psychosis.” The psychiatrist further testified that treating Daley would “change his psychotic symptoms of which are a religious theme[,]” so that his “intensity and [ ] preoccupation with his religious beliefs will be greatly decreased.”
The Ohio Court of Appeals recognized, to its credit, that a dangerous and sinister line was being crossed here. Daley’s religious beliefs, no matter what the psychiatrist or anyone else may think of them, are constitutionally protected. Daley was not only being called incompetent because of his beliefs, but was also going to be subjected to court-ordered medical treatment to make sure they were “decreased.” This is called brain-washing. This is called establishing “thought crime”. This is called wrong.
All—literally all—religions may seem insane to those who do not believe in them, and the passion with which devoted practitioners exercise their right to freedom of religion will strike many as irrational. I, for example, have thought from a very young age that for people to occupy several hours out of their precious weekend listening to deadly boring and repetitious sermons in uncomfortable pews is certifiably nuts. (I feel the same way about watching football.) That’s my opinion only, however, and it is not my place to penalize or denigrate my neighbors who feel otherwise, or to conclude they are clinically mad because of their religious fervor. Neither is it the place of the government.
Religion may be a form of insanity, but so is jogging, watching “Glee,” going to Adam Sandler movies and voting for Ron Paul, as far as I’m concerned. The Constitution says that the government can’t establish religions, and that also means that the government cannot declare that any religious belief is the equivalent of insanity. The Ohio Court of Appeals got it right.
An Orwellian Hell has been averted once more.
[ Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for the pointer]
Ethics Alarms 
Would that more state supreme courts would get it right. You rightly praise Ohio for getting the First Amendment protections correct. Unfortunately, Indiana’s recent high court decision in Barnes v. Indiana, abrogating Fourth Amendment protections, is going to have to cost somebody, or some institutions, a lot of money to (hopefully) have it struck down by the US Supreme Court.
“Religion may be a form of insanity, but so is jogging, watching “Glee,” going to Adam Sandler movies and voting for Ron Paul, as far as I’m concerned. ”
I heard watching Adam Sandler is used as a rite of self-flagellation in some sects. And Ron Paul IS a religion.
Religion may be a form of insanity, but so is jogging, watching “Glee,” going to Adam Sandler movies and voting for Ron Paul, as far as I’m concerned.
Um… do you have to explicitly deny reason to jog, watch glee, go to an Adam Sandler movie or vote for Ron Paul? No. Your comparison fails.
The Constitution says that the government can’t establish religions, and that also means that the government cannot declare that any religious belief is the equivalent of insanity. The Ohio Court of Appeals got it right.
This, I agree with.
There is more than one kind of insanity, even clinically speaking. As several philosophers and even psychiatric professionals point out (much to the irritation of many), what is judged as “insane” is just minority status—a different way of looking at things. In Bizzaro World, ratioanality is insane. That was my only point. Put me on the Glee Planet, and before I kill myself, everyone’s going to say I’m nuts. Put you on Steven’s planet, and you’re nuts. And you don’t get a vote.
Um…but we’re on our planet, in our universe, and we pretty much follow DeCartes and assume rationality, as the only other option is untenable.
Now, if you were intentionally equivocating on insanity (from the legal usage by the court to having a different opinion than most), then I’m going to call you out for arguing in bad faith.
But the court wasn’t using the legal usage…that was the problem. It was using a subjective assessment of insanity that is constitutionally forbidden to the courts. In a general sense, i agree with the court—they guy’s nuts.
Um…Believing in magical beings that don’t exist? Basing your actions on what these magical beings tell you to do? That is not at all insane and it could not possibly interfere with one’s ability to assist council.
I’d really like to see the original opinion/order and any briefs on the matter. The supremecourt opinion makes both the trial judge and psychiatrist out to be complete idiots, but the quotes don’t support the opinion. “‘change his Psychotic symptoms of a religious theme’ so that his ‘intensity and [] preoccupation with his religious beliefs will be greatly decreased.”
That was taken as a no-no, but if he is trying to create stigmata in his hands and ignoring his lawyer’s questions to instead pray for acquittal, then it would be absolutely relevant. The supremecourt didn’t find that the statements were invalid, just that the defendents issues were related to religion, and were then immediately protected. I don’t think that’s an accurate test. If it was, I’m sure there’d be alot fewer people in asylums who believe they are Jesus Christ.